Existence of God

[MySpaceBarBroke]

He hasn't done anything so far to me, and neither turtles it seems.

I'm waiting for my miracle too.

 

[Elenai]

How can you be absolutely sure he hasnt done anything for you. You've probably had many miracles. And just not have noticed it.

Hes done quite alot for me.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Teh_Ephy: Alot of those are not vague at all. They are quite plain and simple. And being supported by pillars....is suspended by pillars. Not by nothing. And you are leaving out one very important verse. The one with the valleys of the sea.

About the sea valleys, my bad. About the pillars thing, it's close enough to being suspended in nothing, or the pillars could be what was used to suspend the earth in nothing. About the ocean currents thing being vague, if I took a walk through the woods, I would take a path through them, but that doesn't make that path anything special, nor does it mean that there are special paths through the forest, whether or not there actually are.

You haven't addressed the fact that many of those quotes apply to both archaic and contemporary common knowledge. They were statements that applied to then-current common knowledge. Just because some parts of common knowledge doesn't change doesn't instantly mean that recorded statements about them are prophetic.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

How can you be absolutely sure he hasnt done anything for you. You've probably had many miracles. And just not have noticed it.

Hes done quite alot for me.

I've not noticed it because everything could have been answered with a perfectly logical scientific explanation, and even if it couldn't, it would just be more science waiting to be discovered. It's like saying "you have to be gullible to accept certain things as truth"

 

[donut3.5]

Well, you could say God keeping you alive daily is a miracle.
On the other side, you could say science and logic has created all of what we think to be miracles.
The reason why this debate is sort of pointless is that both sides are extremely unprovable, as there can never be enough proof to prove or disprove one side or the other.
--donut3.5--

 

[Elenai]

Teh-Ephy: These versus are not prophetic. They are versus that show the workings of our planet that science has discovered, but the bible also had before modern scientists were even born.

Even still just because those versus could apply to both archaic knowledge and modern knowledge does'nt mean they are false. Science and mathmatics have concepts that apply to both. Does that make them automatically false?

Can a person with lung cancer wrapped around both lungs, plus pnuemonia wake up the next day after the diagnosis (the diagnosis being, make your arrangements) and her lungs be entirely clean of the cancer and the pnuemonia, ALL during the Christmas season might I add?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The problem with miracles is that they can always be dismissed as placebo effect, mass hysteria, a low-chance event that happened to occur (dumb luck), things like that. You either accept them as miracles or you don't.

These versus are not prophetic. They are versus that show the workings of our planet that science has discovered, but the bible also had before modern scientists were even born.

Okay, so prophetic was a bad word. Regardless, as I just said, it could be attributed to dumb luck.

Even still just because those versus could apply to both archaic knowledge and modern knowledge does'nt mean they are false. Science and mathmatics have concepts that apply to both. Does that make them automatically false?

Those quotes leave plenty of room for interpretation, and my interpretation is that they may have been formed with archaic knowledge. Science has been reformed and proven with contemporary knowledge time and again.

Btw, I'm not telling you you're absolutely wrong, I'm telling you that you're not necessarily right.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

But still, with the reasonable amount of things we've disproven about christianity, like the earth being flat, and the fact now we have loads of answers to things that were thought miracles, I'm more tempted to believe in rational facts and proven reality than some far-fetched miracles and near fantasy beliefs.

 

[Elenai]

May I ask when did the Bible say that the earth was flat?

May I ask how and when did science clean this woman's lungs of a deadly cancer?

When did science prove that it was unfallible?

When did science prove that miracles (which I and many others have experienced) did not exist?

(I am also not saying that you are absolutely wrong either. I just think that we shouldnt throw God out of the equation)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

May I ask when did the Bible say that the earth was flat?

A circle doesn't imply a sphere, and it fit with the archaic belief that the earth was a flat disc. The bible didn't say with it, but it doesn't prove either one.

May I ask how and when did science clean this woman's lungs of a deadly cancer?

Infections may rid the body of certain types of cancer. If you say it was God though, I'll take your word for it. Even if S/He/they doesn't/don't exist, if you believe that you're going to get past some disease strongly enough (with God's help, or whatever), chances are you will. It's called the placebo effect, but it's still something rewarding you for believing in God.

When did science prove that it was unfallible?

Prove that what was infallible?

When did science prove that miracles (which I and many others have experienced) did not exist?

I'm saying that miracles can be attributed to ordinary things, whether or not they are miracles.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Well, you could say God keeping you alive daily is a miracle.
On the other side, you could say science and logic has created all of what we think to be miracles.
The reason why this debate is sort of pointless is that both sides are extremely unprovable, as there can never be enough proof to prove or disprove one side or the other.
--donut3.5--

w00t! agnosticism wins!

