Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? Part II
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 106 of 171 (252175)
10-16-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by purpledawn
10-16-2005 7:37 AM


Re: Impasse Again
purpledawn writes:
Been waiting!
Where would you like to start?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by purpledawn, posted 10-16-2005 7:37 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by purpledawn, posted 10-16-2005 9:47 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 107 of 171 (252283)
10-16-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-16-2005 12:52 PM


Present Day
The ball is in your court.
You feel that God does allow scientifically substantiated evidence of his existence today.
What is that evidence and how has science substantiated it as evidence of a divine being?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-16-2005 12:52 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-16-2005 10:07 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 108 of 171 (252288)
10-16-2005 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by purpledawn
10-16-2005 9:47 PM


Re: Present Day
Before I go any further, do you feel my previous thoughts were acceptible to come to the conclusion that something like the Judeo-Christian is evident in the past?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by purpledawn, posted 10-16-2005 9:47 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 10-17-2005 6:57 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 109 of 171 (252337)
10-17-2005 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-16-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Present Day
I do not understand the question.
The Judeo-Christian what?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-16-2005 10:07 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 1:29 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 110 of 171 (252409)
10-17-2005 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by purpledawn
10-17-2005 6:57 AM


Re: Present Day
purpledawn writes:
I do not understand the question.
The Judeo-Christian what?
Sorry about that.
I meant the Judeo-Christian [God].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 10-17-2005 6:57 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by purpledawn, posted 10-17-2005 2:01 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 111 of 171 (252413)
10-17-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-17-2005 1:29 PM


Re: Present Day
In Message 103 I stated: I agree that the scriptures describe past episodes of objective observation, I agree that many religions have similar thoughts concerning God, but that doesn't speak for today.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-17-2005 1:29 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 1:40 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 112 of 171 (252577)
10-18-2005 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by purpledawn
10-17-2005 2:01 PM


Re: Present Day
But there are cultures that, even in our modern day, have this "primitive sky god" found in their beliefs. Some of these cultures have been estranged from their neighbors for considerable lengths of time I might add.
How did they figure this out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by purpledawn, posted 10-17-2005 2:01 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2005 10:43 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 113 of 171 (252709)
10-18-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-18-2005 1:40 AM


Re: Present Day
This is why our discussions run amuck.
The assumption for this thread is that God EXISTS.
You are supposed to be showing me that he allows his existence to be scientifically substantiated today.
I'm not part of other cultures. I am part of a culture that has scientific methods.
How is God allowing his existence be substantiated by those methods to my culture?
quote:
How did they figure this out?
Don't ask these types of questions, since you gave nothing specific and therefore there is no way for me to answer the question. They take the discussion in the wrong direction.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 1:40 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 1:31 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 114 of 171 (252760)
10-18-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by purpledawn
10-18-2005 10:43 AM


Re: Present Day
purpledawn writes:
This is why our discussions run amuck.
The assumption for this thread is that God EXISTS.
I thought the assumption was that God exists, but that it was debatable whether he could be scientifically substantiated today?
purpledawn writes:
You are supposed to be showing me that he allows his existence to be scientifically substantiated today.
I am leading up to that.
purpledawn writes:
I'm not part of other cultures. I am part of a culture that has scientific methods.
Then one has to reasonably ask why this culture "apparently" doesn't see God before one can proceed to the question of whether God can be scientifically substantiated, correct?
purpledawn writes:
How is God allowing his existence be substantiated by those methods to my culture?
I'd still like you to answer my question above, but, for the sake of this discussion, let me move forward a bit in the direction you desire.
As far as validating scientific inquiry is concerned, take the case of "atoms".
Around 440 BC, Leucippus of Miletus originated the atom concept. He and his pupil, Democritus (c460-371 BC) of Abdera, refined and extended it in future years.
To Democritus, reality was the mechanical motion of indivisible atoms -- all matter is composed of atoms, which are bits of matter too small to be seen. Moving about continuously, he "believed" atoms combined to create objects.
Technically speaking, Democritus got it right even though some of his finer assumptions about atoms were later proven to be wrong, such as the thought that they could not be further split into smaller portions.
However, having said this, even though his initital thoughts were indeed correct, it yet took well over 2000 years to validate his ideas. The idea of the atom was actually strongly opposed by Aristotle and others. Because of this, the atom receeded into the background.
Although there is a fairly continuous pattern of atomistic thought through the ages, only a relative few scholars gave it much thought. I would like to note, however, that those who didn't give it much thought didn't do so because it was impossible -- they didn't persue the thought because it disagreed with their own "beliefs".
Once science was refined to a degree that it could peer into the atom, Democritus' initial premise was very much validated -- and it was no longer a matter of faith, much to Aristotle's disliking I suppose.
Coming back to the question of God's existence, it may be very possible for all we know to validate his existence scientifically. And, although the concept is very widely present throughout many cultures, it may simply be that we, like Democritus long ago, still lack the scientific knowledge necessary to penetrate the host of heaven (even though we pretty much already know he is there).
References
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
How did they figure this out?
purpledawn writes:
Don't ask these types of questions, since you gave nothing specific and therefore there is no way for me to answer the question. They take the discussion in the wrong direction.
But these questions are very important for this discussion -- because they will take us back to God again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2005 10:43 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2005 2:12 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 115 of 171 (252779)
10-18-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-18-2005 1:31 PM


