Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 121 of 271 (570401)
07-27-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by riVeRraT
07-27-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Name these things please
riVeRraT writes:
I think there is a possibility, however small that is. I do not think something does not exist, just because there is no physical evidence of it. I think if you can imagine something, then the possibility of it existing.....exists.
Hmm yes, that's kinda true. Perhaps I should have rephrased the question. Do you take Bigfoot into account when you venture forth into the woods? Any anti-bigfoot things in your backpack when you go out hiking? This is the same way god seems to me. I have no evidence for his existence, so why should I take him into account?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:21 AM Huntard has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 122 of 271 (570447)
07-27-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by riVeRraT
07-27-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Name these things please
So in other words, something exists there, but we can't measure it.
Sure we can, we have measured it; the observable universe is very known to us. You asked for what's beyond that. That question is what I'm saying that you (or anyone who asks) lacks evidence for. IOW, you have no basis for which to ask it. Personally, I'll wait till we get to the edge of the observable universe before I ask what's beyond it.
I was always under the impression that the 4th dimension involved time.
In Minkowski spacetime it does, but not in string theory/M-theory.
Think of it this way, what's the difference between a 2D movie and a 3D movie? Now (forgetting about time for this illustration) what would happen to a 4D movie, or 5D, and on up, adding many more dimensions? At no point does it require you to go into a supernatural realm. It's just more dimensional space being described.
It's either God, or I am crazy.
Not at all, it could just be that you're experiencing things at a subjective level; it is YOU who decided to attribute it to god, and more specifically, to the god of the NT. You could have picked ANY god of your liking, that you chose one over the other shows that your culture and geographical location have a lot to do with what god you believe in.
How can any one single concept of god be right when it's so randomly chosen?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 9:31 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 126 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:39 AM onifre has replied
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 07-28-2010 10:37 AM onifre has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 123 of 271 (570456)
07-27-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by riVeRraT
07-27-2010 9:38 AM


riVeRraT writes:
Tangible meaning something you can measure.
I'd say "observe" rather than "measure". Meaurement implies comparing quantity A to quantity B. Observation just acknowledges that A and/or B actually exist. We can see a cloud even if we can't figure out how to measure it. In this conversation, we're still trying to decide whether we see God at all.
riVeRraT writes:
So how to you measure a chill, or a feeling of love? These things exist and are not really measurable.
A physical chill can be measured with a thermometer. A chill in the sense of "a chill went down my spine" is a psychological phenomenon that's likely to be accompanied by physical reactions that would show up on a polygraph. There would probably be a detectable change in brain waves too.
A "feeling of love" is readily observable in a person's behaviour.
It's possible that belief in God could produce similar observable reactions in a person but how do you connect the evidence with a real "god"? The same reactions would be produced by a fear of ghosts or a love of ice cream.
Edited by Ringo, : Fixed spellling: "tiVeRraT" --> "riVeRraT".

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:38 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:41 AM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 124 of 271 (570672)
07-28-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Huntard
07-27-2010 10:10 AM


Re: Name these things please
"Huntard" writes:
Hmm yes, that's kinda true. Perhaps I should have rephrased the question. Do you take Bigfoot into account when you venture forth into the woods? Any anti-bigfoot things in your backpack when you go out hiking? This is the same way god seems to me. I have no evidence for his existence, so why should I take him into account?
Of course you are correct. That is why I did not know what to believe for so many years. Then there is the bible, which is evidence of Jesus's existence. It's one thing if you read a story about Santa Claus, and then once you find out your parents are putting the presents under the tree, you have no reason to believe anymore.
But if you read stories about Jesus, and what he had to say, and those things ring true in your heart, then you have reason to believe, and start taking it into consideration. You start seeking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 10:10 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 9:40 AM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 125 of 271 (570674)
07-28-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by onifre
07-27-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Name these things please
onifre writes:
Think of it this way, what's the difference between a 2D movie and a 3D movie?
The illuion of depth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 07-27-2010 1:09 PM onifre has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 126 of 271 (570676)
07-28-2010 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by onifre
07-27-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Name these things please
"onifire" writes:
Not at all, it could just be that you're experiencing things at a subjective level; it is YOU who decided to attribute it to god, and more specifically, to the god of the NT. You could have picked ANY god of your liking, that you chose one over the other shows that your culture and geographical location have a lot to do with what god you believe in.
How can any one single concept of god be right when it's so randomly chosen?
I would not say everything I feel, and have experienced is subjective. Many of the things I have experienced were objective, but there is no way to prove to you (or myself) that is is God doing those things. That is where faith comes in.
There are differences in religion that lead me to believe that what I feel is the God of the NT.
Just for clarification, I have no idea why people believe in different god's, or do I believe the the God I believe in is the only God. It is quite possible that my God is making all this happen, so I don't judge it, or put people down for having different beliefs. People are so different across the board, and everyone's path is different. There may be a need for the different belief systems, and it may all be from the same God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 07-27-2010 1:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 07-30-2010 12:31 PM riVeRraT has replied

