Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and the human mind
sad2kno
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 141 (142629)
09-15-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by sidelined
09-15-2004 8:58 AM


not sure
im not sure, but as i understood it, there wasn't a notion of time in heaven, and being in heaven is not like, partying and having "fun", but its more becoming one with god, and in that communion becoming more yourself then ever (c.s. lewis). With god there is no time, so it wouldn't really matter if you wre there for eternity. Thats just what i had figured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by sidelined, posted 09-15-2004 8:58 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 122 of 141 (142644)
09-16-2004 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by riVeRraT
09-15-2004 8:45 PM


riVeRrat
Or do you believe that we are bound by the space we reside in, or our current known universe.
I think the likely case is unbounded and finite,which is to say the geometry probably is,as a consequence of it having started from a dimensionless point{sheer speculation on my part}expanding spacetime,not expanding into something but rather something of a finite event-volume getting larger and cooling into dissapation.Hence it is of finite size and getting larger and as a consequence will never be infinite.
Heaven would fill you with another feeling that would more than take its place and your search for a thrill would not exist for you anymore. It would be a whole new type of enviroment, that would have its own thrills.
Though I cannot share in the sentiment thanks for sharing just the same.I guess I am set in my ways and I am fine with the mortal life.I have knocked this body about quite well over the years and I am paying the piper for the privilige these days.Ah well what's an aging young lion to do eh?I have seen some wonderful sights and touched base with the finest folk over all.
I think you asked me whether I was interested in astronomy.
I am deeply fascinated by the night sky because I have done a lot of backcountry travel in the wilds of British Columbia and Alberta.
The most stunning view I ever had was on a trail that runs between Banff and Canmore Alberta. The trail wound up to a clearing where I had pitched my tent overlooking the Bow river.It was in November and there were a few inches of snow on the ground.To the north were mountains that were like obsidian spires capped in bright frostings of ice and snow.
Then a little while after midnight the full moon rises over the the valley carved by the river which is indeed a woderous sight.You know how the mountain streams in the rockies are that marvelous blue color?That is caused by silt washing off the mountains and suspending in the water. You cannot imagine the way that stuff shimmers when the full moon hits at a shallow angle.It takes your breath away and doesn't give it back for quite some time.
My other adventure involves going to watch a meteor shower {Gemnids}
I walked east on Banff avenue till I cleared the road leading to the industrial area,cut through some forest till I was in a clearing bordered on the one side by the Trans-Canada and Banff Avenue on the other.I had brought a cc foam pad and placed it against a big tree and snuggled in to watch the view.It was great to watch the streaks of meteors zipping out from their radiant and I was thoroughly enjoying myself till I heard the snap of wood behind and to my right.
Have you ever had your breath lock up in fear? The next crack told me that whatever it was was heavy and there were more than one as this came from off to my far left.I recall this strange sensation of wanting to pretend that I was not seperate from the tree I was up against in the vague hope that this animal would not notice me.
Then the first leg along with the head came into view. A bull elk was cruising slowly past not ten feet from me nudging the snow for food. He continued on out into the clearing as more of the herd came out from the forest.Some dozen or so elk wondered out into the clearing and there I was watching the the meteors with the herd in front of me that,when they weren't busy foraging, would look out to the east and I am sure they were watching as well.The English language does not have the proper words to descibe such things and I would not give up an eternity in heaven in exchange for these flreeting memories.
Someone once said we all owe god a death. For those adventures and many more I would say that deal would have been in my favour.