Re: Present Day
quote:
I thought the assumption was that God exists, but that it was debatable whether he could be scientifically substantiated today?
This is another reason our discussions run amuck. You keep changing the view.
Assumption 1: God exists! Period
My position: God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today.
Your position supposedly: God allows ample evidence of his existence today.
Whether you feel that this evidence you have can be scientifically substantiated, I don't know. You haven't really made that clear yet.
quote:
Then one has to reasonably ask why this culture "apparently" doesn't see God before one can proceed to the question of whether God can be scientifically substantiated, correct?
Actually I think it would be the other way around. But notice that you are changing again. We are not discussing whether God's existence can be scientifically substantiated or not. I say he does not allow it, you supposedly say he does.
From my viewpoint if God wanted his existence to be scientifically substantiated, then it would be.
quote:
But these questions are very important for this discussion -- because they will take us back to God again.
If you feel that the process these other cultures used to discern God is important, then tell how they came to their conclusions and how that relates to your position, don't ask me.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-18-2005 1:31 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-19-2005 12:16 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 116 of 171 (253055)
10-19-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by purpledawn
10-18-2005 2:12 PM


Re: Present Day
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I thought the assumption was that God exists, but that it was debatable whether he could be scientifically substantiated today?
purpledawn writes:
This is another reason our discussions run amuck. You keep changing the view.
Now what did I do?
purpledawn writes:
Assumption 1: God exists! Period
Yes, but the question in regards to God's assumed existence has been "Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?" right from the beginning.
This question has since been expanded to "What evidence would be considered valid evidence of his existence."
I've already explained to you why your candle "experiment" is most likely not a "valid test" to prove that the tenets of Christianity are true.
You are, of course, free to disagree with me. But I think I have explained this rather clearly as to why it will not work.
purpledawn writes:
My position: God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today.
No. Your position was that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today -- because -- him doing so would eliminate the need for faith.
I've already demonstrated that this in itself is a logical falacy because even when God appeared quite visibly in a pillar and cloud many Israelites still chose not to believe in him.
In other words, if tangible evidence of God's existence does not guarantee faith in him, why on earth would God think that withholding scientific evidence of his existence would generate more faith in him?
Consequently, you've never responded to this question.
Even more so, I've demonstrated many reasons in Scriptures why God does apparently hide -- none of them done to generate faith.
Although you've given some thoughts about these passages of Scripture, you've never really elaborated on the implications of these passages in regards to your own view that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Your position supposedly: God allows ample evidence of his existence today.
Yes. That is my position -- that God provides ample evidence TODAY.
Although my own experience has been very personal, I do believe that the evidence for others to believe is also, in my opinion, anthropological, astronomical, biological, historical, geographical, psychological, theological and spiritual.
Consequently, if you're desiring me to flow down one scientific discipline to prove God exists (and if this is the reason you say I'm "changing the view" in this thread), then you will do well to remember that the fact of evolution relies on the convergence of around 5 different scientific disciplines in order to understand the fullness of its mechanisms -- and even then there is still much more to understand.
purpledawn writes:
