Jump to content

God in troubles...


Recommended Posts

  • 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, teroko said:

All are “action at a distance” forces.

No, they are mediated by fields and virtual particles. 

4 minutes ago, teroko said:

This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles.

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. 

6 minutes ago, teroko said:

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.

Nope. Don’t believe that. 

6 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

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

Your argument will only seem plausible to someone who already believes in the same gods you do. 

8 minutes ago, teroko said:

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.

Because there is no evidence for that

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

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.

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 and youre expected to do better.

6 minutes ago, teroko said:

I don't want to.

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.

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

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

There`s no demonstration of the existence of "virtual particles". I don't believe in them.

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. 

15 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

I think physicists would disagree. 

15 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

I am just pointing out that your “rational prof” is just a series of things unconnected things that you believe.

No rationality and no proof.

After all, if it were a rational proof then I would be convinced. And I am not. 

17 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

It wasn’t intended to be. 

There is nothing to refute. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

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

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.

43 minutes ago, teroko said:

We cannot discuss then.

That's what I said.

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

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

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

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

I'm wondering now if I have posted the thread in the right place.

We're 8 pages in , and this discussion is starting to look like the Bugs Bunny cartoon...
"It's rabbit season", "No, it's duck season", "Yes it is", "No it isn't", "Yes it is" ...

There is nothing scientific about this discussion; religious or otherwise.
And we ARE a Science forum...

Maybe Teroko should be posting on a Religion forum.
But certainly not here.
Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is nothing scientific about this discussion; religious or otherwise.
And we ARE a Science forum...

Are there scientific publications related to God? No.

So why to have create a religious section forum if there is no science?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had many 'scientific' discussions in our Religion Forum.
One that I found particularly interesting was concerning whether Jesus was a real person, or a fictional character.
We can also discuss the psychology/ morals of believers and non-believers, or even other Religions.

So I don't have a problem with 'scientific' discussions concerning Religion.
But 'belief' itself is not amenable to scientific discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MigL said:

We have had many 'scientific' discussions in our Religion Forum.

Can you give me a link or a scientific passage concerning your sayings?

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

One that I found particularly interesting was concerning whether Jesus was a real person, or a fictional character.

Jesus is anything, except God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Why understand these three things first. God does not communicate with us.

Only prophets can.

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

Can you restate that? I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

You are talking about a men who is not a God. Whether he really lived or not.

But Jesus is a great prophet.

45 minutes ago, ArandomTheorist said:

1. does the god know of your existence

In the event that your definition of a God is that of one creator, necessarily he is aware of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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

isn't there something we could do about? Could we give a help someway?

Prayer ?
Or maybe human sacrifice...

7 minutes ago, teroko said:

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

It would accomplish just as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Edited by teroko
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.