Evidence that God is real

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Aug 31, 2018.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    No I didn't. I believed in God as much as you do.
    Every child knows the classic question, "How does Santa manage to visit every house in one night?" and there is a myriad of answers.
    I find it hard to believe that you never heard any of the Bile stories about God.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,984
    Jan is the first person in history to be born and know God without ever hearing about him? Who is the liar here?

    This is becoming really tiresome.

    Well, back on ignore.....bye bye Jan.....click.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    What a coward!

    Jan.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BlueSky Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Nope same God. Different things are revealed in the new, a clearer picture but the same. It’s all about context. It’s said like this, the NT is in the OT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Cute bumper sticker.
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,984
    Not according to Lewis Black, and he claims the OT to be his book.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ......he is a jew.
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You said you assumed you believe in God, which means you didn’t believe in God.

    If you don’t even know whether or not you believe in God, despite thinking you believed in God. And you are just as sure that you don’t believe in God, means your lying mind cannot be trusted. Why should an

    I was only interest in the things about Santa that was real. Like the things I mentioned.
    I could care less about chimneys.

    I wouldn’t trust you belief apparatus as far as I could throw it.

    Jan.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,609
    I am aware that they are called the same thing in the Bible. However, in the original manuscripts they used different words for each, and they acted very, very differently. OT god is one of vengeance, and his demand is primarily obedience. Whole civilizations are wiped out by OT god because they were not obeying him sufficiently. NT god is one of love, and his demand is primarily to treat others well.
     
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    No it doesn't. An assumption doesn't have to be wrong. I was pointing out the difference between knowing and assuming.
    You seem to be running out of coherence. Try thinking before you post.

    It looks to me like you only post here to try to convince yourself that you really believe, so you're in the same boat that I was.
    As I said, until recently there was nothing "real" about Santa, nothing but stories, just like the stories about God.
    I'll take that as a compliment.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,984
    I have met very nice people who were religious. They were nice people, regardless of religion.

    But Bill Maher perfectly presents my case why I am very wary of religions and "religious" people.
     
  14. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,972
    Well... MY MOTHER AN FATHER IN LAW WAS RELIGOUS PEOPLE AN THEY WAS VERY NICE... i just woudnt trust 'em to be in charge of anybody i cared for.!!!
     
  15. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    I’m utterly wrong in stating that the Bible is not a justifiable authority on the nature of God? How so?
    If there is a God, then the entirety of our reality could be its creation. As to how and why such a god would create anything is beyond our capacity to know.
    Anyone can speculate anything beyond what is falsifiable and present it as a possible aspect of reality. For someone to present such speculation as fact, it would have to be accompanied by a reasonable justification for it.
    Spontaneous emergence of what from where?
    The Miller-Urey experiment involved a bit more than just water, air and sparks. The goal was essentially to recreate conditions of a primal environment using seed chemicals, heat and artificial lightning to instigate the formation of amino acids. It was more like a baking a cake, than pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
    Theism doesn’t have to be in conflict with scientific understanding. One could believe in a god that is defined in such a way that is open to ongoing interpretation, just as science is. Essentially God is equal to our current understanding of reality as prescribed by science.
    Any honest scientist worth their salt will admit that there is always far more that is unknown, than currently known.
    Reality is an evolving concept. What is agreed upon today may change tomorrow, and generally will change the more time passes.
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,984
    God is "unknowable" and that is why he must exist? Moreover, why do we keep looking?
    IMO, we keep looking because there is ample evidence to suggest purely pseudo-intelligent physical imperatives which establish a sufficient foundation for a "mathematical" (knowable) universe.
    No, the apparent variety of evolution at all levels and directions is proof of it's deterministic randomness.
    Not some grand cosmic zoo constructed for the delight of some all-encompassing "motivated intelligence".
    The BB created the universal potential for expression of everything we are aware of.

    Energy is not Intelligent!
    But it follows certain mathematical rules and has the potential for expression in reality.
    The proof lies in this equation, E = Mc^2

    The point is that if you wish to stake out a metaphysical position as described in scripture, you will be forced to set aside some of our scientific knowledge of reality. IMO, that in itself is a fatal aspect of religion as a scientific instrument. It is a psychological instrument, a morality play.
    Right, and that experiment supports (proved) my argument of random evolution (cake baking) and natural selection (picking out the pretty ones).

    OTOH, by your standards, did we play God when we made the first Higgs boson manifest? It wasn't there before we made it appear!!! And because it was not mathematically (physically) allowed to exist, it promptly disappeared never to be seen again.

