Scientific evidence for god discovered

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:40 am

Austin Harper wrote:
Gord wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Methinks gorgeous views our rebuttals and dismissals of her posts to be further evidence that her spiel is true and we're just not ready to accept it.

That's because cats are fruit.

Do you know where I could get a cat tree?

How did you know he would know? :-P

Spoiler:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:11 am

Beware the low-hanging fruit.

Image
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12220
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby JO 753 » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:11 am

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:44 pm


All I see him doing is redefining "the universe" as "the mind of God" without proving that there is any god -- or even showing that the universe can be considered a mind, for that matter.

In other words, "God exists because the universe exists".

Well, no. The universe exists, and he's calling it God.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby digress » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:33 pm

Image

proof god exists
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:46 pm

Your gif ain't giffin'.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby digress » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:56 pm

its the gif that keeps on giffin without giffin you anything
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:41 pm

Gord wrote:

All I see him doing is redefining "the universe" as "the mind of God" without proving that there is any god -- or even showing that the universe can be considered a mind, for that matter.

In other words, "God exists because the universe exists".

Well, no. The universe exists, and he's calling it God.

:shock: Ipse is back? Where?!?!!!... :runs and hides:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby kennyc » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:04 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:.....
:shock: Ipse is back? Where?!?!!!... :runs and hides:


Holey Moley Run!

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Poodle » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:04 pm

Yay!!! The big KC is back!

Welcome home.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:21 pm

Kenny!!! :-D

Good to see ya, old chap!! How is it going?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12220
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby JO 753 » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:57 pm

Hi Kenny.

Whoz Ipse?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:17 am

kennyc wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:.....
:shock: Ipse is back? Where?!?!!!... :runs and hides:


Welcome back Kenny. It's good to hear from you again.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:22 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
kennyc wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:.....
:shock: Ipse is back? Where?!?!!!... :runs and hides:


Welcome back Kenny. It's good to hear from you again.

Not sure if he'll believe you - if you ignore his first words here after all this time. :-P




JK!
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:10 am

kennyc wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:.....
:shock: Ipse is back? Where?!?!!!... :runs and hides:


Holey Moley Run!

:shock: :shock: :shock:

:wave:

Do you have fromthehills with you, by any chance?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
busterggi
Regular Poster
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 pm
Custom Title: General Weirdness
Location: New Britain, CT

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby busterggi » Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:41 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
Gord wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Methinks gorgeous views our rebuttals and dismissals of her posts to be further evidence that her spiel is true and we're just not ready to accept it.

That's because cats are fruit.

Do you know where I could get a cat tree?

How did you know he would know? :-P

Spoiler:


Are you sure they didn't climb up to play with the unripe spaghetti?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:24 pm

busterggi wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
Gord wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Methinks gorgeous views our rebuttals and dismissals of her posts to be further evidence that her spiel is true and we're just not ready to accept it.

That's because cats are fruit.

Do you know where I could get a cat tree?

How did you know he would know? :-P

Spoiler:


Are you sure they didn't climb up to play with the unripe spaghetti?

Well, let's see... :scratch:

Considering the bare branches and apparent cool temperatures, those unripe spaghetti might have been minuscule and motionless specks, and therefore not attracting playful predators. Perhaps.



Image
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19473
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:12 am

Austin Harper wrote:
Gord wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Methinks gorgeous views our rebuttals and dismissals of her posts to be further evidence that her spiel is true and we're just not ready to accept it.

That's because cats are fruit.

Do you know where I could get a cat tree?

Never seen a pussy willow?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:32 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
Gord wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Methinks gorgeous views our rebuttals and dismissals of her posts to be further evidence that her spiel is true and we're just not ready to accept it.

That's because cats are fruit.

Do you know where I could get a cat tree?

Never seen a pussy willow?

No, but I once saw a horse fly.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Thu May 14, 2015 3:07 pm

Gord wrote:All I see him doing is redefining "the universe" as "the mind of God" without proving that there is any god -- or even showing that the universe can be considered a mind, for that matter.

In other words, "God exists because the universe exists".

