This should probably be in the physics section but.......

[Tnerb]

There is a physical basis to the existence of God.


Refute:
Discuss:


;)

[Gustav]

/slaps

get a grip, man!

[Gustav]

ha

MODERATOR!! MOVE TO PHYSICS & MATH!!!!

/rotfl

[spidergoat]

If only there were. Unfortunately for believers, no physical necessity for a God exists.

[draqon]

the reason why God is being discussed hereforth is because this basis is lacking

[lightgigantic]

There is a physical basis to the existence of God.


Refute:
Discuss:


;)
well suppose we were discussing whether there is a physical basis to the existence of electrons

How do you suppose such a discussion would progress?

[spidergoat]

One could consider a stream of electrons and see what effect they have on other objects. They are quite obviously physical.

[lightgigantic]

One could consider a stream of electrons and see what effect they have on other objects. They are quite obviously physical.
so I guess there are a few technical issues of qualification of persons whoa re observing the "physical" nature, since most people don't have much experience of a stream of electrons, much less what effect they have on other objects

[spidergoat]

Yes they do if they have ever seen a cathode ray tube. The theory that there are electrons is proven a useful model due to the fact that we can use that theory to make a TV.

[lightgigantic]

Yes they do if they have ever seen a cathode ray tube. The theory that there are electrons is proven a useful model due to the fact that we can use that theory to make a TV.
you seriously think there is absolutely no distinction between watching TV and verifying the physical existence of electrons?

[Pete]

How do you think the picture appears on the screen? Magic?

[spidergoat]

If you accept the definition of electrons, then no, there is no difference. Even if you call it by some other name, something in the physical realm is happening there. It would be slightly more complex to demontrate that it was a particle, that it was negatively charged, that it was very lightweight compared to an atom...

[lightgigantic]

How do you think the picture appears on the screen? Magic?
why its just the random nature of reality.
If I happen to see a picture on a screen it is just chance.
:D

[lightgigantic]

If you accept the definition of electrons, then no, there is no difference.
If you don't have direct perception, what are you accepting on?
faith?

Even if you call it by some other name, something in the physical realm is happening there. It would be slightly more complex to demontrate that it was a particle, that it was negatively charged, that it was very lightweight compared to an atom...
hence there is more to verifying a claim than simply talking about it .... what remains is the issue of practical application

[Pete]

why its just the random nature of reality.
If I happen to see a picture on a screen it is just chance.
:D
I guess you're trying to draw some parallel with rebuttals of the arugment from design.

I know you don't really think that the picture on the TV appears by chance. Obviously, there is something causing it.

What?

[spidergoat]

If you don't have direct perception, what are you accepting on?
faith?
We can see some effect in a cathode ray tube. Wether we call it electrons or some other name, there is something to be seen there. By a series of experiments, the definition of the electron emerges. Wether or not this represents ultimate reality is unknown, (more details have emerged since it's discovery) but it's physicality is easily demonstrated, the TV being the most obvious example.

hence there is more to verifying a claim than simply talking about it .... what remains is the issue of practical application
If I may suggest, one should not accept that there is something called an electron with defined properties until you perform or see performed the experiments that defined it's properties. To say an electron exists doesn't really say anything about the ultimate reality of that concept. It only means that the model of an electron fits what we observe.

[lightgigantic]

I guess you're trying to draw some parallel with rebuttals of the arugment from design.

I know you don't really think that the picture on the TV appears by chance. Obviously, there is something causing it.

What?
You're right - while it could be amusing to continue on with the charade I don't really have the stamina at the moment
:D

But still it remains there is a huge distinction between merely watching a television and ascertaining the nature of electrons - if it wasn't the case, there would be no need to study advanced physics just to explain what is going on. To anyone else who violates such a prerequisite it might as well as be "magic".