 

[Elenai]

Ahhh...I meant to say, When did science prove that science was infallible?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

It hasn't (and has actually proven itself to be very fallible if implemented poorly), but God has the same problem. It's as impossible to prove that God exists as it is to prove that God doesn't. Because God exists (or doesn't?) on a plane that humans are not privy to, we have no way of proving anything about God. It would be like explaining colours to a blind man, or sound to a deaf man. You could convey the technical definitions, but no experience or true knowledge.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Ahhh...I meant to say, When did science prove that science was infallible?

Never. Logic dictates that nothing is infallible but my existence.

 

[Elenai]

It would be like explaining colours to a blind man, or sound to a deaf man. You could convey the technical definitions, but no experience or true knowledge.

Ironic...thats how we explain the feeling salvation gives us.......

(Sorry for going a little off topic, I just wanted to point that out.)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Ironic...thats how we explain the feeling salvation gives us.......

(Sorry for going a little off topic, I just wanted to point that out.)

Yeah. You can dismiss it as hysteria or placebo effect if it's never happened to you, but if it has it's undeniable, whether or not you acknowledge that it could be either. I personally think it's stupid to debate the existence of God, because once humans can actually stop being such zealots about religion (lol, probably never), religion (actual religion, not cults pretending to be religions, or cults identifying themselves with actual religions, or extremists dragging their "religion" down for being such fanatical nutjobs, etc...) will [HIGHLIGHT]absolutely[/code] be a positive thing in the world. No ifs, ands or buts, even if that will be a ways off in the future.

 

[Elenai]

Religion itself is not bad. Its a very good thing in the world. Like science. Science and religion are good things in the right hands. But there are those who like to take both things and use them for evil purposes.

 

[donut3.5]

Religion is good for self-belief, not forced belief.
I think as long as you don't impose and force someone to believe someone to believe in what you do, it's perfectly fine.
--donut3.5--

 

[Elenai]

True again Donut.

It is not the purpose of Christianity (or most other religions) to impose our belief or force them into submission.

We (true believers) only wish tell others about what God has done and can do for us and others. Because if a person is forced to believe, they wont believe and they wont recieve salvation.

Unfortunately there are extreme wierdo insane ones who force others with a "believe or be put to the sword" in just about every major religion. (note this is a physical, "believe or I will kill you thing." Not the warnings we give about Hell)

 

[GST_Nemisis]

GST: The gods of Egypt never gave me salvation, nor have they ever answerd my prayers as God has.

they have for me, Path has given me the blessing of great stores of food and wine, Seth has allowed me to smite my enemies! you should try it sometime it really works. im sure you have the same experiences with your God, i guess both our Gods must exist.

 

[Elenai]

Believe what you will.

But my God kicked your gods butts during the Exodus

(that was'nt meant to be a mean statement)

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

A case of "Holier than Thou", huh?

 

[Elenai]

No, I was just teasing.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I think that was a LITTLE obvious. Don't you think?

 

[Turtles]

"My God is bigger than your God"

 

[Elenai]

Gasp!!!!! Omg

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

"I have mroe gods than you! It's 15 on one! He doesn't stand a chance!"

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

"Yeah, well my god's a cow!"

 

[Hakeem]

Teh_Ephy, I disagree. Even though god is beyond out universe, we can still use logic.

Pinch yourself.
Don't just sit there, actually do it!
Now lets examine what happened:
Nerve endings reacted > sent signals to the brain > brain decided that pain was felt > depending on who you are, the brain reacted by sending a signal to release the pinch.
That all fine and dandy, but more than the chemical reactions, something experienced it. You will argue that science has just not found the answer yet, but we experience what is going on. There is no reason that these chemical reactions should make anything actually experience anything. Logically, we should only react to our senses, obviously, that is not the case (for me anyway, but I think the rest of you experience something too).

I'd say that's what the soul is. The thing that experiences the pain, sight, taste, and the rest of your senses. It's just a chemical reaction, science has nothing more to understand than the reactions. Logically, I'd say our souls are beyond this universe.

Can you accept logic as proof or do you think science is the only way to prove anything?
Or can you find any holes in my logic?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I accept my own experience as proof, and that may or may not include logic and science provided by others. Now, there is one thing that I have against your argument; the pain is not necessarily an experience, but rather an acknowledgment that the body is potentially being injured.

I do accept that there is no (known) reason (and not likely to be one for some time) that a series of chemical reactions, however complex, results in experience.

About the previous spam: Oh yeah? My divine being isn't even a God! Suck that!

 

[Elenai]

It is kind of odd...A biological machine, yet we are alive. and sentient. Much more than a mere computer made of flesh.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

It is kind of odd...A biological machine, yet we are alive. and sentient. Much more than a mere computer made of flesh.