Well, no. The universe exists, and he's calling it God.


Let's stipulate the universe exists.

Would you also stipulate that some or even many renowned scientists speculate that the universe isn't all that exists and that the extent of what may exist is unknown and may always remain unknown?

Would you also stipulate that any and all Gods stemming from religious beliefs based on supernatural speculations beyong the realm of scientic observation are absurd?

The last question, focused on exploring gaps between the limits of the first two, is whether it can reasonably be stipulated that the absurd is impossible or just (highly!) improbable?

(The agenda behind this post isn't an argument for a "God of the gaps", but ultimately opposes that often utilized approach.)

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Poodle » Thu May 14, 2015 6:18 pm

toroid wrote:Let's stipulate the universe exists.


OK

toroid wrote:Would you also stipulate that some or even many renowned scientists speculate that the universe isn't all that exists and that the extent of what may exist is unknown and may always remain unknown?


Yes - but with no expectation that their stipulation is correct.

toroid wrote:Would you also stipulate that any and all Gods stemming from religious beliefs based on supernatural speculations beyong the realm of scientic observation are absurd?


I would certainly be in broad agreement, but I would stipulate no such thing.

toroid wrote:The last question, focused on exploring gaps between the limits of the first two, is whether it can reasonably be stipulated that the absurd is impossible or just (highly!) improbable?

(The agenda behind this post isn't an argument for a "God of the gaps", but ultimately opposes that often utilized approach.)


I fail to see the limits you expound. Absurdity is in the mind of the claimer of absurdity. The god of the gaps is as absurd as no god of the gaps - the absurdity is in the pro/con argument of a god. It is absurd even to enter into that territory.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Thu May 14, 2015 8:14 pm

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regarding the stipulation that renowned scientists speculate; such scientists aren't stipulating anything; they're just speculating from a scientific background.

I have no problem with such speculations and agree that many such scientifically inspired speculations are more probable than if nothing exists but the observable universe.

In your mind what kind of God could possibly exist that wouldn't be absurd?

In my mind an absurd God could (very!) improbably exist, but with no evidence whatsoever, such a possibility isn't worth thinking about.

Poodle wrote:
toroid wrote:Let's stipulate the universe exists.


OK

toroid wrote:Would you also stipulate that some or even many renowned scientists speculate that the universe isn't all that exists and that the extent of what may exist is unknown and may always remain unknown?


Yes - but with no expectation that their stipulation is correct.

toroid wrote:Would you also stipulate that any and all Gods stemming from religious beliefs based on supernatural speculations beyong the realm of scientic observation are absurd?


I would certainly be in broad agreement, but I would stipulate no such thing.

toroid wrote:The last question, focused on exploring gaps between the limits of the first two, is whether it can reasonably be stipulated that the absurd is impossible or just (highly!) improbable?

(The agenda behind this post isn't an argument for a "God of the gaps", but ultimately opposes that often utilized approach.)


I fail to see the limits you expound. Absurdity is in the mind of the claimer of absurdity. The god of the gaps is as absurd as no god of the gaps - the absurdity is in the pro/con argument of a god. It is absurd even to enter into that territory.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Fri May 15, 2015 2:27 am

toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:All I see him doing is redefining "the universe" as "the mind of God" without proving that there is any god -- or even showing that the universe can be considered a mind, for that matter.

In other words, "God exists because the universe exists".

Well, no. The universe exists, and he's calling it God.

Let's stipulate the universe exists.

Yes, let's. We've left the term undefined, but I'll assume you define it in a way in which I would concur.

Would you also stipulate that some or even many renowned scientists speculate that the universe isn't all that exists and that the extent of what may exist is unknown and may always remain unknown?

No.

Would you also stipulate that any and all Gods stemming from religious beliefs based on supernatural speculations beyong the realm of scientic observation are absurd?

No.

The last question, focused on exploring gaps between the limits of the first two, is whether it can reasonably be stipulated that the absurd is impossible or just (highly!) improbable?

Absurd things are extremely likely. In fact, I've seen many of them, and trust them to exist.