What delightful hosts they are-Love and Laughter!
Lingeringly I turn away at this late hour,yet glad
They have not withheld from me their high hospitality.
So at the door I pause to press their hands once more
And say,"So fine a time!Thank you both...and goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 09-15-2004 8:45 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by riVeRraT, posted 09-16-2004 9:21 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 124 by Phat, posted 09-16-2004 10:50 AM sidelined has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 123 of 141 (142676)
09-16-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by sidelined
09-16-2004 1:29 AM


Awesome stuff!
A thought came to mind again. You think we get to experience this feelings and wonders by chance?
I have looked at stuff over the years (39 now) and the more I see, the more I thank God for. It is funny how I love the natural so much more than the man made stuff. About the only time I like the man made things in life is when I use them to experience the natural.
I'm kinda with you in respect to, I can't imagine heaven being any better than some of the wonderous things here on earth. But if it is, hold on to your socks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by sidelined, posted 09-16-2004 1:29 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by sidelined, posted 09-17-2004 12:51 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 124 of 141 (142699)
09-16-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by sidelined
09-16-2004 1:29 AM


Adrenaline
Great story, sidelined! I love nature! Were it a bear instead of an Elk, I would imagine that prayer would become an automatic response, but then again, who is to say that God was with the dancer that wonderous day? I believe that God is always with us, yet when we are faced with fight or flight decisions, the response is quite automatic.
I read the story of the young man who got his arm pinned by the boulder and of how it took him three days to summon the courage needed to chop it off. He loved the outdoors and he still does. I believe that God was with him and still is. As we all play our roles in the unique and special dance of life, we are called upon to teach the generation after us. How boring would it be if all of us thought exactly how I do or how jar does or how you do? It is our unique individuality that combines together in a communion with the Holy Spirit that makes the production of the sacred dance of life.
Sidelined, you are mean't to be a skeptic, for you could not handle the adrenaline rush if God was as obvious to you as He is to me.
You are special to His dance, however. You have taught many theists to think critically and to examine the mystery which they lofily preach about yet which they do not begin to understand! Thanks for sharing the feeling of a sacred day in a forest. This dancer is glad that the director was with you that day!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by sidelined, posted 09-16-2004 1:29 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 125 of 141 (142854)
09-17-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by riVeRraT
09-16-2004 9:21 AM


riVeRrat
You think we get to experience this feelings and wonders by chance?
No, because I went out with the singular notion of watching the meteor shower.The elk were a marvelous bonus but that field and that route through the forest is a normal part of those elk's daily travels.Had I went out at that time any night I would have had the elk coming through.The fact that it was in winter and therefore my scent was at a minimum was good luck but I have had many adventures and seen and heard incredible things so my odds of having these things happen is significantly higher than if I were at home in suburbia watching T.V.{which I admit is more the norm these days}
It is funny how I love the natural so much more than the man made stuff
I am happy these days with checking it all out.It is funny but my interest in science these days grew out of reading a book by Bruce Lee titled Tao of Jeet Kune Do {Translation;Way of the Intercepting Fist} From references in the book I followed into many other areas of knowledge and one of these lead into reading books from a person called Jiddu Krishnamurti.In one of those books he was holding a conversation with a scientist named David Bohm.
From there I read up on some of the background of scientists and in the process I came across a gem of book. "Surley Your Joking Mr.Feynman. I read the book and was blown away. I read the other book of anecdotes called "What Do You Care What Other People Think!"
These books were really funny and I enjoyed them immensly.
And then I read a biography of Richard Feynman by the author James Gleick titled Genius: The life and times of Richard Feynman and I was stunned by the level of intelligence and common touch that he lived. I was hooked and from then on I wanted to learn not just science {science through Feynmans eyes is unlike anything you could imagine} but to acquire the attitude of playfullness while being capable of deep thought about the world
His attitude towards death though is the thing that I most enjoy about him and is pretty much how I view things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by riVeRraT, posted 09-16-2004 9:21 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 09-17-2004 10:39 AM sidelined has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 141 (142914)
09-17-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by sidelined
09-17-2004 12:51 AM


OT but IMHO important.
It is funny but my interest in science these days grew out of reading a book by Bruce Lee titled Tao of Jeet Kune Do {Translation;Way of the Intercepting Fist}
A great point that simply assuming your permission I'll use to start another thread. So much if not most of what little I know came about, like that, serendipitiously. I began looking for one thing and found something that sparked an interest and lead down another path.
I'll do a search and see if it's already being discussed and if not start a thread on it.
Thanks.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by sidelined, posted 09-17-2004 12:51 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 127 of 141 (143029)
09-17-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by sidelined
09-11-2004 12:18 PM