    As to motivated (dynamic) behavior;
    Chemical "quorum sensing" in bacteria is a functional form of evolving pseudo-intelligent behavior. Look it up.
    Only at a psychological level.
    But that is not a reason to assume a bunch of stuff for which there is not a shred of evidence, except for what we observe. But that could also have emerged spontaneously by following some very simple mathematical functions.
    True, but you can't just start with a purely abstract pre-existing Intelligent Being as the sentient Creator of the Universal Wholeness, including its violent chaotic beginning and subsequent evolutionary behavior.

    Where does a motivated God reside? At Planck scale? Answer me that and I'll believe.
    So far we know that a quantum event has a binary aspect to it. It's called "superposition" and displays an "uncertainty" effect in its behavior.

    None of this suggest motivated decision making, no? However, it is allowed in mathematics......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Instead of making it simple, religion makes it impossibly complicated, whereas a mathematical universe consists of some 32 numbers (relative values) and a handful of equations (universal constants).

    Mathematics sets the Pi apart from the cakes.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Okay. Why did you assume, you believed in God?

    You said you believed in God, as much as I believe in God.
    You claim your belief was not based in any knowledge of God, it was based on an assumption.
    Can you back up your claim that I also only assume belief in God, with knowledge, so we can be sure you’re not simply making assumptions?l again?

    You are assuming that children actually believe the legend, or myth of Santa, is real. What is your reason for this?
    As a child, I knew nothing about the legend. All I knew was that Santa had a big gut, wore a red suit, said ho ho ho, and brought presents. It was the magic of Christmas, and it was true.
    As long as I got my presents on Christmas morning, it mattered not how Santa got into our apartment.
    From my perspective it occurred. I never need to know anything else.

    As I got older, it became obvious that Santa doesn’t come down chimneys. But it didn’t matter, because that was all part of the excitement.
    The excitement is the whole point of Santa.
    Without that, there’s nothing to hold the child’s imagination. The excitement is real.

    Hopefully you mean “Bible” stories about God.

    I think you’re confused about what you believe, and how you come to believe it.

    Jan.
     
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Why?

    Jan
     
    BlueSky likes this.
  19. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    To speculate that because we humans create, there also could be entities of greater capacity that do so as well, is not unreasonable. I would expect that given sufficient time, human progeny might develop what we would consider today to be godlike abilities. And extend that evolution out to tens of billions of years, and who knows what kind of capacity the resultant entity would possess. Maybe they gain the capacity to engineer and generate universes. It might be a property of a universe that during its life cycle, intelligent entities that evolve there eventually develop the capacity to spawn new universes.
    Deterministic randomness is a contradiction of terms. If something is determined, it isn’t random.
    Without being able to know the origin of a universe, one can’t know what level of deterministic action was responsible for it’s creation. For example if a planet like Mars was terraformed into a warm, wet self sustaining environment, and a visitor was unaware of the technical intervention and transformation, they might conclude the planet was in a natural state. We are examples of the universe using intelligence to further its creation, so it’s likely that intelligence is used in greater capacity elsewhere in the universe as well. Intelligence is just one of many deterministic processes at play in a given universe.
    I have no reason to disagree. But we don’t know if the BB was live or Memorex. Was it a GMO seed, or the natural variety?
    Every aspect of reality can be expressed mathematically, and energy is as much a part of the form and function of intelligence as any other determined aspect.
    Not that I do, but I could simply assume that the universe is a creation of an unknowable deterministic God, and it would not necessarily conflict with any other scientific truths or propositions, since the position of God would always be outside the sphere of perception.
    Correction, in it’s complete state of revelation, it demonstrates a detailed deterministic process, not a random one.
    That’s kind of where we all truly exist. It’s where subjective meaning is assigned to experience.
    There’s not a shred of evidence to support the notion of multiple universes, but it dosn’t make the speculation of such unreasonable. Look at the speculation that our reality is just a simulation, where an outside intelligence(God, or future game developer) has engineered our computational existence. There’s no shortage of reasoned possibilities to explain reality.
    All notions of reality beyond the scope of our perception are going to be a subjective form of abstraction. You think all astrophysicists share the same speculation on universal origins? How do you compare the relative value of various propositions unless they are given some degree of consideration? If science wasn’t constantly looking at a range of potentialities it would be a disservice to the practice.
    Where does a motivated anything reside? How about where it lives. The creator, God, game developer, can reasonably be assumed to be beyond our perception, just like a theoretical particle in superposition, or that same particle in a pilot wave.
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Seriously????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,984
    Are you suggesting there is other life in the universe? I agree. Are you suggesting this other life may be more evolved than humans? I agree. Are you suggesting that alien lifeforms might be able to terra-form? I agree.