Whether you feel that this evidence you have can be scientifically substantiated, I don't know. You haven't really made that clear yet.
Yes. I do.
And I am trying to explain this to you. I've already started into this realm with you by introducing you to the initial rejection of the "atomistic" concept of nature -- something that could be readilly grasped even in ancient times -- even if the fullness of this idea was not fully understood at first.
I'll note that you've never replied to this part either.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Then one has to reasonably ask why this culture "apparently" doesn't see God before one can proceed to the question of whether God can be scientifically substantiated, correct?
purpledawn writes:
Actually I think it would be the other way around.
If we're talking about the scientific method, then I think you might be looking for results without performing any valid tests.
Look, I can see what you're saying but look at it this way: There are sounds that exist both above and below the human threshold of hearing, correct?
Now if I note that a dog is reacting in a strange manner, I might be left puzzled by their actions. However, if I realize that they act a certain way when they hear certain sounds, and I later see them acting the same way without any sound, I might conclude that there are sounds transpiring that I cannot hear even though the dogs can, correct?
If this is so, then, in this instance, one can reasonably ask why humans "apparently" don't hear these sounds well before one proceeds to the question of whether these sounds can be scientifically substantiated in the first place.
Consequently, what I've noted here actually corresponds to the discovery of the dog whistle. Although the "silent dog whistle" was officailly first manufactured by ACME back in the 1935's, people observed the behavior in dogs well before they could accurately measure the frequency of the ultra-low sounds which were causing the dogs to react in the first place.
The first stage of any scienctific inquiry usually arises from the initial observation which then leads you to test further. In other words, one doesn't usually start off with an objectiveless test in order to produce fine-tuned observations. That's serendipity.
Although serendipity has certainly played an interestingly major role in humankind's advances in science (the discovery of microwaves for example with a melted chocolate bar), serendippity is still not considered a science by any means in and of itself.
purpledawn writes:
But notice that you are changing again. We are not discussing whether God's existence can be scientifically substantiated or not. I say he does not allow it, you supposedly say he does.
Yes, these are our positions. But I haven't changed anything.
purpledawn writes:
From my viewpoint if God wanted his existence to be scientifically substantiated, then it would be.
And maybe it has been reasonably scientifically substantiated and you're simply not understanding it -- or even refusing to accept it.
I plan on explaing to you all lines of evidence which have led others to conclude that God exists. I'll note that I din't require these things myself. However, after talking to other who do not believe, I have built up a line of observations which indicate to me and others that it is reasonable to believe that God does exist.
Mr. Ex nihilo writes:
But these questions are very important for this discussion -- because they will take us back to God again.
purpledawn writes:
If you feel that the process these other cultures used to discern God is important, then tell how they came to their conclusions and how that relates to your position, don't ask me.
I'm asking you because I want to know what you think.
In doing so, I think your own answers to these questions will most likely reveal a bias in favor of naturalistic explanations over spiritual ones. If your "beliefs" are rooted in some kind of atheistic materialism, then everything you see will be interpretted through that filter.
You need to open your mind a bit if you want to understand what I'm saying to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2005 2:12 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2005 2:05 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 117 of 171 (253086)
10-19-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-19-2005 12:16 PM