[lightgigantic]

We can see some effect in a cathode ray tube. Wether we call it electrons or some other name, there is something to be seen there. By a series of experiments, the definition of the electron emerges. Wether or not this represents ultimate reality is unknown, (more details have emerged since it's discovery) but it's physicality is easily demonstrated, the TV being the most obvious example.
Once again, there is more to demonstrating an electron than watching TV - whether you call it an electron or something else doesn't really matter, since any lay person watching a tv doesn't see any electrons (even though the technical aspects of the tv may require such knowledge)


If I may suggest, one should not accept that there is something called an electron with defined properties until you perform or see performed the experiments that defined it's properties. To say an electron exists doesn't really say anything about the ultimate reality of that concept. It only means that the model of an electron fits what we observe.
and since a lay person doesn't see anything with the defined properties of an electron, it doesn't appear to be a model that fits with their observations

[Pete]

But still it remains there is a huge distinction between merely watching a television and ascertaining the nature of electrons
Certainly. But you only need to observe a TV working to know that there is "something" in the technology that exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour. A little logic and a little knowledge of cathode ray tubes and their history (the sort you can get from reading Wikipedia) is enough to ascertain that the "something" is electrons - tiny things with specific charge and mass.

Can you say the same about God?

[lightgigantic]

Certainly. But you only need to observe a TV working to know that there is "something" in the technology that exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour. A little logic and a little knowledge of cathode ray tubes and their history (the sort you can get from reading Wikipedia) is enough to ascertain that the "something" is electrons - tiny things with specific charge and mass.

Can you say the same about God?
sure, but the common retort from the atheist crowd is that one is simply spouting from a book.

IOW if I hold wiki in contempt (and remain blissfully recalcitrant to the suggestion of taking a serious interest in practical physics), I can say that your spiel about electrons is simply a "god of the gaps" - you are talking about a "something" and are just calling it an electron due to your faith based belief system, etc etc.

In short, if I insist on verification and stubbornly refuse to approach the practices that verification requires, I will remain a difficult customer to please.
:o

[Pete]

IOW if I hold wiki in contempt (and remain blissfully recalcitrant to the suggestion of taking a serious interest in practical physics)
Do you think that would be a reasonable attitude, or willful ignorance?

I'm guessing that you maintain that all atheists "refuse to approach the practices that verification requires" as far as God is concerned?

What are the practices that the verification of God requires?

[lightgigantic]

Do you think that would be a reasonable attitude, or willful ignorance?
ignorance of course

I'm guessing that you maintain that all atheists "refuse to approach the practices that verification requires" as far as God is concerned?
certainly

What are the practices that the verification of God requires?
the first step would be treating persons who advocate a practice with respect. For instance if I think that anyone who has anything to say about the existence of electrons is simply a deluded fool, I won't make much progress in physics

[greenberg]

In short, if I insist on verification and stubbornly refuse to approach the practices that verification requires, I will remain a difficult customer to please.

Engaging in those practices requires more than just overcoming one's pride, though.

There are the fears that one will be let down, that one will be made a fool of, that one will become more lonely than one can bear, that one will become insane.

What do you suggest that an atheist do about these fears?

[lightgigantic]

Engaging in those practices requires more than just overcoming one's pride, though.

There are the fears that one will be let down, that one will be made a fool of, that one will become more lonely than one can bear, that one will become insane.

What do you suggest that an atheist do about these fears?
I think a lot of these fears can be addressed by good association (or perhaps a preamble to that would be to first know what good association is) - In otherwords if you can see the practical example of someone who is not these things, one can develop the proper determination

BG 3.21 Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

[Pete]

the first step would be treating persons who advocate a practice with respect. For instance if I think that anyone who has anything to say about the existence of electrons is simply a deluded fool, I won't make much progress in physics

Of course. Go on...

[lightgigantic]

Of course. Go on...
If you examine the general tradition of persons who are the central teachers of any religious tradition you see that they all tend to have two essential elements to their recommendations

the do's - usually involves coming into contact with the positive aspect of god's nature/transcendence - like chanting the name of god for instance, eating sanctified food stuffs, etc

the do not's - usually involves not cultivating (or if thats not possible, at least regulating) things like lust, wrath, envy etc

Generally they indicate that by adopting these processes one becomes purified, and in that purified state, the nature of god becomes apparent

[Pete]

I don't see how that leads to demonstrating that "something" exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour?
From experience, I suggest that it leads to demonstrating that "something" exists with a psychological basis with somewhat predictable behavior, and that the "something" is to do with the nature of the human mind rather than external factors.

