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
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 91 of 271 (568522)
07-06-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by kbertsche
07-02-2010 5:09 PM


No, the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it.
That is the same thing.
So are you really saying that if the defense attorney claimed that leprechauns planted evidence at the scene of the crime that the prosecution would have to present evidence that this did not happen? Really?
If so, the evidence would probably be implicit, based on the jurors' experience and their belief that leprechauns are imaginary. Leprechauns are not believable enough to provide "reasonable doubt." If this was the best the defense could do, they would lose.
What is stopping me from claiming the same for God?
Where have I made a positive claim in this thread?
So you are not trying to argue that a non-physical realm exists within which resides a supernatural being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 07-02-2010 5:09 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by kbertsche, posted 07-06-2010 1:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 92 of 271 (568525)
07-06-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by sac51495
07-02-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Futile Materialism
Besides, your an atheist; you are opposed to my God, . . .
If you don't believe in Santa Claus does this mean you are opposed to Santa Claus? How can you oppose a deity that can't be shown to exist? Do meteorologists oppose Thor because they describe the production of lightning without reference to Thor? Are meteorologists anti-Thor because they do not accept the non-physical evidence (whatever that is) for the existence of Thor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 11:42 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 93 of 271 (568526)
07-06-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by sac51495
07-03-2010 12:49 AM


Re: Futile Materialism
Then why exactly do I need to prove to you that there is an immaterial reality, if you already believe there to be one?
What evidence convinced you? We can start there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:49 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 94 of 271 (568547)
07-06-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
07-06-2010 11:51 AM


No, the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it.
quote:
That is the same thing.
No, it is not. Please re-read my sentence above and note where I changed your wording to my own.
quote:
So are you really saying that if the defense attorney claimed that leprechauns planted evidence at the scene of the crime that the prosecution would have to present evidence that this did not happen? Really?
Did I say this? No, of course not. I said that the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it. There are two important distinctions here. First is the difference between disproving and providing evidence against something. Criminal courts work with the metric of "reasonable doubt," not "proof." Second is the difference between being forced or compelled to do something, and having the freedom to decide whether or not to do it, depending on which approach the prosecuting attorney feels is best for his case.
quote:
So you are not trying to argue that a non-physical realm exists within which resides a supernatural being?
Have I argued this position in this thread? I don't think so. Rather, I have argued for open-mindedness on the question of whether a non-physical reality exists, and I have cautioned against making positive claims against the existence of non-physical reality.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 07-06-2010 11:51 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 07-06-2010 2:58 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 95 of 271 (568563)
07-06-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by kbertsche
07-06-2010 1:56 PM


No, it is not. Please re-read my sentence above and note where I changed your wording to my own.
Evidence against a claim is disproof of the claim.
Did I say this? No, of course not.
Then why do we have to disprove the existence of an entity for which there is zero evidence?
Have I argued this position in this thread? I don't think so. Rather, I have argued for open-mindedness on the question of whether a non-physical reality exists, and I have cautioned against making positive claims against the existence of non-physical reality.
We have asked again and again for evidence. How is that not open-mindedness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by kbertsche, posted 07-06-2010 1:56 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 96 of 271 (568607)
07-07-2010 6:00 AM


I think I'm as open minded as any theist... what kind of evidence would it take for the average theist to believe in a magical being they don't currently believe in-- say, gremlins? Or Xenu? Or that someone on earth is the reincarnated soul of Buddha? What would it take for the average theist to accept the tenets of Scientology? I think it would take that sort of evidence for me to believe in their invisible undetectable gods, angels, demons, ghosts, and so forth. Or maybe it would take more... since I don't buy into the notion that faith and feelings are the way to know anything objectively true. Why would a believer think an atheist should expect anything less than they'd demand for themselves before buying into a supernatural claim?
If the evidence isn't available for scientists to test, hone, and expand upon, then why should I believe that some guru or holy book or preacher man has accessed it?
I'm open to evidence for gods, but they would need to be distinguishable from mythological gods since humans are known to fool themselves and plug in magical explanations to elevate their own self importance and explain that which they don't understand, right? I've outgrown magical thinking, and I'm not really in the mood for fooling myself.
I'd rather not know something than believe a lie.