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


Message 127 of 271 (570677)
07-28-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by riVeRraT
07-28-2010 9:21 AM


Re: Name these things please
riVeRraT writes:
Of course you are correct. That is why I did not know what to believe for so many years.
Fair enough.
Then there is the bible, which is evidence of Jesus's existence.
I disagree. Is a Superman comic evidence for the existence of Superman?
It's one thing if you read a story about Santa Claus, and then once you find out your parents are putting the presents under the tree, you have no reason to believe anymore.
You have no reason to believe in the first place. Of course your critical thinking skills aren't that develloped yet, and when you're young, you're "programmed" to take everything your parents tell you as true, becuase that helps your learning process.
But if you read stories about Jesus, and what he had to say, and those things ring true in your heart, then you have reason to believe, and start taking it into consideration. You start seeking.
Yes, you start seeking, and until you have evidence that anything written about in those stories is true, you don't believe them, nor have reason to, just like you don't believe Superman stories.
Edited by Huntard, : added word for clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:21 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 128 of 271 (570678)
07-28-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by ringo
07-27-2010 2:00 PM


"Ringo" writes:
It's possible that belief in God could produce similar observable reactions in a person but how do you connect the evidence with a real "god"? The same reactions would be produced by a fear of ghosts or a love of ice cream.
Doesn't matter. My point was that the things I feel and experience are measurable. There is real evidence, but there is no proof. But as I already said, nothing is ever really proven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 07-27-2010 2:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 07-28-2010 12:07 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 132 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2010 11:10 AM riVeRraT has not replied

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


(1)
Message 129 of 271 (570692)
07-28-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by onifre
07-27-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Name these things please
Think of it this way, what's the difference between a 2D movie and a 3D movie?
I haven't watched the current ones. Back in the 1950s, when 3D movies first showed up, the difference was clear. The 3D movies had crappier plots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 07-27-2010 1:09 PM onifre has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 271 (570709)
07-28-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by riVeRraT
07-28-2010 9:41 AM


riVeRraT writes:
Ringo writes:
It's possible that belief in God could produce similar observable reactions in a person but how do you connect the evidence with a real "god"? The same reactions would be produced by a fear of ghosts or a love of ice cream.
Doesn't matter. My point was that the things I feel and experience are measurable.
Of course it matters. The topic is about detecting God, not detecting "something". Nobody's disputing that reactions to something can be detected in you. The question is: Can you detect a god which is causing those reactions?

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:41 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by riVeRraT, posted 07-29-2010 10:13 AM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 131 of 271 (570883)
07-29-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by ringo
07-28-2010 12:07 PM


"Ringo" writes:
The question is: Can you detect a god which is causing those reactions?
That is not the question.
The question is, just because we haven't detected something yet, does it mean it does not exist?
Did Pluto exist before we detected it? Yes it did.
So, I stand firm and say, just because we cannot detect God (and I think we can subjectively) is not a reason to say He does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 07-28-2010 12:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 07-29-2010 12:06 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 132 of 271 (570904)
07-29-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by riVeRraT
07-28-2010 9:41 AM


My point was that the things I feel and experience are measurable.
Then could you explain how they are measurable?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:41 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 133 of 271 (570922)
07-29-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by riVeRraT
07-29-2010 10:13 AM


riVeRraT writes:
Ringo writes:
The question is: Can you detect a god which is causing those reactions?
That is not the question.
The question is, just because we haven't detected something yet, does it mean it does not exist?
Did Pluto exist before we detected it? Yes it did.
You're making my point. We detected "something" - a perturbation in the orbit of Uranus, I think. The next step was to try to figure out what caused that perturbation. In the case of Pluto, we found a planetoid - which can also be detected by other means. e.g. telescopes. And in the case of your feelings, we found physical evidence that those same feelings can be caused by various measureable physical and/or psychological phenomena.
Long story short, we can confirm the existence of Pluto by more than one method. We can't confirm the existence of God at all.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by riVeRraT, posted 07-29-2010 10:13 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM ringo has replied
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:59 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 134 of 271 (571093)
07-30-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ringo
07-29-2010 12:06 PM


