Existence of God; the philosophical debate.

[Bishadi]

An article? Did you read it?

nope 2 reasons; one is was not directed to me

2nd.... this thread was supposed to be addressing God

It was written about original research, which is science, and even had a snippet from leading evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins. The research the article references to will be published in a peer reviewed journal... That is unmistakably science.

OK... point taken

I'd go as far to say that NewScientist is the leading perpetuator of knowledge for the British public, thank you very much.

is this the site

http://www.newscientist.com/

Unfortunately, it does supply evidence, as to whether we are prone to supernatural thoughts. I have no idea where you thought I said it made us born evil. Your posts are hard to decipher.

That is what i observed at the first pass. I could have be wrong.

Suppernatural thoughts? Like esp?

Have you ever done any homework on entanglement?

 

[Tnerb]

My post which you advoided directly relates with entanglement and god complex.

 

[Clucky]

1) Was addressed at you, you asked... for it.
2) That is indeed the site.
3) Supernatural. like God. You know, the topic of the thread.
4) Had you bothered reading the article, it would have become clear as to why it IS on the topic of God.
5) Instead of judging before reading, read before judging.

And yes, I have done some basic reading on quantum entanglement.

 

[Bishadi]

Sorry Bishadi, but you seem to have dodged my question. What was wrong with the NewScientist article, so it doesn't qualify as evidence?

when asking for individuals to discuss these three questions?

What material evidence supports the existence of God?

What reason do people observe the existence of God?

Did mankind create God or did God create mankind?


Nope!

All you seem to do is snipe at swivel, have tantrums, argue about trivial points and make silly arrogant comments. Why so much conflict?

Didn't know i was.

My whole contesting is about folks focused on me rather than the thread.

I have no reason to be upset.. other than seeing how many like me over the articles to debate..

It is almost like asking folks what 'they' expect from the so called return of Jesus. Most jump up and down about what is supposed to occur but fail to observe the context of the question; What is expected? (as applying to reality and mankind (we the people).

i guess these are easy conversations to me, but some are just WOW!

 

[Clucky]

The article, and therefore I, were pointing out God is a human concept. Thereby answering question three, and, again, it was discussing why people observe God, thereby answering question two. I think that is sufficiently on-topic.

 

[Bishadi]

1) Was addressed at you, you asked... for it.

i asked for evidence that shared people are born bad (idiots)

you were speaking to others see #15....

i could care less if an article suggests people are predisposed to god

this is was to discuss with people here. IF you cn get the auther on the site, then we can include his opinion.

2) That is indeed the site.
3) Supernatural. like God. You know, the topic of the thread.

didn't know god was supernatural... i always thought the 'he' was 'natural'

4) Had you bothered reading the article, it would have become clear as to why it IS on the topic of God.

perhaps but that is not what a philosophical discussion between human being is for

i was interested in dealing with folks direct, not taking others opinions as fact

5) Instead of judging before reading, read before judging.

advice noted

And yes, I have done some basic reading on quantum entanglement.

then does that phenomenon have any relevant parallels that could enable understanding of the 'sppoky action at a distance' between human beings?

 

[Bishadi]

The article, and therefore I, were pointing out God is a human concept.

makes sense but ar you suggesting the article is YOUR opinion or that the article should be used to speak for you and that it is my responsibility to look up your opinion?

Thereby answering question three, and, again, it was discussing why people observe God, thereby answering question two. I think that is sufficiently on-topic.

with that reasoning, it does.

like i said i asked for evidence, 'that man was born bad'..... and perhaps misread your intent

 

[Clucky]

God is above the laws of nature. How could he possibly be natural?

I don't understand either, what the problem is with including evidence for a point I'd made? It was there to back up a point Ennmos and I had made. I didn't write the article, but I share the author's opinions through the evidence presented. It validated my opinion. That is philosophy.

And why are we talking about quantum entanglement if you are so determined to stay on-topic? I'm slightly confused.