I'm tired of all these "what are we?" arguments. We don't know what we are. Even if the brain's functions don't explain it, that's disproving brains, not proving souls. Failing to explain something should not result to believing whatever explains it. They call those myths. Since the Renaissance, we've known better. We created the scientific method, utilizing creating a hypothesis from known facts and testing them to a sufficient amount of which we can create a theory.

 

[Elenai]

....I just made a statement of wonder. I was'nt using it as part of an arguement.

 

[Hakeem]

I submit unto you that our brains are nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, what's more to understand?
And if you cannot find, and will never find, any evidence to support that our brains cause experience, then what would it be? If experience is, in fact, beyond this universe, then why not call it a soul?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I submit unto you that our brains are nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, what's more to understand?
And if you cannot find, and will never find, any evidence to support that our brains cause experience, then what would it be? If experience is, in fact, beyond this universe, then why not call it a soul?

You immediately begin to guess that it is beyond our universe, not something that might have no mass, or an entity of which is composed of an undetectable material of which we have not discovered yet. Please, Mr. Freethinker, don't think your ideas are composed of umbrella terms.

 

[Hakeem]

I think we've discovered just about all materials and energy there is in this universe.
And why would evolution evolve something that experiences?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I think we've discovered just about all materials and energy there is in this universe.

Key word: Think. How many times did people "think" they knew everything? People thought Greek mythology was reality. People thought the earth was flat. People thought many things. But people discover things that entirely change their perspective of reality. There are no longer 4 elements, but 118 and counting. Fire is now known as a chemical reaction between fuels and oxygen. What was once operated manually is now powered by electricity. You haven't discovered everything yet. You probably never will.

And why would evolution evolve something that experiences?

... what?

 

[Redeemer59]

I think we've discovered just about all materials and energy there is in this universe.

By the time the steam engine was invented, people thought everything that was going to be invented had already been invented.

EDIT: In case it isn't obvious, they were wrong.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

By the time the steam engine was invented, people thought everything that was going to be invented had already been invented.

EDIT: In case it isn't obvious, they were wrong.

O RLY? Damn, my steam powered laptop must seriously be out of date... how many gears does your hard drive have?

 

[Hakeem]

And at those times they were close to understanding the universe?
Times have changed, we've proved (pretty conclusively) that atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.

And even if you understand how everything works, you can still invent new things.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

And at those times they were close to understanding the universe?
Times have changed, we've proved (pretty conclusively) that atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.

And even if you understand how everything works, you can still invent new things.

The first reference to atoms started in 6th century BC India. Everyone since the beginning of time thought they were at the pinnacle of knowledge. They weren't, and we aren't. Stop thinking we are exclusive and start walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

we've proved (pretty conclusively) that atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.

Currently, scientists are working on proving what makes up protons, neutrons and electrons. Well, working on discovering the properties of quarks, at any rate.

 

[Hakeem]

We are far from the pinnacle. Even so, we've come farther than ever before. For example: has there ever been anything even close to the computers that we are using right now?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

We are far from the pinnacle. Even so, we've come farther than ever before. For example: has there ever been anything even close to the computers that we are using right now?

"Farther than ever before"? No, really? "We haven't finished making the train track, but we've gone farther than ever before. In the past, we had nothing. Now we have a chunk of metal!" Technological advancement doesn't go backwards. We go "farther than ever before" every second.

 

[Hakeem]

Building trains sure helped to greatly understand physics, didn't it?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Building trains sure helped to greatly understand physics, didn't it?

Taking metaphors to a literal sense sure gets you places, doesn't it? Funny how you fought for the opposite in the "Wolf or Dog" thread. It seems all you use to contend is 8th grade physics.

 

[Hakeem]

Your metaphor was unrelated.
My real point remains: We have computers. That's significant.
Computers help us about 1000 more than any other device has.

 

[Redeemer59]

Actually, we can only take out of a computer what we put into one.

So, it's not like a crop. You put something little in and take a bigger thing out. Everything has to be preprogrammed or already existing for a computer to do it.

As in, a computer by itself will never be more intelligent or innovative than a human.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Your metaphor was unrelated.
My real point remains: We have computers. That's significant.
Computers help us about 1000 more than any other device has.

I'm sure some smartass said the same thing about language. Or gunpowder. Or the wheel. Or many other clever creations. Here's an idea. Why don't you SHOW me the direct measurement of innovation you seem to be using?

 

[Hakeem]

Actually, we can only take out of a computer what we put into one.

So, it's not like a crop. You put something little in and take a bigger thing out. Everything has to be preprogrammed or already existing for a computer to do it.

As in, a computer by itself will never be more intelligent or innovative than a human.

No, but what we can do with computers is very helpful.


Think about what you're doing right now: talking to someone from any part of the planet.
Computers can spread data faster than ever before. We can use them to calculate many things that would before have taken too long to calculate.

And language is very useful too. But it's not a device.