How would you suggest using these practices to investigate the properties of God, and can you be sure that such investigations are objective and reliable?

What would you say to someone who, after spending years engaged in those activities, finds them to be mostly dissatisfying meaningless rituals, with occasional gems of useful social values?

[lightgigantic]

I don't see how that leads to demonstrating that "something" exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour?
if you don't take the practice up, it wouldn't be expected that you could see what it entails


From experience, I suggest that it leads to demonstrating that "something" exists with a psychological basis with somewhat predictable behavior, and that the "something" is to do with the nature of the human mind rather than external factors.
hence different experiences lead to different demonstrations

How would you suggest using these practices to investigate the properties of God, and can you be sure that such investigations are objective and reliable?
basically there is an element to the practice that involves coming to an objective state of mind (purity of consciousness etc)

What would you say to someone who, after spending years engaged in those activities, finds them to be mostly dissatisfying meaningless rituals, with occasional gems of useful social values?
That they are probably messing up on a few aspects of practice or possibly even theory

[Tnerb]

but it's physicality is easily demonstrated

And this is precisely my point!!!


All the rest of the conversation here only inspires thought about the first statement, which lightgigantic is falling for. Allthough the bible is great and says things such as whatever a great man does common men will follow.......... doesn't really matter at this point in time.

[lightgigantic]

And this is precisely my point!!!


All the rest of the conversation here only inspires thought about the first statement, which lightgigantic is falling for. Allthough the bible is great and says things such as whatever a great man does common men will follow.......... doesn't really matter at this point in time.
it does if its only the "great men" in question who find the physicality easily demonstrated

[Pete]

if you don't take the practice up, it wouldn't be expected that you could see what it entails
You appear to assume that I have not taken up such practices.
But regardless, you're jumping to the second level of investigation. Demonstrating that "something" exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour is the first level - like looking at a TV, and seeing that "something" exists that puts images on the screen.

hence different experiences lead to different demonstrations
Do they lead to the same properties, the same description of God?

basically there is an element to the practice that involves coming to an objective state of mind (purity of consciousness etc)
And reliability? How do you test the reliability of this investigation?

That they are probably messing up on a few aspects of practice or possibly even theory
But how is that possible, if approached with a yearning heart, a devoted mind, and a devout guide?

[Tnerb]

hey are probably messing up on a few aspects of practice or possibly even theory

Yeah, let's make a :roflmao: and be done with it?

I don't think so.....
:mad:

[Tnerb]

it does if its only the "great men" in question who find the physicality easily demonstrated

Please do not discuss with me here, you will only make me make you look like a fool.

For example.
See the thread.

:rolleyes:

[lightgigantic]

Pete

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you don't take the practice up, it wouldn't be expected that you could see what it entails
”
You appear to assume that I have not taken up such practices.
basically the more subtle the claim, the more involved the practice - kind of like you can learn a multiplication timestable in a few moments and you can learn what it takes to verify an electron in a few years. The ease that you dismissed the process after simply working with a very simple explanation of it led me to believe that you haven't applied it


But regardless, you're jumping to the second level of investigation. Demonstrating that "something" exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour is the first level - like looking at a TV, and seeing that "something" exists that puts images on the screen.
so the equivalent in this scenario (ie the raw object/s of investigation) would be the phenomenal world and one's consciousness

“
hence different experiences lead to different demonstrations
”
Do they lead to the same properties, the same description of God?
there are numerous ways that god can be described but they should not be contradictory, at least for one who is claiming complete knowledge.