 

[glaucon]

God is above the laws of nature. How could he possibly be natural?
...

That supposition is entirely contingent upon a working definition of 'God', which has yet to arise...

 

[Clucky]

That supposition is entirely contingent upon a working definition of 'God', which has yet to arise...

I agree wholeheartedly. It goes without saying. I mean in pantheism it is natural, but in most theistic religions he is not. I was assuming that he does exist, and in the portrayal I am most familiar with, Yahweh.

I'm saying God doesn't exist. I was just countering a point made by Bishadi.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

God is above the laws of nature. How could he possibly be natural?

This would imply that God is separate from nature, be it indirect as it is. If God is separate from nature, then God is Synthetic. If God is Synthetic, then something made God. If something made God, then how can God be above Nature? Thus, this statement cannot stand alone as it is, it needs further clarification or else it is imbalanced and misleading.

 

[Bishadi]

God is above the laws of nature. How could he possibly be natural?

I would think his 'natural' existence would be evident if scientific articles point to God, as you so vehemently subscribe.

I don't understand either, what the problem is with including evidence for a point I'd made? It was there to back up a point Ennmos and I had made. I didn't write the article, but I share the author's opinions through the evidence presented. It validated my opinion. That is philosophy.

SO if i hold up a bible and say 'here is god'........ will the rest of the world go with that philosophy?

And why are we talking about quantum entanglement if you are so determined to stay on-topic? I'm slightly confused.

i wanted to be tangent-able too

 

[Clucky]

This would imply that God is separate from nature, be it indirect as it is. If God is separate from nature, then God is Synthetic. If God is Synthetic, then something made God. If something made God, then how can God be above Nature? Thus, this statement cannot stand alone as it is, it needs further clarification or else it is imbalanced and misleading.

No, like I said he is supernatural (at least assuming it is a theist's god). Not natural, nor man-made.

The article and I were not saying that science points to God either, quite the opposite in fact. We were saying it is a human device, that we are naturally predisposed to. No Bishadi, did I say I was write, I said some evidence backs up my point.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

No, like I said he is supernatural (at least assuming it is a theist's god). Not natural, nor man-made.

The article and I were not saying that science points to God either, quite the opposite in fact. We were saying it is a human device, that we are naturally predisposed to.

This brings up a good point...God has yet to be defined here as I know of...is this GOD the old man in the sky God? Is it the God of the Bible? Of the Koran (isn't that the same God?)? That which Buddha spoke of (a wee bit different that one is)? Kali is considered the mother of the Universe, Time, and all that Lives...though she is only full when united with Shiva...is this Cosmic Couple then God? I see God in others when I look and when I look with awe and admiration, is that the God we speak of? One of the things that makes this whole topic nearly impossible to pin down is that vague definition of God, which can obviously be so many different things to so many different people.

Which God is it that we speak of???

 

[Bishadi]

I have repeatedly mentioned, that I had made a point that is personal to me. I simply showed the basis of that opinion, through the article and research.

the few words of your sentence were far easier

but i know, just not as fun as the last hour

 

[Ladicius]

I do believe mankind created god. It was a means to not only control peoples actions and interactions but, it also controls peoples thoughts. What more of an explination do you need to create boundaries on limitless minds than a being who knows what your going to do before thought and action. It's even worse when it comes to religion. Religion actually gives you guidlines how to live your life, and every single one benefits the very people who made them in the first place.

 

[lightgigantic]

You forgot to put a capital on the first word; be careful.

your mercy has saved me from punctuational hell

Behind most every claim of God, lies, create factors establishing qualifications.

so says persons who never bother to apply themselves

or to reiterate

Like any claim of knowledge you will find three kinds of responses from three catagories of people

1. those who have properly applied themselves for determining the means
2. those who have not properly applies themselves but have faith in the means
3. those who have not properly applied themselves and have no faith in the means

But in science, theories are not considered true until the evidence is provided to support the idea.

presented to who exactly?
If they just discover a cure for cancer who do they run it by?
Window cleaners?
Archeologists?
Medical experts?
Why?

