teroko

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

It would accomplish just as much.

Well, if you think so, I vote for you to do that.

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Prayer ?
Or maybe human sacrifice...

What about just to imagine which would be God's trouble and point out a solution? Just by hand in a sheet of paper may be enough...

1 hour ago, ArandomTheorist said:

Assuming there is a god, there are 3 things that you must figure out first: 
1. does the god know of your existence
2. is it a caring god?
3. can the god even interact in our dimension 

then you have to ask the question of how we can help god (this is assuming that god knows the conscience of all humans, and that he is not a all knowing god) 
well right now you would want everyone to focus learning and experimenting with a thing you want done (ex: ending disease) so that god can use this combined knowledge and try experimenting solutions. (kind of like a leader of a hive mind)

Finally, you have to gain his interest so that he can intervene.

But a much easier (and probably faster) way would be for humankind to find the solution themselves, because the way mentioned above would require 1-3 be true. 

Seems you took some time thinking on the subject so I will point out a possibility you are not considering at all.

What about if all life's problems are related to the particular values of the Physics' parameters of the Universe? They at the end determine the entire Nature and lifeform isn't it? Assume God planned some ideal values for them for an ideal life be possible but, for some imprevisible reason, the current real running values are different from those ideal ones. Then, God's intervention would be needed to fix them. Only God could alter the Physics' parameters. No way humans could do that isn't it? Then another question arises: why didn't God already did that? And even long time ago. Here is where the proposition that God is in big troubles come into place and we, as intelligent humans naturally ask ourselves: isn't there something we could do about? Could we give a help someway? At the end we are seriously affected and need the things to be solved, isn't it?

Got it?

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

You cannot have a discussion when one side uses, and expects, observational evidence, while the other presents, and expects you to believe, their opinions based on subjective faith. This IS a Science site which uses and expects evidence !
I guarantee this thread will go on for a multitude of pages, without accomplishing anything, nor changing anyone's mind.
I vote for closure.

Yeah, and just sit down to watch a cowboys film, that would be much better isn't it?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

This sort of idiotic, ignorant and false claim is off topic. If you seriously want to claim that virtual particles (ie. quantised fields) do not exist then start a thread in Speculations. If you want to actually learn something (seems unlikely) then ask questions in one of the physics areas.

1 hour ago, koti said:

Instead of asserting childish nonsense like the above, why don’t you try asking questions? 

Ok. I apologize to have posted my "Logical proof of a Creator God" which, at the end, is based in my background as an Electrical Engineer. I have the classical concept of instantaneous "action at a distance" forces in mind while there exist some big "Fields Perturbation" theory in Quantum Physics, isn't it? This would bring a too big off topic discussion, I agree.

It was just an attempt to present an "objective evidence" for the existency of God as asked by strange. 

Better to discuss about that otherwhere and other time. Not here now.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

And yet, the model makes predictions which precisely match the real world. 

So it doesn’t matter if you don’t believe, the model still works. 

Unlike your “proof” which only works if you believe. 

In an electric motor, for instance, no "virtual particles" are seen. That model actually doesn't work with practical things like an electric motor.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think physicists would disagree. 

You think. I will wait for them to analise that properly.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is nothing to refute. 

We cannot discuss then.

16 minutes ago, koti said:

Why do you bother posting in the first place? In case you havent noticed this is a science forum and if you assert something youre expected to back it up with reasoning - even in the religion section.

Come on, someone asking the definition of "intelligence"... I replied to look at the dictionary and he just didn't like it? What would you expect?

16 minutes ago, koti said:

There is zero reasoning or proof in your above text. Youre basically explaining God to us like a frustrated parent explains things to a toddler:
Kid - Mom, but why do I have to do it ?!
Mom - Because I said so.

Thats not how reasoning works.

Impossible to discuss rationally this kind of argumentation.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, they are mediated by fields and virtual particles. 

There`s no demonstration of the existence of "virtual particles". I think that actually they don't exist.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is (1) a non-sequitur and (2) a statement of belief. It is not connected in any way to the previous statement (which was wrong anyway) and has no evidence supporting it.

There´s no other way to explain the existence of "action at a distance" forces.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. Don’t believe that. 

Wasn't that personal beliefs doesn't matter here?

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, it just proves that those who believe in gods will tie themselves in knots trying to justify their belief. 

This is not a rational refutation of the conclusion on  the existence of a "God".

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Show me

I don't want to.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Then define intelligence 

You can find that in the dictionary.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

No such thing

Only if you have objective evidence of gods

Let discuss the following reasoning of mine then:

LOGICAL PROOF OF A CREATOR GOD

Elementary particles exist in the Universe with laws of their interaction and behavior.

The possible interactions are like attractions and repulsions and are determined by the concept of forces.

All are “action at a distance” forces. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles.

This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”.

The proof of the existence of a creator God follows quite obviously:

Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have defined the elementary particles and programmed the Physics Laws with their particular constants' values that unavoidably run over the particles.