(The agenda behind this post isn't an argument for a "God of the gaps", but ultimately opposes that often utilized approach.)

Uh-oh, you have an agenda.... :?

I would stipulate that the universe exists and consists of the entirety of everything else that also exists. I would also stipulate that the universe seems itself to be absurd, and yet it apparently still exists. I would further stipulate that some gods have been defined ways less absurd than the apparent absurdity of the universe, and yet the universe is more likely to exist than the invented descriptions of said imaginary gods. Lastly, I would conclude that the what appears to be absurd is sometimes more likely to be true than that which seems plausible.

Therefore, I would require evidence in support of any supposition, whether it seems plausible or not, before betting money on it being true.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Fri May 15, 2015 4:53 am

The only thing I'll stipulate about the universe is that it exists. We disagree about what the universe consists of as well as whether its absurd. Science based speculations about plausible things not in evidence are, to me beyond, not part of, the universe or cosmos. Evidence about the universe indicates it's big but not endless.

I agree that many absurd things are more probable than cleverly thought out revelations about the plausibility of God and a lotta' other plausible nonsense. However I do believe stuff I won't bet on, given the time it'll probably take to dig up evidence either supporting or refuting some extremely fascinating speculations.

Reality is a better word (to me) than cosmos or universe to describe what probably are limitless (but not infinite) voids of unknown dimensions, shapes and contents. Arbitrarily I employ the term "god" to describe the "operating system(s)" of the (relatively tiny) part of reality revealed by scientific observations (such as evolution on the local level) and whatever else may be ultimately revealed. Why "god"? Because it's a short but notable word which has heretofore been misused. The available evidence points that way, even though, off course, that natural evidence will always be incomplete.

Teaching that god is the name of the process underlying reality is IMHO more persuasive than leaving it unnamed and focusing instead on non-belief in the greatest human error of the past 10,000± years, which at last is beginning to crumble. This is a time of change; controversial as change in belief systems may be.

For your listening pleasure:

phpBB [video]


Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:All I see him doing is redefining "the universe" as "the mind of God" without proving that there is any god -- or even showing that the universe can be considered a mind, for that matter.

In other words, "God exists because the universe exists".

Well, no. The universe exists, and he's calling it God.

Let's stipulate the universe exists.

Yes, let's. We've left the term undefined, but I'll assume you define it in a way in which I would concur.

Would you also stipulate that some or even many renowned scientists speculate that the universe isn't all that exists and that the extent of what may exist is unknown and may always remain unknown?

No.

Would you also stipulate that any and all Gods stemming from religious beliefs based on supernatural speculations beyong the realm of scientic observation are absurd?

No.

The last question, focused on exploring gaps between the limits of the first two, is whether it can reasonably be stipulated that the absurd is impossible or just (highly!) improbable?

Absurd things are extremely likely. In fact, I've seen many of them, and trust them to exist.

(The agenda behind this post isn't an argument for a "God of the gaps", but ultimately opposes that often utilized approach.)

Uh-oh, you have an agenda.... :?

I would stipulate that the universe exists and consists of the entirety of everything else that also exists. I would also stipulate that the universe seems itself to be absurd, and yet it apparently still exists. I would further stipulate that some gods have been defined ways less absurd than the apparent absurdity of the universe, and yet the universe is more likely to exist than the invented descriptions of said imaginary gods. Lastly, I would conclude that the what appears to be absurd is sometimes more likely to be true than that which seems plausible.

Therefore, I would require evidence in support of any supposition, whether it seems plausible or not, before betting money on it being true.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Fri May 15, 2015 5:36 am

toroid wrote:Reality is a better word (to me) than cosmos or universe to describe what probably are limitless (but not infinite) voids of unknown dimensions, shapes and contents. Arbitrarily I employ the term "god" to describe the "operating system(s)" of the (relatively tiny) part of reality revealed by scientific observations (such as evolution on the local level) and whatever else may be ultimately revealed. Why "god"? Because it's a short but notable word which has heretofore been misused. The available evidence points that way, even though, off course, that natural evidence will always be incomplete.