Hi Sidelined. Thanks for your reply. Sorry for getting back to you so late.
Where and when did He exist if Space-time did not exist till he created them?
In that statement you're still assuming that He MUST exist solely within bounds of space-time. IOW, you're saying my premise is false because your premise is true.
This does not mean it is not the case it means that we cannot know either way in which case it is valueless in a discussion.
But you will at least admit that this is a valid possiblity? Good. In which case, perhaps it is not good to use the premise that God must be bound by His creation when arguing against his existence.
He is fully experiencing? In what sense does he experience? How do you arrive at this assumption?
If He decided to abandon the function of the laws of the universe at one point anywhere, whatever existed there would cease to exist. Therefore he must be intimately involved in holding everything together. In Him all things consist. How can he not experience what is existing and alive through Him?
He is fully transcendent which means beyond knowledge or experience which begs the question how can we know or experience that which is not of knowledge or experience? ...How,sir,does something beyond the physical take part in the physical?
You are not using "transcend" as I am using it. From Dictionary.com :
1. To pass beyond the limits of: emotions that transcend understanding.
2. To be greater than, as in intensity or power; surpass: love that transcends infatuation. See Synonyms at excel.
3. To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe): One never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena (Hilaire Belloc).
Just because his experience passes beyond ours doesn't mean that he is "limited" to the "outside".
As for mind our own minds are physical in nature and when the brain that it exists in is damaged as in a coma there is no mind to speak of in the sense of experiencing.
I believe there is more to experience than what the physical mind can give us... even while the physical mind is still active. ...But this is getting beyond the logical arguments, and into personal experience, which is not considered valid.
Now you state that we and the universe are somehow extant within the mind of god.Does God have a brain? He thinks thoughts?
You are again using the unproven premise that God must be bound by his creation (solely physical) in order to argue against him. Saying God has a mind is an anthropomorphism: ascribing a human characteristic to God in order to better understand.
If you were trying to describe an F-22 Raptor to an ancient civilization, how would you do it? You might say, it is a huge metal bird in which people ride and throw "smart" spears that seek out their enemy from above. It is a hopelessly insufficient explanation, but it helps to convey the idea. That is how we are forced to talk about God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by sidelined, posted 09-11-2004 12:18 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 09-18-2004 2:25 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 128 of 141 (143040)
09-18-2004 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hangdawg13
09-17-2004 11:29 PM