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


Message 97 of 271 (569019)
07-19-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
06-30-2010 11:29 PM


"Killinghurts" writes:
Quite a simple question/thread really. In my discussions with believers I have yet to hear a reasonable response as to how someone (or something) would detect God.
Through faith.
Unless there is a reasonable answer to this question, one can only assume that God is not part of the measurable world, and therefore not part of reality and therefore not real.
Lot's of things are immeasurable, and are still part of the real world. Matter of fact, billions, and billions of things are immeasurable, yet part of the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 06-30-2010 11:29 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 8:03 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 98 of 271 (569022)
07-19-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by riVeRraT
07-19-2010 7:53 PM


Name these things please
Lot's of things are immeasurable, and are still part of the real world. Matter of fact, billions, and billions of things are immeasurable, yet part of the real world.
At risk of being told to reread what you wrote. Please tell us one or two of these billions of things that are immeasurable so we know what you are talking about.
Do you see that your are, again, unclear in your argument? You need to give more information so people know what you mean. We can not agree or disagree with you if you do not give enough information.

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by riVeRraT, posted 07-19-2010 7:53 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by riVeRraT, posted 07-20-2010 6:43 PM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 99 of 271 (569190)
07-20-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Theodoric
07-19-2010 8:03 PM


Re: Name these things please
We will never be able to accurately measure the weight of the universe. It is not because we are not capable of doing it, it is because we will never have a scale large enough...ha
Now please don't tell me how we have formulas for predicting the universes collapse, and the weight of the universe. Those are only approximations, and may be argued about until the actual end of the universe.
We can't measure how many earth like planets there are in M101, because we cannot get there, and cannot see them. There are billions and billions of things in our universe that cannot be seen, and/or cannot be measured. Yet, they exist.
So not being able to measure something, is no reason to claim that something does not exist.
People argue there are other dimensions, we can't see or measure them, but they may well be there.
Can you measure a thought? Thoughts exist. Billions of thoughts exist, and you cannot see them or measure them.
Can you measure how much time has passed since the beginning of time?
I could go on and on.
We can not agree or disagree with you if you do not give enough information.
Or you could use your own brain, and think of one of the millions of things that are immeasurable, I am sure you are capable of doing that. But you won't because you'd rather just single me out, and try to pick apart every little thing I say.
Tell me, you can't think of one thing that is immeasurable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 8:03 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 12:35 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 07-21-2010 1:19 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 100 of 271 (569334)
07-21-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by riVeRraT
07-20-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Name these things please
You are twisting your argument. And making erroneous statements.
If there are planets in M101 they are potentially measurable. The fact that we cannot see them does not preclude the fact that they are potentially measurable. Your god is not even potentially measurable.
A thought is measurable. Ever hear of the many types of brain scans. If there is no thoughts. Brain dead. Nothing shows on the scan. So measurable.
Time is measurable. Your statement is ludicrous.

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by riVeRraT, posted 07-20-2010 6:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 07-22-2010 8:35 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 271 (569343)
07-21-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by riVeRraT
07-20-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Name these things please
Now please don't tell me how we have formulas for predicting the universes collapse, and the weight of the universe. Those are only approximations, and may be argued about until the actual end of the universe.
Yes, but there is a visible existing universe to at least measure. Its not found in some supernatural realm.
We can't measure how many earth like planets there are in M101
But there are visible existing planets, both gas and terrestrial, that we can see and compare to those that may currently be outside of our ability to see. We can progress toward an advanced enough stage to eventually see them. But in the end, all we would see is planets similar to those in our solar system.
Its not found in some supernatural realm.
People argue there are other dimensions, we can't see or measure them, but they may well be there.
Dimensions in physics are no more complex than the dimensions you are aware of such as left, right, up, down. So yes, they may well be there, but in the end they'd just be dimensions like you are currently aware of.
Its not found in some supernatural realm.
The difference with something like god is that there is no starting point, method, or means to ever detect it. You don't even know what "it" is. You are completely in the dark and that is the reason you have to apply faith, because no other method exists.
Is is completely unknown and requires the supernartural.
Tell me, you can't think of one thing that is immeasurable?
Everything you mention and can mention is still found in physical reality, not in some unknown supernatural realm. And that is the point.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by riVeRraT, posted 07-20-2010 6:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by riVeRraT, posted 07-22-2010 8:51 AM onifre has replied