Re: Present Day
You are going backwards. Don't lose the progress we have made.
quote:
Yes, but the question in regards to God's assumed existence has been "Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?" right from the beginning.
Assumption: God Exists. Period.
The question is what is being debated, not God's existence. Don't confuse the two.
quote:
Consequently, if you're desiring me to flow down one scientific discipline to prove God exists (and if this is the reason you say I'm "changing the view" in this thread), then you will do well to remember that the fact of evolution relies on the convergence of around 5 different scientific disciplines in order to understand the fullness of its mechanisms -- and even then there is still much more to understand.
I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but remember that you are not trying to prove that God exists.
quote:
No. Your position was that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today -- because -- him doing so would eliminate the need for faith.
My position: God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today.
To eliminate the need for faith was a teaching that Crashfrog had brought up and I have already said that I DO NOT feel that it is a valid teaching based on the Bible.
Why God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated is an unknown and not part of the debate.
quote:
This question has since been expanded to "What evidence would be considered valid evidence of his existence."
This is another one of those questions that serves no purpose.
I can't tell you what would be considered valid evidence since I don't know all the possibilities. But it needs to be SSE of a supreme being.
purpledawn writes:
NOTE: From now on when I use the acronym SSE I mean scientifically substantiated evidence. I'm tired of typing it.
quote:
Although my own experience has been very personal, I do believe that the evidence for others to believe is also, in my opinion, anthropological, astronomical, biological, historical, geographical, psychological, theological and spiritual.
This SSE is what you need to provide. Which I would suggest one thing at a time if you have several.
quote:
Yes. That is my position -- that God provides ample evidence TODAY.
quote:
purpedawn writes:
Whether you feel that this evidence you have can be scientifically substantiated, I don't know. You haven't really made that clear yet.
Yes. I do.
quote:
I've already started into this realm with you by introducing you to the initial rejection of the "atomistic" concept of nature -- something that could be readilly grasped even in ancient times -- even if the fullness of this idea was not fully understood at first.
Remember I'm not a scientist. Refer me back to the post that explained this if I didn't answer it.
quote:
The first stage of any scienctific inquiry usually arises from the initial observation which then leads you to test further.
Correct, the dogs were reacting to something we weren't. I can't tell you why I can't see something until you tell me what is there that you supposedly can see that I can't. Then we can work on why I can't see it.
quote:
I'm asking you because I want to know what you think.
Apparently you are missing the point that I can't tell you what I think about a culture I know nothing about.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-19-2005 12:16 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-19-2005 3:25 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 118 of 171 (253096)
10-19-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-15-2005 2:18 AM


Re: Impasse Again
Hi Mr. Ex,
Oops! I must have missed your reply on one of my "busy days." Sorry it took me so long to find it and reply.
Anyway, I think I understand what you're saying. In a "scientific" sense, it seems untestable; God is self-evident in things in the world, but only if God has "quickened" in you. But of course, once you accept God, God will be self-evident in thing in the world; that's part of accepting God, it seems to me. That doesn't mean what you say isn't "right" or isn't valuable; it just means my expectations were wrong. I thought I would be able to see the self-evidence of God while a non-believer.
That's why I was trying to ask about how Judeo-Christian explanations compare to simple naturalistic explanations of the world. You compared Judeo-Christian explanations to explanations given by other religions, but not naturalistic explanations. If naturalistic explanations are as good (or better) than Judeo-Christian explanations, then God isn't self-evident through reflection to those who know naturalistic explanations that suffice in explanation.
That's my summary of "Part I" so far... I hope I gave justice to your position. If so, that clears up how I understand "self-evident"--it means, no other explanation can suffice. Sometimes it "pops out" during simple looking, but you're also talking about reflection after the fact.

As for myself... I didn't have experiences that turned me off from the church. It was purely a lack of belief. I didn't have any "inner feeling" or "quickening." Without that feeling, then the testimony of others who say they have it suffices only so long. Belief doesn't come from someone else's feeling; it comes from one's own. So, I felt I needed to forge ahead on my own path.
Maybe I'll feel something different some day, like you say. In the meantime, I gotta move forward with myself at the controls, and the advice of my friends and aquaintances as my guide.

Here's an interesting, difficult question:
When you see a child on TV that is starving what do you see?
Do you see a child that is caught in the ravages of an uncaring world that is blind to the concerns of the child -- and therefore conclude that it is useless to make a difference?
Or do you see a child that is in dire circumstance and is calling out for help -- and decide to aid them in whatever capacity you can in order to make a difference?
It depends on my frame of mind. I can see both. In fact, I can also see a third option--a child as a material object. Something that is mindless, soulless, empty.
In some sense it's really scary to be able to feel that way. And in another sense, it's very liberating... but isolating too. Not something I really feel comfortable revealing either; I don't like to be judged. But you haven't judged me yet, so I answer your question honestly and without reservation.