Teaching that god is the name of the process underlying reality is IMHO more persuasive than leaving it unnamed and focusing instead on non-belief in the greatest human error of the past 10,000± years, which at last is beginning to crumble. This is a time of change; controversial as change in belief systems may be.

But "god" already has a definition. Why not just call it "the universe", like everybody else?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4971
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Monster » Fri May 15, 2015 1:53 pm

toroid wrote:Reality is a better word (to me) than cosmos or universe to describe what probably are limitless (but not infinite) voids of unknown dimensions, shapes and contents. Arbitrarily I employ the term "god" to describe the "operating system(s)" of the (relatively tiny) part of reality revealed by scientific observations (such as evolution on the local level) and whatever else may be ultimately revealed. Why "god"? Because it's a short but notable word which has heretofore been misused. The available evidence points that way, even though, off course, that natural evidence will always be incomplete.

Teaching that god is the name of the process underlying reality is IMHO more persuasive than leaving it unnamed and focusing instead on non-belief in the greatest human error of the past 10,000± years, which at last is beginning to crumble. This is a time of change; controversial as change in belief systems may be.

The word "god" has a lot of baggage. By calling the universe "god", you've decreased the understanding of reality, not increased it.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Fri May 15, 2015 2:59 pm

Gord wrote:But "god" already has a definition. Why not just call it "the universe", like everybody else?


The universe isn't god and is (probably) merely a miniscule part of that which (probably) exists. Reality is a more accurate word to describe what (probably) exists.

OTOH, god isn't reality, merely the word which best exemplifies the (myriad of) operating system(s at all levels) which ultimately causes the existence of reality.

(Almost) "everybody else" (figuratively speaking) has been part of the greatest human error ever made, an error which isn't about understanding the universe (although there certainly have been some whoppers in that area) but about understanding what god (probably) is.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Fri May 15, 2015 3:28 pm

It's time to dump the baggage!

You follow Dawkins' view of the word "god" (in Chap. 1 of The GOD Delusion); I don't. We disagree.

Dawkins is certainly the guy to listen to carefully on the science of evolution, but when he talks about god in relation to reality he's no more infallible than the Pope is.

Monster wrote:The word "god" has a lot of baggage. By calling the universe "god", you've decreased the understanding of reality, not increased it.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4971
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Monster » Fri May 15, 2015 3:45 pm

toroid wrote:It's time to dump the baggage!

You follow Dawkins' view of the word "god" (in Chap. 1 of The GOD Delusion); I don't. We disagree.

Dawkins is certainly the guy to listen to carefully on the science of evolution, but when he talks about god in relation to reality he's no more infallible than the Pope is.

Monster wrote:The word "god" has a lot of baggage. By calling the universe "god", you've decreased the understanding of reality, not increased it.

If you talk to any random person for half an hour about god, then he'll think you're talking about god, not whatever new definition exists in your brain. Why reuse such a useless word? Make a new one. Call it "zubluku".
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Fri May 15, 2015 5:22 pm

I don't talk to random people about god; I occasionally talk with people who have expressed interest in exploring the meaning or lack of meaning in the term. Of course there's always the big dog...

Many people expect instant results. Ain't gonna' happen! It takes time to achieve a critical mass. Probably several lifetimes. So what.

When god is the subject of a discussion, stay focused. (Or, if you disagree, don't!) Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists. It's a hard sell. (But, as always, YMMV...)

phpBB [video]

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Cadmusteeth » Fri May 15, 2015 8:04 pm

toroid wrote:Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists.

Atheists don't have a unifying philosophy. Whatever you hear from individuals are they're own opinions.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 17, 2015 2:58 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:
toroid wrote:Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists.

Atheists don't have a unifying philosophy. Whatever you hear from individuals are they're own opinions.


Your first sentence is theoretically true, but in practice its purity is routinely compromised. The second sentence contains a grammatical error involving homonyms but more important it's impossible to know the truth of its conclusion. The rub is that individuals can't neatly be collectivized into an overarching category.