That intelligence must also have determined the way for the particles to appear in the Universe.

That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "Universe's God".

Of course the questions on how a "Universal Supra-computer" and the "Universe's God" could come into existency arises but that is another story.

The reasoning here proves the existence of a creator God not how came into existency.

Is also not presented here any other possible capability of the Universe's God particularly in which way he could observe and intervent in his creation.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

No such thing

Stated at Wikipedia: "Deism... ... ... is the philosophical position that rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to establish the existence of a Supreme Being or creator of the universe".

Deism assertions:

"Construcctive assertions":

God exists and created the universe.

God gave humans the ability to reason.

"Critical assertions":

Rejection of all books, including the Bible, that are claimed to contain divine revelation.

Rejection of the incomprehensible notion of the Trinity and other religious "mysteries".

Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies, etc.

3 minutes ago, koti said:

One thing for sure, this part of the forum is the only place to post about God.

That's what I thought at the first time...

I'm wondering now if I have posted the thread in the right place. This is the "Religion" forum and actually I'm talking about a non religious God. A God more related to Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). May the administrators would like to move the thread to the "Speculation" forum for instance, i don't know...

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

But there is no rationality. Just belief. So there is nothing much to discuss.

Person A: "I believe in gods"

Person B: "I don't"

Person A: "Oh.

Person B: "..."

End of discussion.

I don't think so. There's also a logical and rational approach to God. You can find it in Deism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, now I've lost interest; other than why you care???

Why you lost interest? What would you be interested in?

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can you rationally define god in a way that achieves consensus? Isn't god little more than an ambiguously defined 3-letter word that means different things to different people? If so, it's anything but rational.

What I consider by God is a "Superior Intelligence" capable and responsible of creating the Universe. Is the Creator God. 

10 minutes ago, koti said:

I agree. Notice that beliefs are never proven wrong, not a single case where a religion or belief has been proven wrong. Do you see the difference now?

Yes, I see the difference. By the way, I'm not talking about any religious God. Much more related to the Creator God in Deism. ...

Just now, dimreepr said:

Yeah, we discuss it scientifically... 😉

Ok, but there's no empirical evidence on God... We appply rationalism. Is a matter of the logical analisis of propositions, right? 

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There are many better sites for this. We're a science discussion forum. If your ideas can't be tethered to the natural world somehow, you're wasting our time. Six pages worth. Goodbye.

But this is the "Religion" forum. To talk about God... And I think new ideas to be taken into consideration is something good even for scientists... How Science could progress if not? Am I wrong?

Just now, dimreepr said:

Does that worry you?

No.

Just now, Phi for All said:

In other words, you guessed based only on things you think you know. Of course it's going to make perfect sense to you, because you made it up. Science isn't always intuitive. You actually have to study things you don't know, to add to your pool of knowledge. Guessing what makes sense is a very limited, primitive, and ignorant way to expand your knowledge.

Is not my aim to present a theory scientifically here now. My aim is just to present here some ideas to be taken into consideration. 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Don't imagine that everybody will agree...

Of course!

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You and EVERYBODY? That's a false statement. It makes no sense to me at all.

Btw, if you'd like to do science, you shouldn't use "makes sense to me" as any kind of criteria. It's notoriously the most untrustworthy guideline there is, mainly because it's so subjective to individuals. 

Sorry, badly spelled...

I meant that I present things that makes sense to me for everybody to take a look...

3 minutes ago, koti said:

I noticed you are conflating theory with belief, there is a significant difference between a scientific theory and religious belief. 
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results"

whereas religious belief stems purely from imagination.

But take into account there are theories in Science not proven yet (Dark Matter, Chords Theory,...) and along the history of Science there have been wrong theories too...

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Stop worrying about shit you have no control of...

I know: "Don't worry... Be happy..." 

Sorry, is not my way...

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Explain the choice...

People who worried in Germany, ultimately, were the other's.

Nelson did nothing... 

I don't understand your point... What you mean?

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The solution to gods problems and I think the truth, is to stop worrying about it; "have the magic man, don't have the magic man; I don't give a fuck".

My point is, the more we worry about what, is and, might be, the more likely we are to cause it. 

So, if god's got a problem (shrug) what can we do? 

I disagree. I think we should always look for the truth the way we could. But those who want to do nothing, fine, just wait for te results of otherones. 

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

How is it a problem? Focus on the things you CAN know about, and ignore the rest until better evidence shows up.

I'm a Humanist. I focus on the natural world, and don't deny that there could be more advanced life forms out there. But there's no evidence yet, and as you say, we CAN'T know, so I spend my thoughts more meaningfully.

Fine for you then. That's your decision. To do nothing, just stay with what has been developed...

My decision was different. Was to look for the truth in some things. And I think I found interesting things although cannot be demonstrated scientifically. At least yet. As I said, I'm presenting some things that make sense to me to everybody. May be they could make sense for other ones too.