Jump to content

God in troubles...


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, 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.

Yes knowledge and belief are different. But What proof do we have, for that God does not exist? If we can't, can't we believe it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh you Frenchies… Don't get me wrong, I love the language. As the Merovingian says, in Matrix Reloaded, "Its like wiping your a*s with silk." But you have one revolution, in the very late 1700s,

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

I don't want to.

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes knowledge and belief are different. But What proof do we have, for that God does not exist? If we can't, can't we believe it?

You can believe any stupid thing you want. That doesn't mean anyone else should take that belief seriously.

Can you prove there isn't a teapot orbiting on the other side of Neptune out of our view? Would it be a smart decision to believe there is just because you can't?

The null hypothesis is a concept most theists need to better understand. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, we should also not be so open minded that our brains fall out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

Right, so I fail to give a shit...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, teroko said:

there's no empirical evidence on God... We appply rationalism

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, teroko said:

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...

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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?

Do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ...

Edited by teroko
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, teroko said:

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Edited by teroko
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Edited by teroko
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes knowledge and belief are different.

I don't see it this way. To me, it's all belief. When presented with ANY knowledge, it's up to the individual to determine (in their most effective manner) whether it's believable or not. Some knowledge requires faith (just believe it in spite of no evidence), some requires hope, but the best knowledge is based on trust. When using the scientific method to determine the best explanation for various phenomena, the knowledge I gain from that is far more trustworthy than knowledge I believe based on faith or hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Edited by teroko
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, teroko said:

But the truth exists and is unique.

 

2 hours ago, teroko said:

I think we should always look for the truth the way we could. But those who want to do nothing,

 

Unfortunately 'the truth' is another of those slippery concepts, like 'God'.

It has a variable meaning depending upon circumstances, both in the originator and the observer.

One big problem with religion is that it surrounds itself with a complex network of such concepts.

ScienceForums is currently debating at least two other subjects involving the  much more restricted meaning of scientific and mathematical truth.

 

2 hours ago, teroko said:

The fact we could not know it is another problem.

 

This I agree with it can also be a very big problem

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, teroko said:

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 be administrators would like to move the thread to the "Speculation" forum for instance, i don't know...

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, teroko said:

I'm talking about a non religious God.

No such thing

49 minutes ago, teroko said:

May the administrators would like to move the thread to the "Speculation" forum for instance, i don't know...

Only if you have objective evidence of gods

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Edited by teroko
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, teroko said:

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".

 

But only people who already believe in gods think that is the case. 

10 minutes ago, teroko said:

Deism assertions:

"Construcctive assertions":

God exists and created the universe.

God gave humans the ability to reason.

Those are not rational or empirical arguments. Just statements of belief. Just as baseless as if they came from someone else (ie revelation).

It sounds like rather smug way of claiming that you made up your beliefs instead of reading them in a book. 

13 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

That is rejected by people who believe in different gods, anyway. And some Christians. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.