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


Message 102 of 271 (569556)
07-22-2010 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Theodoric
07-21-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Name these things please
"Theodoric" writes:
If there are planets in M101 they are potentially measurable
So replace "there are planets in M101" with "if God exists".
You are using your own argument against yourself.
Time is measurable. Your statement is ludicrous.
You left out the word "if." Time is measurable "if" we knew how long time has been around. But we don't know when time began, or if there was ever a beginning, or we just are on some kind of loop.
My point is some things are not measurable, and I believe I proved it, and you proved it for me. Just because something is potentially measurable, does not prove it's existence. Quantum particles were not measurable 300 years ago, and we didn't even know they existed, yet they were there.
Right now, planets in M101 are not part of our measurable world, since we can't measure them. We can't see them, we are not sure if they exist, and we may never know the answer to that question. M101 could be a background picture that God put up for us, for all we know.
Thoughts are not that measurable. brain activity is. But if I had 10 thoughts in my head at once, could you tell me how big they were, how many, whether they were false or true? Thoughts that originated on my own? They are not really measurable, yet they exist.
Lust, or love is not always measurable either. If I see someone for the first time, and have love at first sight, how do we measure that feeling? Only I can, because it is a subjective feeling.
The point is, that just because you can't measure something, does not mean it exists, or not. Killing hurts logic is flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 12:35 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ramoss, posted 07-22-2010 8:25 PM riVeRraT has replied

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


Message 103 of 271 (569561)
07-22-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
07-21-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Name these things please
" writes:
Yes, but there is a visible existing universe to at least measure. Its not found in some supernatural realm.
It is visible, but does it really exist?
Dimensions in physics are no more complex than the dimensions you are aware of such as left, right, up, down. So yes, they may well be there, but in the end they'd just be dimensions like you are currently aware of.
Its not found in some supernatural realm.
Other dimensions may well in fact be a super natural realm.
The difference with something like god is that there is no starting point, method, or means to ever detect it. You don't even know what "it" is.
Of course there is no starting point. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. He is everything, and in everything. If you could measure one single thing, then you are measuring a part of God.
You are completely in the dark and that is the reason you have to apply faith, because no other method exists.
Yes you have to apply faith, but God gave us the Holy Spirit which some people, including myself, claim to feel.
Everything you mention and can mention is still found in physical reality, not in some unknown supernatural realm. And that is the point.
So if something is supernatural, and we can not currently measure it, does that mean we won't be able to one day? Lot's of things throughout history were not measurable at one point or another. Lot's of things were theorized to exist, some them came into existence, others were wrong.
Killinghurts point was that if we can't measure it, means it doesn't exist. Which is a false statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 07-21-2010 1:19 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 07-23-2010 4:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 104 of 271 (569665)
07-22-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by riVeRraT
07-22-2010 8:35 AM


Re: Name these things please
How can you theoretically detect God? In the case of those planets, we can photo graph them if they pass between the star and us, or we can detect the wobble of the star because of the tidal forces.
How do you detect god? What is the methods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 07-22-2010 8:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 8:09 AM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 105 of 271 (569687)
07-23-2010 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by ramoss
07-22-2010 8:25 PM


Re: Name these things please
"ramoss" writes:
How can you theoretically detect God? In the case of those planets, we can photo graph them if they pass between the star and us, or we can detect the wobble of the star because of the tidal forces.
How do you detect god? What is the methods?
I understand how we started detecting stars. Right now we can only detect the wobble of a star that is close to us. Not positive, but I don't think we can detect any wobbles outside of our galaxy, so right now, there is no way to measure it. But most likely it is there.
I have no clue how to OBJECTIVELY detect God. It is His universe, and He may not have made it so we could not detect Him by objective methods. This forum is filled with discussions about it. The bible tells us how we should seek for God, and it is a subjective method. Also God's way of letting us test Him, is subjective also. My argument about it all is that nothing is ever objective. It is only universally subjective. They say nothing is ever ultimately proven in science, so then how can anything ever be ultimately objective? We are all limited to how we see things. we all look through a telescope at M101, but is it really there? Can you prove to me that we are not in the Matrix or something?
Also I've been taught in these forums (don't know if it is true) that if someone theorizes something, it is not up to us to prove him wrong, it is up to him to prove himself right. (which is weird, because nothing is ever proven??) So trying to prove God doesn't exist is fruitless.
But that is not the point. The statement implies to us, that just because something is not measurable, means it does not exist, and not part of our world. Which is an erroneous statement. That is not how you prove something doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ramoss, posted 07-22-2010 8:25 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 07-23-2010 8:31 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 07-23-2010 6:10 PM riVeRraT 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