Hangdawg13
Welcome back dawg,have a seat.Let's see I will bring up the post of yours we are discussing.
My basis for this statement lies in the fact that time is a property of this physical universe. God, the supreme being who created the universe, cannot be bound by what he has instantiated. If this were the case, God was created when the universe was created, and God could not have been the creator because there would be no capability for God to choose until afterwards.
God transcends time and space. It is incorrect to think of God as an old man with a lot of time on his hands, and it is also incorrect to think of God as mundanely rushing through all reality in an instant. He is fully experiencing and fully transcending everything because everything exists in his mind so to speak. If you really want to make an attempt to understand God, I think one of the first things you have to wrap your mind around is a being that transcends all dimensions.
Not only does this make sense to me logically, but it is supported by scripture. As far as physical evidence? Well that would be equivalent to proving God exists, which can only be done by God when he so chooses.
Now you are talking about this statement of mine.
Where and when did He exist if Space-time did not exist till he created them?
You then answer me thus
In that statement you're still assuming that He MUST exist solely within bounds of space-time. IOW, you're saying my premise is false because your premise is true.
Yet I was simply answering this point of yours.
God, the supreme being who created the universe, cannot be bound by what he has instantiated.
By what reasoning do you arrive at this assumption? What I was saying is that an act of creation implies an event which indicates time.Unless you can explain to me how you logically arrive at a assumption that god can act without an event and therefore a time occuring then I must reject your hypothesis.
But you will at least admit that this is a valid possiblity? Good. In which case, perhaps it is not good to use the premise that God must be bound by His creation when arguing against his existence.
I am sorry but no I do not consider it a possibility valid or otherwise because I have learned that possibilities do not lead to any gain in understanding. I am not arguing against his existence since I cannot argue over that for which no good evidence exists.I am however arguing that we cannot have any idea about god within the framework of a universe that he does not exist in.You have said he is beyond space-time without us having gained any understanding of how such can be.
If He decided to abandon the function of the laws of the universe at one point anywhere, whatever existed there would cease to exist. Therefore he must be intimately involved in holding everything together. In Him all things consist. How can he not experience what is existing and alive through Him?
We have no reason as yet to show that he could actually exist.Now you are stating that he holds everything in the universe together while being beyond the space-time that he is holding together?He experiences what is existing and alive? Experience is a phenomena of time.He is beyond this so how might he do so? There is no clarity here but there is contradiction and confusion.
To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe): One never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena
Okay if he is independent of something he cannot by definition have any part in it.In the same way you cannot read what I am thinking because you are independent of me also means anything else that does not interact on a physical level cannot say anything about that which it is not a part of.You can assume a god exists however if that god cannot effectively participate in the world he created without interacting with that world then he is not really different from a world that has no god to begin with.
I believe there is more to experience than what the physical mind can give us... even while the physical mind is still active...But this is getting beyond the logical arguments, and into personal experience, which is not considered valid.
Alright but personal experience is highly suspect when it is not properly scrutinized.We are too full of biases and desires to allow such things to go unexamined.
You are again using the unproven premise that God must be bound by his creation (solely physical) in order to argue against him. Saying God has a mind is an anthropomorphism: ascribing a human characteristic to God in order to better understand.
Yes but I must sink to your level LOL in order to argue him at all.
You are the one saying he has a mind and I want to know how you have a mind without a physical brain for it to occupy.You say he thinks. This also requires a brain and can we get some idea as to how you suppose he can think?What is the evidence for it when we physical human beings are the only ones we can compare such processes to?
If you were trying to describe an F-22 Raptor to an ancient civilization, how would you do it? You might say, it is a huge metal bird in which people ride and throw "smart" spears that seek out their enemy from above. It is a hopelessly insufficient explanation, but it helps to convey the idea. That is how we are forced to talk about God.
This is a bad analogy because you can physically show them a Raptor though it might be a bitch trying to wrangle the clearnces. We cannot do the same with god at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-17-2004 11:29 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-18-2004 10:11 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 131 by jar, posted 09-18-2004 10:36 PM sidelined has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 129 of 141 (143139)
09-18-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Gilgamesh
09-10-2004 2:50 AM


