Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8961 total)
30 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,273 Year: 1,021/23,288 Month: 1,021/1,851 Week: 144/321 Day: 3/56 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 15 of 271 (567573)
07-01-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
06-30-2010 11:29 PM


What do you mean by "god"...?
In my discussions with believers I have yet to hear a reasonable response as to how someone (or something) would detect God.

But have they given you any description of what to look for?

As an example, I cannot 'see' gravity but I can 'detect' it by dropping a ball and watching it hit the ground.

You know it's effects and know what you're looking for. You are completely in the dark as far as god/s go.

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.

But what exactly are you describing that isn't part of the measurable world? So far you just have a word, "god," it means nothing unless you have a description that follows. And unless you get a description, you can't "look for to detect" anything.

Likewise you can't claim it - whatever "it" is - isn't part of the measurable world.

IMO, you can only assume that the person claiming to believe in god has no idea what it is exactly that they believe in. The too, like you, simply have a word they reference.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 06-30-2010 11:29 PM killinghurts has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by killinghurts, posted 07-04-2010 8:36 PM onifre has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 90 of 271 (568505)
07-06-2010 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by killinghurts
07-04-2010 8:36 PM


Re: What do you mean by "god"...?
Pick a God, any God...

I'm an atheist, I don't recognize the word god to mean anything.

But my question was if anyone gave you a description of what to look for? Did they, or has anyone, ever given you specific details of what god is or how to detect him/her/it?

Or has it just always been an ambiguous, almost nonsensical attempt to describe virtually nothing?

I struggle to think of a religion (perhaps Buddhism) that does not employ a doctrine promoting some form of reality meddling, thought reading, invisible overseer.

Jainism, many Native American religions and also Wicca, Neo Pagan, Asatru view nature as god (and there is evidence for nature) - off the top of my head these are a few. Then there is any other possible individual concept of god that may not include any of the specfications that you mention.

If you seek to detect the word god in reality you have to first figure out what people mean by god.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by killinghurts, posted 07-04-2010 8:36 PM killinghurts has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 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 responded

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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 107 of 271 (569750)
07-23-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by riVeRraT
07-22-2010 8:51 AM


Re: Name these things please
It is visible, but does it really exist?

Lets no go down the philosophical rabbit hole; the universe exists, we are in it. This is, for all intents and purposes, reality.

Other dimensions may well in fact be a super natural realm.

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.

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 he is everything and in everything, then he is also nothing. If everthing is god then nothing is god. It would be pointless.

Yes you have to apply faith, but God gave us the Holy Spirit which some people, including myself, claim to feel.

Well then that settles that; if you have to apply your own intuitive faith, then nothing about god is ever going to be factual.

It will be as it is now, people using words like god, supernatural, holy spirit, spiritual realms, etc., as linguistic place fillers describing absolutely nothing other than their own faith-based concepts of the god they happen to have been born into.

So if something is supernatural, and we can not currently measure it, does that mean we won't be able to one day?

The problem is, what is supernatural? As I see it used, and as humanity has used it historically, it was always just a linguistic place filler for the unknown. A solar eclipse was supernatural, volcano eruptions were supernatural, diseases were caused by supernatural forces... we could go on.

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?

Or if not, like on this site, they just refuse to believe what the entire educated world understands, that we evolved and that the universe originated at the Big Bang. You've read it here, flat out, baseless denial of empirical evidence, which is sad.

To answer your question, if it is currently considered supernatural, eventually, as history has shown us, it will be explained by natural means.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by riVeRraT, posted 07-22-2010 8:51 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2010 5:03 PM onifre has responded
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:29 PM onifre has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 109 of 271 (569759)
07-23-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by DevilsAdvocate
07-23-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Name these things please
Furthermore if everything is God and God is omniscient, than free-will does not exist and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden was correct in saying that humans would be like God (or more accurately we would be Gods).

I've argued here before that free-will is just an illusion, so that's where my opinion lies on that. And since humans created god, we created him in our own image, and thus he is us and we are him, IMHO.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2010 5:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 116 of 271 (570080)
07-25-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by riVeRraT
07-23-2010 11:29 PM


Re: Name these things please
What is beyond our universe?

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.

Its fun to do, but we can't take ourselves too serious when we ask these questions.

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?

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?

I can imagine all kinds of amazing things about the universe, but none of it is relevant to the actual subject of cosmology, because, I have no clue what I'm talking about. And I have no problem admitting that I know very little on the subject as compared to an actual working physicist. I am humbled by their knowledge on the subject, and await their assessment of the facts, as they, with their extensive education, see it.

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.

Sometimes we use words that we think mean something, when in fact they mean nothing.

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. You are taking the science fiction definition of "dimension." But that's what happens sometimes, people without any understand or education on the subject come in and try to use the same lingo that scientist do, in hopes that they can sound educated (I'm not saying you're doing this, but some so called Christian scientist do). But in reality, it just makes them look like they're trying too hard to sell their nonsense to people who, sadly, don't know any better.

If he would have said there is no objective evidence of God, I would have agreed with him.

Fair enough.

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.

Lol, well you're welcome bro. I don't see anything I disagree with in what you're saying. Well, except of course for the belief in god and what you experience, but that's only cause I've never experienced it and have no belief in anything that can be described as a god. And if I did experience something, I wouldn't even know which god to attribute it to. To me, this whole business of god is just a human concept of a celestial mother-figure (even though man eventually changed the concept to a man) that cares for us and is concerned for us and our well being. It gives humans a sense that someone is there looking out for them, because life is often very hard to experience alone. I get that. 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.