The conundrum that lies behind the acceptance of beliefs over evidence is the ongoing pursuit of knowledge; the evolution continues in both disciplines.

:shrug:

For persons who neglect to apply (what to speak of mere discussing) issues of qualification, they are perpetually in a conundrum.

Imagine if you wanted to buy a bunch of bananas, get your car fixed and have an injury looked to, yet you had no means to determine who or what is a doctor, green grocer or car mechanic?

Strange that you open a thread about opening a philosophical debate about god and neglect to investigate the claim. I mean even (prominent) atheists who rise to the challenge don't do that (like Flew, Russells ..... I'll neglect to mention dawkins since philosophy isn't really his forte)

 

[Bishadi]

I do believe mankind created god. It was a means to not only control peoples actions and interactions but, it also controls peoples thoughts.

the word 'religion' ....... from latin religio from ligare'.... "bind" or "connect" prefixed ... re (again) + ligare or re-ligare "to reconnect" or "to bind"

many are like a 'built in culture' (need i mention any examples?)

What more of an explination do you need to create boundaries on limitless minds than a being who knows what your going to do before thought and action.

as i see history, especially in origins time periods of the western belief, control and divide from the peasants and power was maintained by not allowing knowledge to be possessed by any other than the upper end of class

control was maintained by keeping the people in submission, i need of them!

then as people began to think, fear was incorporated

It's even worse when it comes to religion. Religion actually gives you guidlines how to live your life, and every single one benefits the very people who made them in the first place.

and why the corrupters of beliefs, will reap the most horrid of the judgment from the people

generations after generations contributing their tithe, being told they are not worthy and denying them equality

the people are not going to be happy when they find how bad they have been deceived

 

[lightgigantic]

the word 'religion' ....... from latin religio from ligare'.... "bind" or "connect" prefixed ... re (again) + ligare or re-ligare "to reconnect" or "to bind"

many are like a 'built in culture' (need i mention any examples?)

or alternatively, connect in the sense of making something functional (like the arm asserts its value when it is connected to the body, as opposed to some floppy thing lying dismembered on the ground)

remarkably similar in usage tot he word yoga (yukta- yoke)

but anyway, I always thought it strange how posters resort to etymology to bolster their arguments, since dictionaries don't shape word usage but rather reflect it

:shrug:

 

[Bishadi]

presented to who exactly?

the people (mankind)

If they just discover a cure for cancer who do they run it by?

perhaps the FDA.........

Why?

because the people are who run this taco stand, not politician, not preachers, not popes and definitely not the fear of god.

People are born with equality, compassion and the ability to create. To enable truth, they each can know how to make choices by themselves versus being told how to think. I often suggest; teach the kids the truth on the first pass and peace will exist, eventually.

For persons who neglect to apply (what to speak of mere discussing) issues of qualification, they are perpetually in a conundrum.

that is what happens by staying affixed to a belief that cannot answer the question "what is life?"

Imagine if you wanted to buy a bunch of bananas, get your car fixed and have an injury looked to, yet you had no means to determine who or what is a doctor, green grocer or car mechanic?

that is what community and associations with human beings can all assist with. None of those are addressed within a belief system.

Strange that you open a thread about opening a philosophical debate about god and neglect to investigate the claim.

What claim?

Which God? Seems the whole world has opinions that differ, and then in some specific sects, there are hundreds of variations of 'that' opinion.

Some may not do homework, but i made a choice (back when), and now have more god running through my head than perhaps oxygen. That means from Enil, Rah, even the three ladies combined, along with mayan, inuit and indigenous renditions of mother earth........... a few have been observed.

and within most all of them point to the same thing: that one day the truth will exist, mankind will combine and the rituals of faith (beliefs) will be over

then peace