Re: Brilliant
Hi Gilgamesh, sorry for the late reply.
Continue to keep your beliefs protected by making it immune to critical thought and contrary arguments.
I've examined the arguments and determined that they do not discount my beliefs or experiences.
Don't expect to convert anyone else to your faith except through appeals to emotion, and you then really have nothing to contribute to this forum other than preaching.
You assume there are only two alternatives: logic and emotion. Maybe there's a third?
1) Not true. The reasons you believe people of other faiths are mistaken are the reasons your beliefs are also false. If you can understand how they are deceived: you can see the mechanisms that operate to deceive you.
That is bad logic. You cannot prove A is false because B may or may not be false when A is independent of B and may or may not be mutually exclusive to B.
Additionally we can also test your material claims. The power of prayer? We could formulate a controlled test for that.
All I can do is pray that God will prove himself to you.
Why does God operate for you in the same way as he does for those who believe in an alternate deity?
Are you sure he does?
Why is the life of an atheist, such as myself, immaterially different from yours?
What does materialism have to do with the purpose and product of our lives? The difference in the effects of our beliefs is betrayed by your emphasis on the material and the bitter tone of your reply.
Even if God exists you're being daft about your approach to him.
I have to disagree. I think it is you who has made strawman arguments against him.
If God existed, you should have a really good list of examples and evidences for him
And what would be evidence of this transcendent creator of the universe? If you start out with the usual premises about God's character you can have a very nice sounding strawman argument here. But if you have misunderestimated this infinite supreme being, perhaps you shouldn't be so sure of your position?
God does prove himself physically to various people at various times. He proves himself to those who believe in Him. Faith is important for reasons you do not and cannot understand right now.
How would reality differ if God didn't exist?
Would reality exist if God didn't exist? If so, why?
There would be no difference if God existed or not.
Can you back that up with proof or a decent logical argument?
You can make the same flawed assumptions whether they are based on a valid premise or not.
You haven't shown any assumptions or premises of mine to be false.
According to you: the other religions do all the time.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Replace your scenario of rationalising in light of a Christain God, with the scenario of Pretty Pink Pixies. I can apply confirmation bias,wishful thinking,selective thinking,post hoc reasoning to verfy the validity of the existence an interaction of those pixies in my life.
Do Pretty Pink Pixies have all the same qualities as God? Are they the creator of the universe? Then they must be the Supreme Being. In which case, you have only changed God's name. You cannot disprove God by giving him a silly name. God is "I am who I am."
Unless you exclude those errors in knowledge gathering you will never know if your beliefs and the "evidence" you daily use to validate those beliefs are wrong.
When you look back on the last few days or weeks or months or years, are you glad you're where you are, or do you wish things had happened differently? When you look back do you see a random sequence or a purposed sequence so that you feel like what you are doing is what you are supposed to be doing? (This is not an argument yet, just a question out of curiosity)
In which case, bugger off the lot of you and quit pretending you can argue for the existence of God. Blind faith belongs elsewhere.
This topic is about God, the human mind, and whether or not believers are believers because of logical fallacies. You can't prove God does not exist just because I have known him first by faith.
applies self-deception, confirmation bias, wishful thinking, selective thinking, post hoc reasoning and does nothing to exclude those errors
If you are going to charge that I have deceived myself, you must prove that what I believe is false. If you are going to assert that I am using confirmation bias you have to prove that nothing happens by God's will. etc... As I said above I applied all these things and found that they cannot possibly resolve the issue one way or another. I believe because I trust something other than myself.
I have repeatably exposed myself to religious conversion processes
Heh... no wonder. Notice the terms you use: "religious conversion processes". You've completely missed the boat.
Importantly I question all my beliefs, regularly, and investigate and test alternate beliefs.
So why are you so sure your beliefs are right? You’re not? Well, you state dogmatically that mine are wrong. So why do you so readily discount mine? As you said:
In which case, bugger off the lot of you and quit pretending you can argue for the existence of God. Blind faith belongs elsewhere.
It also takes blind faith to believe there is no God.
But you say:
Faith and dogma do not enter into it.
How do you know you've not settled into the atheistic position because it is too difficult to entertain the notion of God without believing in Him? Do you even know what that means about your life if He does exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Gilgamesh, posted 09-10-2004 2:50 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 130 of 141 (143143)
09-18-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by sidelined
09-18-2004 2:25 AM