But I get why people seek god in their lives. I just don't happen to need it.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2010 11:29 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:54 AM onifre has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 122 of 271 (570447)
07-27-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by riVeRraT
07-27-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Name these things please
So in other words, something exists there, but we can't measure it.

Sure we can, we have measured it; the observable universe is very known to us. You asked for what's beyond that. That question is what I'm saying that you (or anyone who asks) lacks evidence for. IOW, you have no basis for which to ask it. Personally, I'll wait till we get to the edge of the observable universe before I ask what's beyond it.

I was always under the impression that the 4th dimension involved time.

In Minkowski spacetime it does, but not in string theory/M-theory.

Think of it this way, what's the difference between a 2D movie and a 3D movie? Now (forgetting about time for this illustration) what would happen to a 4D movie, or 5D, and on up, adding many more dimensions? At no point does it require you to go into a supernatural realm. It's just more dimensional space being described.

It's either God, or I am crazy.

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?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by riVeRraT, posted 07-27-2010 9:54 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 9:31 AM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 126 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:39 AM onifre has responded
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 07-28-2010 10:37 AM onifre has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 271 (571128)
07-30-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by riVeRraT
07-28-2010 9:39 AM


Re: Name these things please
I would not say everything I feel, and have experienced is subjective.

Hmm, it would seem as though there really is no way around the fact that "things you feel" are 100% subjective.

There are differences in religion that lead me to believe that what I feel is the God of the NT.

But that then falls back on what other people wrote and how accurate they were. Add to that roughly 2000 years of separation and you get a lot of possibility for interpretation.

In the end, you have to hope that the original writers were being honest, and that for the next 2000 years people were honest in their interpretations and translations. Yicks!

There may be a need for the different belief systems, and it may all be from the same God.

Or it can simply be human make-believe and no such thing that can be described as a god exists.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by riVeRraT, posted 07-28-2010 9:39 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:51 AM onifre has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 139 of 271 (571134)
07-30-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by sac51495
07-30-2010 10:03 AM


One way to prove the truth of 'standard A' is to show the impossibility of the opposing standard: 'standard B'.

Not at all. All you do is show the limits of Standard B, you make no case for Standard A. Standard A must proves itself on its own without having anything to do with Standard B.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 10:03 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 143 of 271 (572540)
08-06-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 7:51 AM


Re: Name these things please
If after "hearing from God" for the first time, I feel ten years younger, and 5 random people tell me I look ten years younger (not 5, not 2, not 7, 10) I think that is more than subjective.

Sorry dude but that's purely subjective. You heard from what you believe to be a god - that's subjective. You "feel" 5 years younger - that's subjective. And people who see you feel you're years younger - that is subjective too.

If I pray to God, and ask him to remove my fear of playing keyboards in front of people, because I am now playing for Him, then in an instance, 38 years of fear are gone, that's pretty objective.

Here again you have your subjective interpretation of a particular circumstance. Objective would mean that you can empirically show that god had a hand in it, rather than feel he did.

All I can say is after experiencing what I believe to be the Holy Spirit, immediately the whole NT took on a new meaning, and made much more sense to me.

I have no doubt about that. But note that your subjective interpretation of a given situation (feeling what you believe to be a holy spirit) must come before the scriptures making sense to you. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense.

Of course, only God can change that point of view for you.

But if he's make-believe then no such thing can ever happen. What can happen is one subjectively convincing themselves, through interpretation, that such a god exists and has direct communication with them. In any other circumstance, that would be considered insanity, but throw the word "god" into it and for some reason that's supposed to make a difference?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:51 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:29 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 236 of 271 (577220)
08-27-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Just being real
08-26-2010 11:26 PM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Therefore the existence of the finite, logically requires...no demands...the existence of the infinite.

This is not true...

You as a human being are finite, which means you had a beginning, your birth. But that which made you is also finite, and they had a beginning as well.

At no point in the human experience do you require that something which is finite in nature needs something infinite to create it. Where you find that is in religion, the basis, I assume, for any notion of infinite celestial beings.

Question is, are you finite? As a human, you are, but when you die and decompose you take on another form. Your atoms live on to do something else.

Likewise, is the universe finite in the sense that it ends, period? Or, like you, does the universe take on another form that is not it's current form?

Currently, theoretical physicist agree on the latter. And by what other method of investigation do you arrive at another answer, if not by only applying religious faith?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 11:26 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM onifre has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 251 of 271 (577791)
08-30-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Just being real
08-28-2010 7:06 AM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Hi Oni,
I'm glad you joined the discussion.

Thanks

don't you think tracing everything back to its logical origins will eventually lead you into some very big problems if you try to stick with purely finite causes?

Personally I think applying human logic to the orgin of our universe is fallacious. It will inevitably lead to wrong answers, as it has in the past with notions of a geocentric universe and a flat earth. So I'm of the school that the evidence leads to the right answer. Currently in this field of stdy, no such answer has come about that is unanimously agreed upon - who knows if one ever will. But science and physicist will find one, given that one is available.

So for all practical purposes, me and my atoms are very finite.

What do you mean by practical? Would it shock you to know that the very atoms that make up your body have been around for possibly billions of years?

Therefore logically we have to conclude that because anything finite exists, something infinite must exist that was the original first cause of the finite.

Maybe, but even that vague statement of finite and infinites doesn't support a conscious celestial entity. To conclude god is this infinite thing you're refering to, you must have a belief in some kind of religion where you can apply their/your concpet of god to the question.

I'm confident that many if not all religions could do this. By creating the notion of infinite, and saying that this causes finite things to exist, you have easily found a gap for your god to fill.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Just being real, posted 08-28-2010 7:06 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020