Is there any proof God exists?
31 Jan 2015, 10:38 pm
RhodyStruggle wrote:
Narrator wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Faith is the belief in unprovable things.
Religion is the socio-political expression of faith.
Religion is the socio-political expression of faith.
The inductive principle is unprovable.
Every scientific conclusion is contingent upon the validity of the inductive principle.
Thus, any socio-poliical expression referencing scientific conclusion is religious.
My favourite science tid-bit is how GPS satellites work. Time theory converted to a practical use.
It's not faith or politics or religion that results in such practical devices that would fail to work without the right science.
Proof? Turn your smartphone's GPS on. Can't do that with a Bible.
The resources required to develop and deploy GPS technology couldn't have been allocated to that project absent political considerations. If it hadn't been politically possible, it wouldn't have been economically possible; hence it wouldn't have been actualized in the form of your phone.
Evidence isn't the same thing as proof.
Were it not for the scientific principles that tie time to matter, GPS would not have been possible. I agree, regarding politics, to some degree, but if the science was wrong, no amount of good politics would have saved it.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
31 Jan 2015, 10:41 pm
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Why is a supernatural being the only possible eternity? I'm sure you're familiar with "brane" theory.
Why would multiple deities be warring? That's an anthropomorphism.
You have to be consistent.
Why would multiple deities be warring? That's an anthropomorphism.
You have to be consistent.
1. It's in the name .. first cause really means first cause ..
2. The first cause is eternal, and this is because He has no beginning and no end.
3. We are talking about the originator of the universe here, and it is only logical that the originator is 1 person, not a team or something like that.
So item 1 is something taken on faith. It can only be so, because everything is caused by something.
Item 2 must be taken on faith for the very same reason.
Item 3 is only logical as an anthropomorphic notion. Any deity could be 1 or many or a melding of many or some other humanly indefinable context. And could also be finitely one of a succession of many, or like a matter stream of byte packets or something also indefinable yet segment finite.
1. Everything that has a beginning, everything that is moved, everything that is influenced.
3. By "person" I don't mean a human, what I mean is an individual. Because you don't believe in a First Cause, I think multiplee deities are irrelevant. The exact nature of the First Cause is also irrelevant.
1. So for convenience, you remove God from being moved or influenced or having a beginning. Sounds like faith to me.
3. If you don't mean human, then why anthropomorphize the nature of the deity?
If he was moved (by something other than himself) then he wouldn't be the prime mover we call God.
Let's not to go into the nature of God as that is irrelevant to this thread.
31 Jan 2015, 10:45 pm
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
31 Jan 2015, 10:53 pm
Narrator wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
Narrator wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Faith is the belief in unprovable things.
Religion is the socio-political expression of faith.
Religion is the socio-political expression of faith.
The inductive principle is unprovable.
Every scientific conclusion is contingent upon the validity of the inductive principle.
Thus, any socio-poliical expression referencing scientific conclusion is religious.
My favourite science tid-bit is how GPS satellites work. Time theory converted to a practical use.
It's not faith or politics or religion that results in such practical devices that would fail to work without the right science.
Proof? Turn your smartphone's GPS on. Can't do that with a Bible.
The resources required to develop and deploy GPS technology couldn't have been allocated to that project absent political considerations. If it hadn't been politically possible, it wouldn't have been economically possible; hence it wouldn't have been actualized in the form of your phone.
Evidence isn't the same thing as proof.
Were it not for the scientific principles that tie time to matter, GPS would not have been possible. I agree, regarding politics, to some degree, but if the science was wrong, no amount of good politics would have saved it.
Okay.
I never said that the science was wrong. I merely demonstrated that 'science' was included within the definition of 'religion' that Fnord provided.
_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste
31 Jan 2015, 10:57 pm
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
31 Jan 2015, 11:01 pm
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
If the universe is infinite, then at least one infinite being (the universe itself) exists, and hence such a being is possible.
If the universe is finite, God need not be infinite but only of greater magnitude than the universe.
_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste
31 Jan 2015, 11:02 pm
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Why is a supernatural being the only possible eternity? I'm sure you're familiar with "brane" theory.
Why would multiple deities be warring? That's an anthropomorphism.
You have to be consistent.
Why would multiple deities be warring? That's an anthropomorphism.
You have to be consistent.
1. It's in the name .. first cause really means first cause ..
2. The first cause is eternal, and this is because He has no beginning and no end.
3. We are talking about the originator of the universe here, and it is only logical that the originator is 1 person, not a team or something like that.
So item 1 is something taken on faith. It can only be so, because everything is caused by something.
Item 2 must be taken on faith for the very same reason.
Item 3 is only logical as an anthropomorphic notion. Any deity could be 1 or many or a melding of many or some other humanly indefinable context. And could also be finitely one of a succession of many, or like a matter stream of byte packets or something also indefinable yet segment finite.
1. Everything that has a beginning, everything that is moved, everything that is influenced.
3. By "person" I don't mean a human, what I mean is an individual. Because you don't believe in a First Cause, I think multiplee deities are irrelevant. The exact nature of the First Cause is also irrelevant.
1. So for convenience, you remove God from being moved or influenced or having a beginning. Sounds like faith to me.
3. If you don't mean human, then why anthropomorphize the nature of the deity?
If he was moved (by something other than himself) then he wouldn't be the prime mover we call God.
