Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,356 Year: 3,613/9,624 Month: 484/974 Week: 97/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 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

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 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

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 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 435 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

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 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

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 111 of 271 (569832)
07-23-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Huntard
07-23-2010 8:31 AM


Re: Name these things please
"Huntard" writes:
Well, how would we detect it if it leaves absolutely no indication of interaction with the world around us behind?
But it does, it is just subjective.
Also, this is another erroneous statement, because you assume we have made every type of detection equipment that we will ever make. so much for making a bigger collider, we don't need it anymore, we can detect everything that is out there already.
Thirdly, the God of the bible, says He is everything. So everything we test is God, therefor part of this world. If He exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 07-23-2010 8:31 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 5:24 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 112 of 271 (569838)
07-23-2010 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
07-23-2010 4:56 PM


Re: Name these things please
"onifire" writes:
Lets no go down the philosophical rabbit hole; the universe exists, we are in it. This is, for all intents and purposes, reality.
I don't agree oni. What is beyond our universe? We are expanding according to the science of the hour, and just what is it that we are expanding into? We can't detect it, does it exist? Does it only exist once we get there?
I sometimes even think that it is still possible we are in fact the center of the universe. Just like the science of yesteryear couldn't see that we orbit around the sun, maybe we can't see the our movement is way more complicated than first imagined, and in some kind of crazy way, everything is orbiting around us. There is no way of proving, what is our point of reference? The unknown black emptiness outside our "known universe"? I mean if space can be a curve, then why not a Spirograph? The pen is us. But instead of the pen pushing the spirograph around, the pen stays in one spot, and everything else goes around us?
Not at all, never ever. You're thinking of dimensions in science fiction. In physics, extra dimensions would just mean more than the ones we currently experience. They are all around you right now.
Then lets go to the 5th dimension.
Probably real stupid, but I once heard on a creation science program that God could exist in the 29th dimension. Don't know how they came up with that one though.
I think when we die, we go to the 4th or 5th dimension, and there is not time, or time as we know it. We can see all of time, like a line from point A to point B.
If he is everything and in everything, then he is also nothing. If everthing is god then nothing is god. It would be pointless.
Is nothing truly nothing? Or are there something smaller than quantum particles there?
Well then that settles that; if you have to apply your own intuitive faith, then nothing about god is ever going to be factual.
Yea, that's pretty much how I see it. There are miracles though, but even those, people make up other explanations, or other possibilities. It would seem that there is no objective evidence, and I think God wants it that way, since we are supposed to believe by faith. How much faith would it take to believe in God if a wall of fire came down and toasted our asses, and told us it was God? It would be a whole lot less than the way it is currently set up now.
But it still doesn't mean God doesn't exist. People die, and we don't really know if there is a spirit, or is it continues. Ghost hunters try to see ghosts, and use all sorts of equipment, but I just kind of laugh at that. It's like me using a fishing pole to see what is on mars.
You are arguing another point really, and I agree with that point. I still say the original op was an erroneous statement. If he would have said there is no objective evidence of God, I would have agreed with him.
These days, none of that is considered supernatural. What's left to be considered supernatural? Two things, and coincidentally its the two areas of science that are fairly new and much work still needs to be done: origin of the first life and origin of the cosmos. But that's it, nothing else. Planets form naturally, solar systems, naturally; galaxies, naturally; all the elements, naturally; animals and plant life, naturally. People of faith simply move the goal post every time something is figured out by science, but until when? And why do that?
People of faith should not have these goal posts. The only goal post they should have is trying to love others, because God loves them. If they are truly feeling something from God, like I think I do, then they know a greater love than they previously knew. Knowing that causes you to love more. And that is how you spread the word, and that is your only goal post as a believer. Everything else is just man being man.
Love is subjective, and not easily, or accurately tested, but we know it exists.
To answer your question, if it is currently considered supernatural, eventually, as history has shown us, it will be explained by natural means.
I'm waiting for that day. As I wait, I see a lot of mistakes along the way. And as I said, there are somethings, due to the limitations of our known world, we may never know. It may be entirely possible, that even if we live for another billion years, that we will never make it to another galaxy.
In the mean time, I don't really care how or what science thinks of it all, even though I enjoy science thoroughly. I am just so amazed by life, the universe, and everything. I always ask myself why, why did it all come about? What is the reason? Why the hell am I even thinking of that question, and how come this tree next to me isn't? Or maybe it is, who the hell knows.
But then I think to myself, if God created it all, where the hell did He come from and why? But still I feel something inside. I did not feel it always, and I used to make fun of people that claimed they did. Now I just laugh at myself. I must have conjured up a pretty complicated scenario in my head. Oh well, I don't care, I enjoy it. I play music for God, and help others, and I believe it has changed me all for the better (funny cause I didn't think I needed any serious change).
Talking with people like you, helps put what I am believing into a perspective, and has helped me define my faith over the years into what is really important. I think God sent the atheists to clear up all the BS going on round here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 07-23-2010 4:56 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 07-25-2010 12:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 113 of 271 (569841)
07-23-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ringo
07-23-2010 6:10 PM