For instance one person may describe a person called fred. Another may describe a person who is a baker. Another may describe a person who's wife is called mary. If it is understood that fred is baker who has a wife called mary there is no contradiction. If we have only a partial understanding of this knowledge, issues may arise (Fred is a baker but we don't know who is wife is, so we can't verify the "mary" thing)

In this way the variety within monotheistic claims can be sorted and even worked along side polytheistic, animistic or even the claims of cargo cultists. (IOW they can all be attributed some element of truth in regards to the nature of god, but only from the vantage of complete knowledge)

“
basically there is an element to the practice that involves coming to an objective state of mind (purity of consciousness etc)
”
And reliability? How do you test the reliability of this investigation?
well suppose we were discussing a practice that required purity of water. To test the reliability we would adopt a standard for testing that purity (taste, colour etc). Some standards might be more comprehensive than others (perhaps all that is required is that you take a swig of it and see if you drop down dead)

So similarly, when one is discussing purity of consciousness (needs of the soul vs the needs of the body), one adopts a standard, and some standards will be more effective or complete than others.
Here's one such standard

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

“
That they are probably messing up on a few aspects of practice or possibly even theory
”
But how is that possible, if approached with a yearning heart, a devoted mind, and a devout guide?
quite easily

NoI 2: One's devotional service is spoiled when he becomes too entangled in the following six activities: (1) eating more than necessary or collecting more funds than required; (2) overendeavoring for mundane things that are very difficult to obtain; (3) talking unnecessarily about mundane subject matters; (4) Practicing the scriptural rules and regulations only for the sake of following them and not for the sake of spiritual advancement, or rejecting the rules and regulations of the scriptures and working independently or whimsically; (5) associating with worldly-minded persons who are not interested in god consciousness; and (6) being greedy for mundane achievements.

[lightgigantic]

Please do not discuss with me here, you will only make me make you look like a fool.

For example.
See the thread.

:rolleyes:
:wtf:

[Tnerb]

Seriously. Don't discuss with me as I've said... discuss with Pete


:wtf:

[Enmos]

http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/bs.gif

[Tnerb]

http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/bs.gif

Enmos, you're the only one around here making BS claims and showing them off as productive.

[Enmos]

Enmos, you're the only one around here making BS claims and showing them off as productive.

Huh ? Like what ?

What I meant with that smiley was that LG won't make you look like a fool.
But thanks for your opinion :bugeye:

[lightgigantic]

Seriously. Don't discuss with me as I've said... discuss with Pete


:wtf:
well I was discussing it with pete - until you interrupted our discussion to tell me not to discuss it with you

:crazy: :crazy:

[Tnerb]

Huh ? Like what ?

What I meant with that smiley was that LG won't make you look like a fool.
But thanks for your opinion :bugeye:

Well at least I have been established in this thread...
Let's see. Sorry. And my opinion means jack shit. I think some of your things are wonderful. My words are sometimes loaded (with a gun) hint hint so,
Let's find out if LG can dismiss some of the physical basis for gods existence.

Me personally I don't think it is possible for him to do so; there is no existence outside of the individual; he is trying to prove electrons and things which cannot possibly be shown to exist if a person is about to die from the universe itself (the ultimate example.).

It's just sort of like refuting theists. It is sort of fun when I actually make at least a relevant or valid point towards theism haha :D

But no, I'm theist myself, although my beliefs are that God does not exist outside of this universe. If you and I enmos want to discuss. It is impossible.

[Enmos]

..my beliefs are that God does not exist outside of this universe.
If God exists, he can't exist outside the universe. Although I realize you use an unconventional definition of universe, a wrong one in my opinion but that aside.

If you and I enmos want to discuss. It is impossible.
Why ?

[Tnerb]

If God exists, he can't exist outside the universe. Although I realize you use an unconventional definition of universe, a wrong one in my opinion but that aside.


Why ?

Well, I think LG is saying that he could exist outside the universe--- that and most theists make the claim. And yes, although my unconventional meaning of the term universe, still, holds.

Reason:
The universe is something that is what is within Gods reach. If God were outside the universe, then this would involve taking the physical basis outside the individual in question. This would be totally dismissive of any appropriate discussion relating to anything having to do with any form of God. When church people make the gosapel, they are using the universe; not the outside of the universe.