Ringo,
Ringo writes:
Long story short, we can confirm the existence of Pluto by more than one method. We can't confirm the existence of God at all.
In what ways can you not confirm the existence of God?...
There are certain ways of proving the existence or non-existence of an entity aside from the empirical, experience-driven ways of science. One way to prove the truth of 'standard A' is to show the impossibility of the opposing standard: 'standard B'. You also show that the only way of accounting for our beliefs - both particular and universal - is to believe in 'standard A'.
Another point that must be made:
From message 110, Ringo writes:
Objectivity isn't about ultimate proof or perfect answers. It's about looking at the object itself and trying to make observations that aren't clouded by your own subjective assumptions..
Empirical observations sound really good, that is until you realize that they rely on standards that are just as subjective as any. Why don't we think about these subjective standards? I'm not 100% sure; maybe it's because of the god that has been made out of science in (particularly) the last two centuries, as though it stands on perfectly objective truths. But how do these truths shape up to subjectivity test?
Let's look at a tree for example. You may have a number of beliefs about how to gain knowledge about the nature of the tree; how to gain a knowledge of the texture of the bark, the color of the leaves, the nature of the photosynthesis cells, or the vascular cells, or the transportation of water etc. etc. These beliefs may involve the use of such mechanisms as your sense of touch, your sense of sight, a microscope (which would ultimately rely on your sense of sight), and other such things.
But note that the use of these mechanisms to gain knowledge involves a number of assumptions. For example, in order to go outside and touch the tree, or to observe the color of the leaves, or to observe the cells, you must make a number of assumptions with regards to observations. For example: "I can make observations", "I do have a sense of touch", "I do have a sense of sight", "there is a tree out there to observed", etc. etc. So we see that claims about how knowledge can be gained (epistemology) involve a number of beliefs about reality (metaphysics), beliefs which can be subjective.
But suppose you have other mechanisms or standards for proving the veracity of such metaphysical claims (e.g. "I can make observations")? These standards would also involve a number of underlying assumptions. And if in turn, these standards can be proven by another standard, that standard must also undergo the subjectivity test.
What is the solution to this dilemma?...
In Genesis 1:1, it is stated: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". What is the "beginning" anyways? The beginning is, in human terms, the beginning of time, or the start of time as we know it. Therefore, since God existed in the beginning to create the heavens and the earth, we know that He is not a part of time. He is not carnal. He is not physical. He has no limits. He lies within no bounds. He is not restricted by anything (this would include time), since He is not contained within time.
But given this, we still try to corrupt His nature: "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, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:20-23). This verse can be applied not only to people who worship graven images, but also to people who worship "abstract" images, such as science. Those who worship science would tend to try turn the glory of God into something carnal, and thus corruptible.
"'I am the God of your fatherthe God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' (Exodus 3:6). In this verse, God is speaking to Moses, long past the time that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already dead. Note that God does not say, "I was the God of your father" but, "I am the God of your father". Once again, this demonstrates the point that God is not contained nor restricted by time, for He is outside of time.
So what implications do these passages have? That God is the ultimate standard, one which all standards refer back to, and a standard beyond which no appeal can be made: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col. 1:16). He has no beginning, nor end; but all observable things that are on the earth do indeed have a beginning, and an end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 07-29-2010 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by bluescat48, posted 07-30-2010 10:27 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 136 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 10:58 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 07-30-2010 12:02 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 139 by onifre, posted 07-30-2010 12:46 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 135 of 271 (571097)
07-30-2010 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by sac51495
07-30-2010 10:03 AM


So what implications do these passages have? That God is the ultimate standard, one which all standards refer back to, and a standard beyond which no appeal can be made: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col. 1:16). He has no beginning, nor end; but all observable things that are on the earth do indeed have a beginning, and an end.
No it just shows that the story-tellers had an imagination.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM 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