To summarize my own feeling or thought... I feel that there are many explanations that can fit this world. I don't feel any need to commit to any of them; I am comfortable with having "no knowledge" of such things. But as such, when I see a leaf, I see a leaf. Man-made things are different, but usually not in a positive sense. Usually when I see man-made things, I see many of our shortcomings. And when I see men (humans), my perception varies as I described above. Sometimes I see a human (material object). Sometimes I see a person.
Except for my family, maybe. I'm not sure about that. But I think when I see my family, I always see people, and I always feel it's important to listen. It was always that way when I saw my brothers; I am learning it for the rest of my family.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-15-2005 2:18 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 119 of 171 (253099)
10-19-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by purpledawn
10-19-2005 2:05 PM


Re: Present Day
Buh?
I really don't know what you're asking me for anymore.
You believe that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today, correct?
I say that God does allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today, correct?
Are we moving toward the direction of providing this supposed evidence or not?
If so, I'm currently doing that -- moving toward the direction of providing this supposed evidence.
If not, then could you please explain to me exactly what you want me to explain to you?
I've already explained that when cultures outside the Judeo-Christian faith express ideas that are very similar to God, many Christians see this as a sign that God has been speaking to them in some way. I've also explained how the "primitive monotheisms" (otherwise known as the "sky God") were still being discovered in primitive cultures which were separated by cultures for long periods of time, cultures which were formerly assumed to be strictly pagan until people could actually communicate with them and understand them. Again, many Christians see this as evidence that the Judeo-Christian God has been actively speaking to them in some way.
The "beginning" point about atomistic thought is from message 114:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
As far as validating scientific inquiry is concerned, take the case of "atoms".
Around 440 BC, Leucippus of Miletus originated the atom concept. He and his pupil, Democritus (c460-371 BC) of Abdera, refined and extended it in future years.
To Democritus, reality was the mechanical motion of indivisible atoms -- all matter is composed of atoms, which are bits of matter too small to be seen. Moving about continuously, he "believed" atoms combined to create objects.
Technically speaking, Democritus got it right even though some of his finer assumptions about atoms were later proven to be wrong, such as the thought that they could not be further split into smaller portions.
However, having said this, even though his initital thoughts were indeed correct, it yet took well over 2000 years to validate his ideas. The idea of the atom was actually strongly opposed by Aristotle and others. Because of this, the atom receeded into the background.
Although there is a fairly continuous pattern of atomistic thought through the ages, only a relative few scholars gave it much thought. I would like to note, however, that those who didn't give it much thought didn't do so because it was impossible -- they didn't persue the thought because it disagreed with their own "beliefs".
Once science was refined to a degree that it could peer into the atom, Democritus' initial premise was very much validated -- and it was no longer a matter of faith, much to Aristotle's disliking I suppose.
Coming back to the question of God's existence, it may be very possible for all we know to validate his existence scientifically. And, although the concept is very widely present throughout many cultures, it may simply be that we, like Democritus long ago, still lack the scientific knowledge necessary to penetrate the host of heaven (even though we pretty much already know he is there).
Now, if I've consfused you on this, I will clarify.
I'm not saying that God's existence cannot be validated scientifically -- although I do believe that some aspects of his realm are certainly beyond our current human level to measure. I'm saying that the important qualities of God can be validated scientifically, but many simply choose to disbelieve.
When I'm talking about believing in God, I'm talking about a revelation which somewhat combines the way one feels when they make a great scientific discovery with the way that one feels when they fall in love and marry their partner.
I'm not even sure if there is a word for this -- but I can expand upon this further if you wish before I proceed to lay out the supposed evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2005 2:05 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2005 5:27 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 120 of 171 (253134)
10-19-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-19-2005 3:25 PM


Time for Evidence
quote:
You believe that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today, correct?
Leave the believe part out.
quote:
I say that God does allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today, correct?
Correct.
quote:
Are we moving toward the direction of providing this supposed evidence or not?
When you are ready.
quote:
If so, I'm currently doing that -- moving toward the direction of providing this supposed evidence.
Supposed?
quote:
Again, many Christians see this as evidence that the Judeo-Christian God has been actively speaking to them in some way.
What is the SSE part of this evidence?
quote:
I'm saying that the important qualities of God can be validated scientifically, but many simply choose to disbelieve.
Then show me those qualities that have been scientifically substantiated and how.
This message has been edited by purpledawn, 10-19-2005 05:29 PM

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-19-2005 3:25 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-20-2005 1:21 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024