"Ringo" writes:
Objectivity isn't about ultimate proof or perfect answers. It's about looking at the object itself and trying to make observations that aren't clouded by your own subjective assumptions. Comparing your observations with other people's observations tends to cancel out the subjectivity.
Everyone went to a magic show. They all saw the subway car disappear right before their eyes. They all saw it, so it must have disappeared? Or did it? This is the universal subjectivity I am talking about.
I've been in a room where everybody in it felt the same thing from God. Was it objective? No.
I've done my own double blind tests (so to speak) about what people fell from God, and there is more to it, than just woo-woo.
For what it's worth, I think "seeking God" means seeking Him in the real world, seeking ways to improve the real world and improve your interaction with the real world.
I agree, sort of. For me, seeking God is trying to learn from Him, so that I can go into the real world and make it better, with the right tools. Knowing God, and asking him when I should, and when I shouldn't interfere with stuff. I fail a lot. But many times I don't, and it is just magical. To me, nothing beats getting blessed by God with something, and then using that something to help others.
This right here, is church to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 07-23-2010 6:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 12:28 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 115 by jar, posted 07-24-2010 10:05 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 118 of 271 (570383)
07-27-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ringo
07-24-2010 12:28 AM


"Ringo" writes:
It wasn't objective because there was no object. You can only be objective when there's something tangible to be objective about.
Tangible meaning something you can measure. So how to you measure a chill, or a feeling of love? These things exist and are not really measurable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 07-24-2010 12:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 07-27-2010 2:00 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 119 of 271 (570392)
07-27-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by onifre
07-25-2010 12:52 PM


Re: Name these things please
"onifire" writes:
We can all postulate questions that, while they may seem logical to ask with our limited knowledge on the subject, are completely nonsensical to ask. Humans have only experienced earth, to ask a question like, "What is beyond our universe?" is to go beyond what anyone in existence has even known about reality.
So in other words, something exists there, but we can't measure it.
Its fun to do, but we can't take ourselves too serious when we ask these questions.
true.
Sure, but you and I are not in the field of cosmology, so our layman opinions are totally irrelevant. If the people in the field of study aren't asking these questions, and they know what the fuck they're talking about, why on earth would people who have absolutely no knowledge on the subject feel they can assess any of this stuff?
Well I've been out of it for a while, and I had no formal training, I was into Amateur astronomy for years, and did help measure variable stars and such.
For years no one question if the earth went around the sun.
Again, in physics and in cosmology, dimensions ONLY refer to the space in an area. Up, down, left, right...these are all dimensions expressed in geometry and used in physics. When string theorist talk about 11 dimensions they simply mean something more than the left, right, up, down dimension. Nothing like what you're thinking about.
From wikipedia, the definition of dimension:
The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.
I was always under the impression that the 4th dimension involved time.
I can understand that need for a mother figure who loves us and will be with us in the end. Its just to me, I don't like to fill my head with cultural myths about gods because I see no need to introduce something that I can't even understand to solve an issue that I have mentally created.
I initially started to believe in God, because I like the words of Jesus in the bible. It made sense to me. Then I felt something more. It does give hope to think that there is more to life than just what we see. As the bible says to focus on the unseen, not the seen.
But ultimately it was more what I felt, and continue to feel to this day from what I believe to be God. It's way too many subjective evidences that give me faith. It's the miracles that I've experienced. That is what gives me a strong faith, stronger than before I felt it. It's either God, or I am crazy.
God is subjective, we all need something different from Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 07-25-2010 12:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 07-27-2010 1:09 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 120 of 271 (570394)
07-27-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
07-27-2010 5:24 AM


Re: Name these things please
"Huntard" writes:
So, no claim of truth can ever be made about it, since truth is objective, not subjective.
There is a subjective feeling associated with objective truth.
Do you think bigfoot exists?
I think there is a possibility, however small that is. I do not think something does not exist, just because there is no physical evidence of it. I think if you can imagine something, then the possibility of it existing.....exists.
Then he is also nothing.
Which by default, is still something.
He is not nothingness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 5:24 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 10:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


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


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

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

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

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


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


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

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

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

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


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


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

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

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

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


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


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

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

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024