After reflection, the post you replied to should read "atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sun May 17, 2015 3:48 am

What I was trying to say is that a lack of theistic beliefs is not a belief system in it of itself. Whatever opinions you hear from any individual here or anywhere, who are non-theists, do not represent all of us.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun May 17, 2015 5:12 am

toroid wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:
toroid wrote:Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists.

Atheists don't have a unifying philosophy. Whatever you hear from individuals are they're own opinions.


Your first sentence is theoretically true, but in practice its purity is routinely compromised. The second sentence contains a grammatical error involving homonyms but more important it's impossible to know the truth of its conclusion. The rub is that individuals can't neatly be collectivized into an overarching category.

After reflection, the post you replied to should read "atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists.

What's emphasized... there are two things missing, but that's purely grammatical. :-P

There's also something that's too much but it might be impossible to get that across. Just because some people (and yes, ever increasing numbers) find they have something in common, a belief system that does not make.

If so-called atheism would have been the majority, the norm, for lack of religious thinking and zeal - no one would, no one could ever call it a system.

Do you call sleep a system, basic nutrition and elimination a system beyond their biological nomenclature? There's nothing learned, nothing decided on, it just is.

So is what is termed the atheist.
Hi, Io the lurker.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 17, 2015 11:42 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:What I was trying to say is that a lack of theistic beliefs is not a belief system in it of itself. Whatever opinions you hear from any individual here or anywhere, who are non-theists, do not represent all of us.


Your post's first sentence is absolutely true!

With regard to the second, no individual is a true representative of a group until every individual in the group agrees that that person represents him or her.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 17, 2015 12:20 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:
toroid wrote:Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists.

Atheists don't have a unifying philosophy. Whatever you hear from individuals are they're own opinions.


Your first sentence is theoretically true, but in practice its purity is routinely compromised. The second sentence contains a grammatical error involving homonyms but more important it's impossible to know the truth of its conclusion. The rub is that individuals can't neatly be collectivized into an overarching category.

After reflection, the post you replied to should read "atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists.

What's emphasized... there are two things missing, but that's purely grammatical. :-P

There's also something that's too much but it might be impossible to get that across. Just because some people (and yes, ever increasing numbers) find they have something in common, a belief system that does not make.

If so-called atheism would have been the majority, the norm, for lack of religious thinking and zeal - no one would, no one could ever call it a system.

Do you call sleep a system, basic nutrition and elimination a system beyond their biological nomenclature? There's nothing learned, nothing decided on, it just is.

So is what is termed the atheist.


I'm incapable of grasping every nuance of your post after re-reading it several times, and apologize.

Please elaborate on the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph, which states it may be impossible to make its point.

The second sentence in the second paragraph doesn't cover the entire situation it describes; people sharing things in common may or may not share a belief system. A belief may be pure and true or may not be. When a person's perceived actions appear to illustrate that he or she believes non-belief is belief it becomes difficult to accurately label what is happening.

I (hope I) understand the term "non-belief" (which is similar but not identical to "a-belief", mostly in a subtle but real shift in their associated connotations) but have problems believing non-believers aren't believers when they call for donations to support non-belief.

(I'm posting early this morning because of upcoming travels, so may not post again for a period of time.)

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun May 17, 2015 3:24 pm

toroid wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:
toroid wrote:Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists.

Atheists don't have a unifying philosophy. Whatever you hear from individuals are they're own opinions.


Your first sentence is theoretically true, but in practice its purity is routinely compromised. The second sentence contains a grammatical error involving homonyms but more important it's impossible to know the truth of its conclusion. The rub is that individuals can't neatly be collectivized into an overarching category.

After reflection, the post you replied to should read "atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists.

What's emphasized... there are two things missing, but that's purely grammatical. :-P

There's also something that's too much but it might be impossible to get that across. Just because some people (and yes, ever increasing numbers) find they have something in common, a belief system that does not make.

If so-called atheism would have been the majority, the norm, for lack of religious thinking and zeal - no one would, no one could ever call it a system.

Do you call sleep a system, basic nutrition and elimination a system beyond their biological nomenclature? There's nothing learned, nothing decided on, it just is.

So is what is termed the atheist.