Now, if they realized the opposite it would be a funny thing now wouldn't it :D

[greenberg]

I think a lot of these fears can be addressed by good association (or perhaps a preamble to that would be to first know what good association is) - In otherwords if you can see the practical example of someone who is not these things, one can develop the proper determination

This seems reasonable.
I have been working on trying to come up with a set of guidelines on how to recognize good association for a couple of years now, actually.
Guidelines for how someone who does not have much wisdom or goodness could recognize who would be good to associate with and who wouldn't.

[greenberg]

I don't see how that leads to demonstrating that "something" exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour?
From experience, I suggest that it leads to demonstrating that "something" exists with a psychological basis with somewhat predictable behavior, and that the "something" is to do with the nature of the human mind rather than external factors.

How would you suggest using these practices to investigate the properties of God, and can you be sure that such investigations are objective and reliable?

What would you say to someone who, after spending years engaged in those activities, finds them to be mostly dissatisfying meaningless rituals, with occasional gems of useful social values?

The desire to get to know something is very important. But along the way, things can happen with this desire that make acting on it unsuccessful.

In Buddhism, they speak of desire being overly sluggish or overly active, inwardly restricted or outwardly scattered (link (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.020.than.html)):

And how is desire overly sluggish? Whatever desire is accompanied by laziness, conjoined with laziness, that is called overly sluggish desire.

And how is desire overly active? Whatever desire is accompanied by restlessness, conjoined with restlessness, that is called overly active desire.

And how is desire inwardly restricted? Whatever desire is accompanied by sloth & drowsiness, conjoined with sloth & drowsiness, that is called inwardly restricted desire.

And how is desire outwardly scattered? Whatever desire is stirred up by the five strings of sensuality, outwardly dispersed & dissipated, that is called outwardly scattered desire.

I think this frequently happens to our desire to get to know something.

[Yorda]

If God exists, he can't exist outside the universe.

I exist in the universe, but at the same time you could say that I exist outside of it. I exist outside of time, because I exist in the now.

[Enmos]

I exist in the universe, but at the same time you could say that I exist outside of it. I exist outside of time, because I exist in the now.

:crazy:

[Quantum Quack]

Homer Simpson is a God unto himself...prove him wrong:D:p

[draqon]

I exist in the universe, but at the same time you could say that I exist outside of it. I exist outside of time, because I exist in the now.

I agree, and so do I exist outside of my time as you.

[Tnerb]

well suppose we were discussing whether there is a physical basis to the existence of electrons

How do you suppose such a discussion would progress?

Would progress with the fact that outside of the universe there is nothing therefore no requirement in this universe.

Therefore leave it alone.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

ok. So God is a something, and cannot exist within a theoretical nothing, which you call "outside the universe"? I'd like to point out that our knowledge of the universe is that it is finite, and God is theoretically infinite... presents a paradox. Like trying to fit the ocean into a gallon jug.

[Tnerb]

the galon jug would burst
in every regard i hope you see my point

[Tnerb]

it is the point made in the philosophy thread

[Mr. Hamtastic]

ok... so God trying to fit into "only" our known universe... What would that cause?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

you know you referred me here from philosophy, right? I'm trying to see your point, but it seems too broad at the moment...

[Tnerb]

God doesn't exist outside.
To do so is to reflect the death of thousands.
Do not consider creating an idea which will then release from our world.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Those three statements seem to be individually absurd and not relative to each other... Spoonfeed me, if you have to, because this doesn't want to click for me...

[Hapsburg]

There is a physical basis to the existence of God.
Refute/Discuss


Depends on one conception of deity. The gods I believe in have to bend to the laws of physics in order to affect physical reality in this universe.
Though obviously not necessarily the same physics apply in other universes, so the manifested effects of their abilities obviously vary.

[swarm]

Nothing like making assertions about the necessary qualities of an entirely imaginary being.

[Tnerb]

Nothing like making assertions about the necessary qualities of an entirely imaginary being.

Rubbish.

(as disease would say!)
You're just confusing my intent with this thread- actually, you're stooping worse... You're claiming that I'm making statements about an imaginary being. Which is rubbish. I'm not claiming anything about an imaginary being. I'm claiming that the qualities of God must exist within this universe. And no one knows what god is yet.... besides.. just a few people......