Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator
ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 189 of 300 (295903)
03-16-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
03-15-2006 7:58 PM


Re: What other Gods?
I am sure they didn't.
On the other hand, neither does the Jewish faith, when it comes to the "Fall" causing "the stain of original sin".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 7:58 PM Faith has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 192 of 300 (295918)
03-16-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by robinrohan
03-16-2006 10:18 AM


Re: Those other gods!
Oh, thanks. As I was writing a previous post, I ran across this dilemma:
If God does not exist, our reason and sense of right and wrong are suspect. We are using our reason and conscience, which was supposed to have come authoritatively from God, to prove that God does not exist. If God DID exist, our reason and conscience would tell us he did not exist. However, if God does not exist, our reason and conscience tell us nothing for certain.
Since there is no real evidence that there IS a god, and there is different concepts about what is moral and what is not, we can only
do the best we know how. Nothing might be certain, since we all disagree, but the only thing we can do is the best we can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by robinrohan, posted 03-16-2006 10:18 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by veiledvirtue, posted 03-16-2006 12:26 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 239 of 300 (296100)
03-16-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by jar
03-16-2006 9:37 PM


Re: Individual proof?
The trouble with 'prophecy' is that it is often so vague almost anything can 'prove' it.. or it is written after the fact, or is decieded to be a prophecy after the fact, and shoehorned into place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 9:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 10:11 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 255 of 300 (296154)
03-17-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Buzsaw
03-16-2006 10:58 PM


Re: wandering way OT again buz
That sword cuts both ways you know.
Can you show why that would refer to Jesus when looking at the phrase IN CONTEXT. So far, no one has been able to explain how that phrase in context with specifially Isiah 8:3-4 and Isaiah 8:18 would make that be Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2006 10:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 256 of 300 (296157)
03-17-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by PaulK
03-17-2006 2:32 AM


Re: Proving a negative
I don't see how you can ever prove that 'God' does not exist. However, it definately can be shown that certain ideas about what God is believed to have been done have been effectively ruled out by any reasonable person.
You might be able to rule out literalist versions of god, but the concept of 'god' in general, nope. There will always be unknowns, and God will always lurk there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 03-17-2006 2:32 AM PaulK has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 265 of 300 (296173)
03-17-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
03-17-2006 9:10 AM


Re: robinrohan the true rationalist?
Come on now.
You are making an assertion it is all assertions. When people show you the logical progression, you just deny it, and say 'it is all assertions'.
Surely you can do better than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 9:10 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by nator, posted 03-17-2006 9:23 AM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 275 of 300 (296250)
03-17-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Chiroptera
03-17-2006 11:51 AM


Evidence against an ALL seeing god.
I do have a repeatable experiment that rules out an 'all seeing' god.
It has to do with the fact that in the qunata world, a watched quantum pot never boils.
it takes x microseconds for all the electrons to hit the higher state - so if you set a detector to "watch" them half at x/2, probability is that half will be in the higher state and half in the lower state.
but if you keep cutting down the time between watching and not watching, eventually you get to a point where the probability wave doesn't have enough time to spread to encompass the higher level, and
and all the electrons will stay at the lower level.
This means that observation on a quanta level will prevent a quanta from changing state.
What this means is that 'god' must not be bothering to observe quanta, else the state of the quanta would not change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Chiroptera, posted 03-17-2006 11:51 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by MangyTiger, posted 03-17-2006 10:12 PM ramoss 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