Thank you for your reply.
By what reasoning do you arrive at this assumption? What I was saying is that an act of creation implies an event which indicates time.Unless you can explain to me how you logically arrive at a assumption that god can act without an event and therefore a time occuring then I must reject your hypothesis.
Unless you can logically prove to me that God's existence must be defined by time, I reject yours. Time is just one of many dimensions of this universe. You might as well say, "God does not exist because he doesn't have a body." There is no difference between limiting him to the spacial dimensions and limiting him to the time dimension. Now if you choose to believe that the reality that we can perceive through our five senses is the only reality that can exist, that is your choice. But you have to prove that the reality we can sense physically is the only reality that can exist.
Again, all you are doing is saying my assertion that God is not bound by the universe he created is false because your assertion -- existence is solely defined by the physical universe -- is true.
I am sorry but no I do not consider it a possibility valid or otherwise because I have learned that possibilities do not lead to any gain in understanding.
Then you are essentially saying you do not consider God a possibility. Which I already knew.
But what I am trying to show is that you cannot argue that the existence of God is not a possibility because you don't believe it is a possibility. Any argumentation against the possibility of an infinite God with the premise that God must be bound by his creation is a strawman argument.
I am however arguing that we cannot have any idea about god within the framework of a universe that he does not exist in.You have said he is beyond space-time without us having gained any understanding of how such can be.
You said, "does not exist in". What can contain an infinite God? Again, I said he is not bound by space-time. In no way does this translate into your assertion that he cannot be "in" if he is "outside". My assertion is that both the "in" and the "out" are within Him. Your assertion again stems from your strawman about God's nature.
We have no reason as yet to show that he could actually exist.
Neither do you have a reason for your own existence. So are we to conclude that you do not exist?
He experiences what is existing and alive? Experience is a phenomena of time.He is beyond this so how might he do so?
If everything exists "within" him, how can he not experience? Like I said before, it is incorrect to think of an infinite unbound God as a distant white-bearded man sitting in a throne somewhere with lots of time on his hands. It's also incorrect to think of an infinite unbound God as unable to know what is going on in the creation which exists within himself.
There is no clarity here but there is contradiction and confusion.
Kinda reminds me of QM theory. ...I know, I know, everyone sees what they want to see in QM theory, but still... There is contradiction and confusion there that no one would have ever imagined could exist in the universe.
Okay if he is independent of something he cannot by definition have any part in it.
First of all that is not true. Independence and mutual exclusivity are two different things. If I can ride a bike without training wheels that doesn't mean I can't ride a bike with training wheels. My ability to ride a bike is independent of but not mutually exclusive to the existence of training wheels.
Just because God's existence is "independent" of space-time does not mean He is "excluded" from space-time.
Second of all, why are you only taking the third definition from the three definitions I gave?
...I want to know how...
So you cannot believe in anything unless you know the "how"? In that case you can't believe in anything until we find the "ultimate unifying theory of everything".
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 09-18-2004 09:21 PM
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 09-18-2004 09:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 09-18-2004 2:25 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 09-19-2004 12:41 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 09-20-2004 11:53 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 141 (143147)
09-18-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by sidelined
09-18-2004 2:25 AM


sidelined.
Just curious but do you have an effective objective test for beauty?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 09-18-2004 2:25 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by sidelined, posted 09-21-2004 12:10 AM jar has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 132 of 141 (143157)
09-19-2004 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Hangdawg13
09-18-2004 10:11 PM