    But now you are no longer talking about God, that supernatural creature which dwells outside of the universe altogether and made LIGHT on command, before he created the universe itself. That's not Terra-forming, that's Universe-forming.
    If I said random it's wrong. Rather than linear determinism, the term I was thinking of is "deterministic chaos"

    No, because there were no cakes. There was only some goo, a random bunch of compound chemicals, many thousands of them.
    Watch the Hazen clip, he shows the result of the Miller-Urey experiment and comments on the results.
    Aaah, but there is evidence that would support the notion of a multiverse. That's why it was proposed in the first place. Evidence that pointed to a possible multi-verse. At one time we thought there were just two dimensions, but observation suggested the existence of a third dimension. Still later we attached time to the fabric of space. This is all very mathematical.
    Alas Mars is in the exact state it should be from the mathematics of its position within the solar system. If it were wet, then there might be cause for question. But it isn't. A dry Mars is not evidence of a God. It is evidence of mathematical entropy.
    Well, we're real close, but I see this as a purely implacable mathematical pseudo-intelligence, which is just as capable of creating what we see in a dynamic universe as a motivated designer using mathematics.
    So your God now has retreated to before the BB? You do not dispute the hypothesis of the BB, I hope.
    Precisely, there is nothing non-mathematical in the universe. Which means it needs no external direction, mathematics direct themselves, remember, they are deterministic. All that is required is energy.
    OK, I am in total agreement. But that does not allow for a willful God who can act against the mathematics. Divine anger and punishment, other than natural calamities are unscientific and can not be expected to replace the infinite elegance of mathematics.
    I agree, personally we experience reality subjectively. However our instruments record reality objectively and that is often quite different from what we subjectively experience. After all, our emotional experiences are mere electro-chemical holographic representation in our brains. All we do is making best guesses of what we experience as reality (Anil Seth). Science relies on the recorded evidence, not the speculative experiential evidence.
    Kinda like Tegmark's mathematical universe. It does not require a designer. Mathematical values and functions are all that is required for creating a dynamic 3D physical universe.
    The program consists of cosmic constants, natural mathematical potentials enfolded in the geometry of spacetime

    Consider chemical "quorum sensing", a purely mathematical chemical ability for perfoming work. Bacterial quorum sensing is outside our range of our perception. Yet it is part of our organic multicellular Eukariotic system. A mathematical pattern which brings variety to every rganic expression in nature.
    No, but remarkably they all express a sense of discovery of pre-existing mathematical patterns and orders when they probe the mathematical as well as the physical structured patterns possible in the formation of the universe.
    True, but we can assign a set of a priori necessary conditions and apply Occam's Razor.
    And there is the crux of the question. It is the assumption of a necessary motivated mathematically functioning intelligence which is the fertile ground for mystical speculation.

    Where can intelligence be reasonably expected to reside? ........... Define Heaven...?

    The simple answer is that a sentient intelligence is not required in mathematics. Mathematics itself is a pseudo-intelligent matrix of interacting values and functions. A purely mathematical Universe (all objects and actions are mathematical expressions), which writes its own deterministic script by evolution over time and space.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,310
    Off-topic, I know, but I don't agree with your assessment. Mars is in the state it is in because of many factors, not least of which is the loss of its magnetic field, which meant it became ravaged by the solar winds, stripping away its atmosphere to leave it as it currently is. Its position within the solar system is not itself a reason for it not being life-sustaining at the moment.
    If Mars was still wet then it would be because it had a magnetic field that protected it from solar winds, and an atmosphere that insulated the surface. And other factors, undoubtedly. But even at its current position it could sustain life. Compare that to the outer planets that are simply too cold, or Mercury too hot, to have an atmosphere capable of supporting life. Mars isn't in an ideal position for our life-forms, but it's not that bad. In fact both Mars and Venus are also in what is considered the Goldilocks zone for our star.

    Anyhow - back to evidence that God is real.
    As you were.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    As I said, I was pointing out the difference between knowledge and assumption. You can not have knowledge of God without evidence of God. You can assume anything you pull out of your ass without any evidence or rationale.
    As I said, children's belief in God is the same as your belief in God. There is no reason to think otherwise.
    Same with God.
    Sometimes a typo works as well - or batter than - what was intended.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You might make more sense if you thought about the topic instead of trying to psychoanalyze people.
     
    Write4U likes this.

Share This Page