I'm incapable of grasping every nuance of your post after re-reading it several times, and apologize.

Please elaborate on the first paragraph

The post refers to what I bolded and in addition it appears it could have correctly read: "atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themselves atheists".

and the first sentence of the second paragraph, which states it may be impossible to make its point.

No. I meant it might be impossible for you to accept that point.

The second sentence in the second paragraph doesn't cover the entire situation it describes; people sharing things in common may or may not share a belief system. A belief may be pure and true or may not be. When a person's perceived actions appear to illustrate that he or she believes non-belief is belief it becomes difficult to accurately label what is happening.

I don't see the term "non-belief" in the emphasized sentence.

I (hope I) understand the term "non-belief" (which is similar but not identical to "a-belief", mostly in a subtle but real shift in their associated connotations) but have problems believing non-believers aren't believers when they call for donations to support non-belief.

If they do, maybe it's because they are forced to rally and support their right to said non-belief (and what that right entails), which in our society (and others) seems to have to be enforced.

(I'm posting early this morning because of upcoming travels, so may not post again for a period of time.)

Happy trails.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Mon May 18, 2015 11:48 pm

toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:But "god" already has a definition. Why not just call it "the universe", like everybody else?


The universe isn't god and is (probably) merely a miniscule part of that which (probably) exists. Reality is a more accurate word to describe what (probably) exists.

OTOH, god isn't reality, merely the word which best exemplifies the (myriad of) operating system(s at all levels) which ultimately causes the existence of reality.

Except that's not what the word "god" means.

(Almost) "everybody else" (figuratively speaking) has been part of the greatest human error ever made, an error which isn't about understanding the universe (although there certainly have been some whoppers in that area) but about understanding what god (probably) is.

I find that hard to believe, but am willing to hear your theory.

toroid wrote:"atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists.

Atheism has various definitions, but at its base, it's just a lack of belief. A rock is an atheist.

However, "atheism" can also mean "against theism", in which case it is a belief system. In that case, a rock is not an atheist.

It can be hard to discuss something when the very term used holds two contradictory meanings.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 19, 2015 3:40 pm

First, you have my apologies for (what is for me) an increasingly complex struggle to comprehend the subtleties and nuances of what each of us previously posted, due to the way the Forum displays previous posts (or possibly the ways you and I differ in how we intuitively organize thoughts.)

So, to best comprehend our previous discussion, I'm going to read the summation below in its entirety and then try to respond to specific parts accurately and coherently. I may not succeed. Wish me luck!

The original posted sentence to which you replied was: "Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists." I changed it, after reading and thinking about your reply, to: "Atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists", in an attempt to make the same point in a less abstract, less "fuzzy" manner. Thus "non-theism" isn't part of the highlighted sentence.

Perhaps you're right in stating it may be impossible for me to accept a point you've stated. But if that's true why do you believe you made the point rather than just proposed it? (IOW, is making a point analagous to hearing the sound of one hand clapping or two hands clapping?)

Lastly: IMHO, it's possible for two facets of a given concept to possess belief and non-belief components with both being simultaneously true, much as quantum entanglement requires looking at the resulting state of its components as a whole, not individually.

So what're the right thoughts, right words, right actions? Good questions! Existentially authentic people may honestly differ when espousing beliefs.
---
That's why god, for me, is precisely the way scientific observation (although never absolutely complete) shows as the way reality operates.

The god we got is not merely real, it's close to perfect; while not commanding morality it does enable humans to create values. The results are dynanic, always changing, subject to never ending intrinsic conflicts.

phpBB [video]


scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:
toroid wrote:Non-theism is essentially a non-belief system for wannabe elitists.

Atheists don't have a unifying philosophy. Whatever you hear from individuals are they're own opinions.


Your first sentence is theoretically true, but in practice its purity is routinely compromised. The second sentence contains a grammatical error involving homonyms but more important it's impossible to know the truth of its conclusion. The rub is that individuals can't neatly be collectivized into an overarching category.

After reflection, the post you replied to should read "atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists.