Hangdawg13
Unless you can logically prove to me that God's existence must be defined by time, I reject yours.
LOL!! Hangdawg, I am the atheist remember? Proving god's' existence is not on my roster. In what manner do you define an existence without time.
Time is just one of many dimensions of this universe.
Yes it is one of the four dimensions of which we have actual evidence.My question remains unanswered so perhaps if I rephrase it.
If Time is the dimension in which events occur then by what rational do you say that god can do something without the dimension of Time which allows actions to occur as sequential events in the three spatial dimensions?
You might as well say, "God does not exist because he doesn't have a body."
Well let's see how this plays out.We can tell that something exists because we can show evidence of physical phenomena related to it.Your god ,as you keep repeating,is beyond the physical so how do you propose that he exists if he does not have a physical existence.
Now if you choose to believe that the reality that we can perceive through our five senses is the only reality that can exist, that is your choice
I have never said that.However,it is necessary to show me how you arrive at a reality that is not accessible to our senses. That you should hold such a position is your choice of course, though I fail to see how statements you have made can be verified as fact and not merely supposition.Dman us atheists for requiring actual evidence.
But you have to prove that the reality we can sense physically is the only reality that can exist.
No sir.I am not the one claiming that there is a reality that lies beyond our senses. That,my friend,is your proposition and the burden of proof is upon you.
Again, all you are doing is saying my assertion that God is not bound by the universe he created is false because your assertion -- existence is solely defined by the physical universe -- is true.
Not at all 'dawg. I could be wrong however I need from you a means by which I can verify that the qualities you have imbued your god with are in fact actually so.If you know of a way to do so please assist me to understand.
But what I am trying to show is that you cannot argue that the existence of God is not a possibility because you don't believe it is a possibility.
And I am trying to convince you that the reason for me rejecting possibilities is that if we are to allow immaterial invisible transcedent qualities then we can postulate an infinity of entities to fit the bill.My believing or disbelieving does not affect the reality of something.
What can contain an infinite God?
Exactly! Can you tell me? If you can please explain how you arrive at that conclusion.
I said he is not bound by space-time. In no way does this translate into your assertion that he cannot be "in" if he is "outside". My assertion is that both the "in" and the "out" are within Him. Your assertion again stems from your strawman about God's nature.
Ok but how do you know this?
As for the strawman I have not misrepresented your position I am trying to get you to clarify it.
Neither do you have a reason for your own existence.
I am sorry but I am not sure if this is what you meant to say as of course I have a reason for my own existence.
If everything exists "within" him, how can he not experience?
My question was how he can experience. Remember the assertion that he exists is yours and thus yours to explain.
Kinda reminds me of QM theory. ...I know, I know, everyone sees what they want to see in QM theory, but still... There is contradiction and confusion there that no one would have ever imagined could exist in the universe.
QM is testable though and gives results that are repeatable by anyone. It is a theory that has stood every examination and agrees with experiment to a fantastic degree,and it is crazy.Nature is crazy go figure.
Buddy I am going to answer the rest of your post tomorrow I really need some sleep.Good day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-18-2004 10:11 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Phat, posted 09-24-2004 6:50 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 139 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-28-2004 2:14 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 133 of 141 (143533)
09-20-2004 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Hangdawg13
09-18-2004 10:11 PM


Hangdawg13
To continue my answer to your post
First of all that is not true. Independence and mutual exclusivity are two different things.
Ok then.You state that he is both beyond the universe and contains the universe.This then means that he added the universe to himself when he created it? So what is the mechanism that would allow him to physically effect a material world into being if not through material means?
So you cannot believe in anything unless you know the "how"?
The how I was refering to was part of this sentence.
You are the one saying he has a mind and I want to know how you have a mind without a physical brain for it to occupy.
What does belief have to do with the question? I am querying you to provide some explanation for how you explain a mind for god that is correlated to the minds that we posses by virtue of our brains material existence.
I am asking questions that try to penetrate to the core of the assumptions made by people such as yourself that envision god as having human qualities such as a mind without explaining how those qualiies can exist without the same physical apparatus as ourselves.
As to the definitions let us
1. To pass beyond the limits of: emotions that transcend understanding.
2. To be greater than, as in intensity or power; surpass: love that transcends infatuation. See Synonyms at excel.
3. To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe): One never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena (Hilaire Belloc).
I used transcedent as being beyond knowledge or experience which is similar if not the same as "To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe): One never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena"
Now the 'above and independent of material experience or universe' surely cannot be what you are after since the material is a part of god as you say.Also what hope of understanding can be expected of minds that cannot transcend phenomena to find god unless he is phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-18-2004 10:11 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-28-2004 2:36 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 134 of 141 (143536)
09-21-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
09-18-2004 10:36 PM


jar
Why would you ask that question? Is it in relation to something specific I said?
By effective do you mean cohesively including all peoples versions of what they find beautiful? No. Are their common grounds of beauty that follow rules we can measure and that apply to everyone? Perhaps. That people find things attractive doubtless follows rules that we set up as individuals and as such those rules would be objective.And in the long trek to winnowing out the chemical messangers in our bodies that mediate pain and pleasure and our responses to it will perhaps over time follow simple rules.
Certainly such a higher level function of the brain will not easily be ascertained but that is not the same as saying it cannot be done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 09-18-2004 10:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 09-21-2004 1:47 AM sidelined has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 135 of 141 (143547)
09-21-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by sidelined
09-21-2004 12:10 AM


Is there an effective objective test for love?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by sidelined, posted 09-21-2004 12:10 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by sidelined, posted 09-21-2004 9:13 AM jar 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