Let's not to go into the nature of God as that is irrelevant to this thread.
God is/was moved by his followers, through prayer and intercession.
The nature of God is only irrelevant if you allow for all interpretations of eternal deities.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
31 Jan 2015, 11:08 pm
RhodyStruggle wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
If the universe is infinite, then at least one infinite being (the universe itself) exists, and hence such a being is possible.
If the universe is finite, God need not be infinite but only of greater magnitude than the universe.
If it were not for one thing, I would agree with you. Infinite, in terms of the universe is spacial. Infinite, in terms of deities, is time.
There's an old argument I used to use, when I was a Christian, that God brought time into being when he created the Universe. Unfortunately, that's very much like how science sees the creation of space-time, except that the science behind it also has plenty of maths to go with it.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
31 Jan 2015, 11:13 pm
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
Denying the existence of the First-Cause is the same as denying your own existence.
31 Jan 2015, 11:16 pm
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
Denying the existence of the First-Cause is the same as denying your own existence.
How? Are we going to resort to unqualified statements now?
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
31 Jan 2015, 11:24 pm
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
Denying the existence of the First-Cause is the same as denying your own existence.
How? Are we going to resort to unqualified statements now?
You don't get it do you ?
31 Jan 2015, 11:30 pm
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
Denying the existence of the First-Cause is the same as denying your own existence.
How? Are we going to resort to unqualified statements now?
You don't get it do you ?
Explain it to me.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
31 Jan 2015, 11:38 pm
Narrator wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
If the universe is infinite, then at least one infinite being (the universe itself) exists, and hence such a being is possible.
If the universe is finite, God need not be infinite but only of greater magnitude than the universe.
If it were not for one thing, I would agree with you. Infinite, in terms of the universe is spacial. Infinite, in terms of deities, is time.
There's an old argument I used to use, when I was a Christian, that God brought time into being when he created the Universe. Unfortunately, that's very much like how science sees the creation of space-time, except that the science behind it also has plenty of maths to go with it.
Fair point. Though I've long thought that the whole "let there be light" thing was a pretty obvious metaphor for declaring a metric on a topological space, which as I understand it* is an accurate (if quite understated) representation of the maths you mention. And by extension the entire first chapter of Genesis reads like reads like a professor setting up a problem on the board for a math lecture.
*I'm certainly not an expert, just a guy with a Bachelor's degree in math and a passing interest in cosmology, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste
31 Jan 2015, 11:49 pm
RhodyStruggle wrote:
*I'm certainly not an expert, just a guy with a Bachelor's degree in math and a passing interest in cosmology, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
In that sense, you're the guy I wish I'd become. I learned too late in life that I have a brain for maths. And my earlier Christian faith held me back from enjoying cosmology like I would have loved to.
As far as the Genesis story goes, that's a whole other topic, beginning with the Documentary Hypothesis and leading to two different creation stories in Genesis. When I was a Christian, that discovery didn't create doubts, but greater appreciation for the poetry of a time before writing was developed and before historical truth trumped spiritual truth.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
01 Feb 2015, 12:42 am
Narrator wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
*I'm certainly not an expert, just a guy with a Bachelor's degree in math and a passing interest in cosmology, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
In that sense, you're the guy I wish I'd become. I learned too late in life that I have a brain for maths. And my earlier Christian faith held me back from enjoying cosmology like I would have loved to.
As far as the Genesis story goes, that's a whole other topic, beginning with the Documentary Hypothesis and leading to two different creation stories in Genesis. When I was a Christian, that discovery didn't create doubts, but greater appreciation for the poetry of a time before writing was developed and before historical truth trumped spiritual truth.
I only brought up Genesis as an example; I see similar metaphors in other creation myths too.
_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste
01 Feb 2015, 12:47 am
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
When I say anything that is "moved" , I mean anything that is moved by something else, God is not moved by anything, He is the unmoved mover.
A. That's an interpretation, not a logical construct.
B. What do you mean by unmoved? There are plenty of examples in the Bible of God being "moved".
Again.. it's not logic, but circular reasoning that attempts to sound like logic.
If every event requires a cause, then every event requires a cause, period. If you're going to make exceptions, then why are yours the only exceptions that are valid?
Because an infinite chain of regress is impossible.
But an infinite being is possible?
Denying the existence of the First-Cause is the same as denying your own existence.
How? Are we going to resort to unqualified statements now?
You don't get it do you ?
Explain it to me.
You just robbed a bank and I'm a policeman chasing you on the highway, my intention is to shoot your tires to get you to stop, but before I do this I must get permission from my superintendent, I call my him and ask for permission, my superintendant says he has to get permission from his superintendant, he calls him and asks for permission, his superintendant says he has to get permission from his superintendant, his superintendant says he has to get permission from his superintendant , he calls him and asks for permission, his superintendant says he has to get permission from his superintendant , he calls him and asks for permission, his superintendant says he has to get permission from his superintendant , he calls him and asks for permission, ...
If this goes on forever, will I be able to shoot your tires ?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| The Opposite of Deja Vu Exists & It's Even More Uncanny |
15 Mar 2024, 6:44 pm |
| There exists a book on Hanafuda Fortune Telling |
01 Apr 2024, 9:30 am |