What's emphasized... there are two things missing, but that's purely grammatical. :-P

There's also something that's too much but it might be impossible to get that across. Just because some people (and yes, ever increasing numbers) find they have something in common, a belief system that does not make.

If so-called atheism would have been the majority, the norm, for lack of religious thinking and zeal - no one would, no one could ever call it a system.

Do you call sleep a system, basic nutrition and elimination a system beyond their biological nomenclature? There's nothing learned, nothing decided on, it just is.

So is what is termed the atheist.


I'm incapable of grasping every nuance of your post after re-reading it several times, and apologize.

Please elaborate on the first paragraph

The post refers to what I bolded and in addition it appears it could have correctly read: "atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themselves atheists".

and the first sentence of the second paragraph, which states it may be impossible to make its point.

No. I meant it might be impossible for you to accept that point.

The second sentence in the second paragraph doesn't cover the entire situation it describes; people sharing things in common may or may not share a belief system. A belief may be pure and true or may not be. When a person's perceived actions appear to illustrate that he or she believes non-belief is belief it becomes difficult to accurately label what is happening.

I don't see the term "non-belief" in the emphasized sentence.

I (hope I) understand the term "non-belief" (which is similar but not identical to "a-belief", mostly in a subtle but real shift in their associated connotations) but have problems believing non-believers aren't believers when they call for donations to support non-belief.

If they do, maybe it's because they are forced to rally and support their right to said non-belief (and what that right entails), which in our society (and others) seems to have to be enforced.

(I'm posting early this morning because of upcoming travels, so may not post again for a period of time.)

Happy trails.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 19, 2015 4:56 pm

God means whatever a person who uses the word intends it to mean when s/he ensures a listener or reader has access to the definition s/he's using. God is the sum of all known and unknown collections of operating systems making up what (probably) is an unlimited, but not infinite reality.

IOW, reality (probably) doesn't occupy every nondimensional point in a spacetime consisting of an unknown number of dimensions but (probably) does extend without limits in spacetime nevertheless. (The difference between infinite and unlimited is a tough concept to grasp; it helps to be a mathemetician which unfortunately I ain't!)

IMHO, people who believe in advocating atheism are misguided in choosing non-belief in God as the most effective way of communicating that God, as taught by supernatural religions, is the biggest mistake humans ever made. Now, that concept of a supernatural based God is increasingly crumbling. Go with that. Why not advocate what god is, not what God isn't?

As odd as it may be, I found the first realistic description of god through Lawrence Krauss. Krauss is a professional cosmologist; knows something (incompletely) observable is occuring and speculates on its ramifications.

Krauss chooses to be part of atheist sponsored dog-and-pony shows, getting involved in debates with fundamentalist supernaturalists, but that's his choice. There's nothing scientific about that choice. Even geniuses are free to do silly things. (Everbody's got a Gawd given Amercan right to be a total jerk!)

Scientfiic observations have shown that while nothing does exist as part of something; that something is very real, very big (not infinite but limitless), and no less powerful than what human centric supernatural fiction presents as a substitute for reality.
---
Can't we agree that theist related words are products of human thoughts, not inanimate objects? Otherwise everything is just crap.


Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:But "god" already has a definition. Why not just call it "the universe", like everybody else?


The universe isn't god and is (probably) merely a miniscule part of that which (probably) exists. Reality is a more accurate word to describe what (probably) exists.

OTOH, god isn't reality, merely the word which best exemplifies the (myriad of) operating system(s at all levels) which ultimately causes the existence of reality.

Except that's not what the word "god" means.

(Almost) "everybody else" (figuratively speaking) has been part of the greatest human error ever made, an error which isn't about understanding the universe (although there certainly have been some whoppers in that area) but about understanding what god (probably) is.

I find that hard to believe, but am willing to hear your theory.

toroid wrote:"atheism is a belief system for a large but not precisely determined number of people who call themseves atheists.

Atheism has various definitions, but at its base, it's just a lack of belief. A rock is an atheist.

However, "atheism" can also mean "against theism", in which case it is a belief system. In that case, a rock is not an atheist.

It can be hard to discuss something when the very term used holds two contradictory meanings.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest