Scientific evidence for god discovered

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
PennyDotson
Poster
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby PennyDotson » Tue May 19, 2015 6:55 pm

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?


I know where you can get a p***y bush... lol

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 May 20, 2015 12:23 am

toroid wrote:God is the sum of all known and unknown collections of operating systems making up what (probably) is an unlimited, but not infinite reality.

Don't we already have a much better word for that, though? Why bother confusing the issue by creating a whole new definition for a word ("god") that already has a completely separate and unrelated definition?

Like this:

god
1. one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
2. a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
3. an image of a deity; an idol.
4. any deified person or object.

universe
1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

And, should it really be necessary:

multiverse
1. the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.
"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 » Wed May 20, 2015 6:04 am

The universe is limited in both size and age, had a creation moment, and eventually will fade to an eternal state of darkness forever approaching absolute zero. The universe is not a creation worthy of god or even God. For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement. Science can't (yet) prove there's a multiverse but many respected scientists speculate that reality is precisely an ulimited multiverse.

If you find all this confusing, let's agree to disagree and join the fun with pussy willow and cat tree speculations. It's not worth endlessly yakking about current politically correct beliefs of an UnGodly universe from what is essentially a special interest advocacy group asking for donations to increase acceptance of unGodliness.

I think that's the wrong approach. But YMMV.

Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:God is the sum of all known and unknown collections of operating systems making up what (probably) is an unlimited, but not infinite reality.

Don't we already have a much better word for that, though? Why bother confusing the issue by creating a whole new definition for a word ("god") that already has a completely separate and unrelated definition?

Like this:

god
1. one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
2. a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
3. an image of a deity; an idol.
4. any deified person or object.

universe
1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

And, should it really be necessary:

multiverse
1. the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26372
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 20, 2015 6:28 am

toroid wrote: The universe is not a creation worthy of god or even God. For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement.

Where is this rule written about what God likes and doesn't like? Did he tell you? Do you secretly know God's plans?

toroid wrote: If you find all this confusing...
Not really, currently we have a Jesus on the forum at the moment who also talks to god about a "concave earth". Previously we had another Jesus (Emmanuel, the real Jesus, according to the bloke) who God told to wrestle a statue outside a post office in Western Australia. However, the winner is Paul Bethke, on the JREF forum. God told him to make James Randi go blind ten years ago. We are still waiting, but Mr Randi did get new glasses.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=290542

God is obviously too busy telling insane people what to do, to join the forum and start posting his own views.

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 May 20, 2015 8:33 am

toroid wrote:The universe is not a creation worthy of god or even God. For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement. Science can't (yet) prove there's a multiverse but many respected scientists speculate that reality is precisely an ulimited multiverse.

See, I think you're redefining what the word "god" means in order for your beliefs on this subject to have the meaning you hope for. I think you're misusing the term, so when I read what you've written there, it makes claims that are unsupportable (like that the universe has a "worthiness" or that there's a level of said "worthiness" before a god can exist).

It's not worth endlessly yakking about current politically correct beliefs of an UnGodly universe from what is essentially a special interest advocacy group asking for donations to increase acceptance of unGodliness.

Holy {!#%@} crap, where did you get "current politically correct beliefs" from?? Are there invisible posts here that I can't see?



...oh, I forgot: Maybe there are invisible posts here that I can't see. That's an actual thing now, apparently. :|
"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 » Wed May 20, 2015 2:54 pm

Yup! I'm not writing here in accordance with the rules of critical thinking. The Skeptic Society's Forums are relatively lightweight when compared to:
https://richarddawkins.net/
where some serious sh-t takes place; more than I'm capable of dealing with on an ongoing basis. But cat trees are fun!

You're right about my (mis)use of the word "worthy". God, the sky guy, can of course do whatever he wants (unless of course he's just nuthin') while god, the operating system(s) composing the networks of things otherwise unnamed relating to a multiversal reality is unrelated to anything worthy or unworthy.

If you don't believe Shermer's and Dawkins' hardcore adherents don't consistently try to abide by the mores of PC acceptability and from that basis work towards melding an enlarging core of correctness within their of related organizations, I can't convince you otherwise.

"I really enjoy batting my head against the wall, 'cause it feels really good when I stop!" (source unknown)





Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:The universe is not a creation worthy of god or even God. For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement. Science can't (yet) prove there's a multiverse but many respected scientists speculate that reality is precisely an ulimited multiverse.

See, I think you're redefining what the word "god" means in order for your beliefs on this subject to have the meaning you hope for. I think you're misusing the term, so when I read what you've written there, it makes claims that are unsupportable (like that the universe has a "worthiness" or that there's a level of said "worthiness" before a god can exist).

It's not worth endlessly yakking about current politically correct beliefs of an UnGodly universe from what is essentially a special interest advocacy group asking for donations to increase acceptance of unGodliness.

Holy {!#%@} crap, where did you get "current politically correct beliefs" from?? Are there invisible posts here that I can't see?



...oh, I forgot: Maybe there are invisible posts here that I can't see. That's an actual thing now, apparently. :|

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

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Wed May 20, 2015 3:05 pm

I read your post out of order. I covered the first questions you ask in the reply to Gord just posted.

Yeah, for a poor apparently Chicano undocumented guy, Jesus gets around pretty good! He may not be fluent enough in English to post though.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote: The universe is not a creation worthy of god or even God. For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement.

Where is this rule written about what God likes and doesn't like? Did he tell you? Do you secretly know God's plans?

toroid wrote: If you find all this confusing...
Not really, currently we have a Jesus on the forum at the moment who also talks to god about a "concave earth". Previously we had another Jesus (Emmanuel, the real Jesus, according to the bloke) who God told to wrestle a statue outside a post office in Western Australia. However, the winner is Paul Bethke, on the JREF forum. God told him to make James Randi go blind ten years ago. We are still waiting, but Mr Randi did get new glasses.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=290542

God is obviously too busy telling insane people what to do, to join the forum and start posting his own views.

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 May 20, 2015 5:26 pm

So you'd have no issue with people dumping "God, the sky guy", but you'll take offense when the rejection includes your "god, the operating system(s)"?
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 May 20, 2015 10:01 pm

toroid wrote:...god, the operating system(s) composing the networks of things otherwise unnamed relating to a multiversal reality....

I still don't know why you want to call anything so un-godlike "god". It's just going to confuse the issue. Maybe you could call it "Toyota" or "Einstein" for a while, and possibly get an idea of how confusing I find your use of "god" that way.

If you don't believe Shermer's and Dawkins' hardcore adherents don't consistently try to abide by the mores of PC acceptability and from that basis work towards melding an enlarging core of correctness within their of related organizations, I can't convince you otherwise.

What on Gord's green Earth are you talking about?!?

"I really enjoy batting my head against the wall, 'cause it feels really good when I stop!" (source unknown)

Yeah, I say that a lot. At least I used to; now I just say the first part and leave the last part off, because I've learned: It never stops!
"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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26372
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 20, 2015 11:34 pm

toroid wrote:You're right about my (mis)use of the word "worthy". God, the sky guy, can of course do whatever he wants (unless of course he's just nuthin') while god, the operating system(s) composing the networks of things otherwise unnamed relating to a multiversal reality is unrelated to anything worthy or unworthy.


I'm sure "God" is very interested in your opinion. You should pray 24 hours a day and let him know.

So why are you telling this to atheist skeptics on a science forum? We think God is a fictional character from religious literature.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby gorgeous » Thu May 21, 2015 12:17 am

Darwin and many scientists believed in God...------------"The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”

–Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as cited in his book Descent of Man.
---------------------“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”

–Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.
---------------------“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”

–Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)
--------------------------“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts; the rest are details.”

–Albert Einstein

(From E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123).
---------------------------“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”

–Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), as cited in his book God and the New Physics.
-------------------“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

–Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow. Please see Jastrow’s book God and the Astronomers for further reading.
-----------------------“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

–Albert Einstein
--------------------------“Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.”

–Max Planck, the Nobel Prize winning physicist considered to be the founder of quantum theory, and one of the most important physicists of the 20th century, indeed of all time.

Religion and Natural Science (Lecture Given 1937) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 184
------------------------“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, who made crucial early contributions to both quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.
----------------------“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

–Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as quoted in his autobiography.
-------------------To the question, “Many prominent scientists – including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck – have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?”

Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”


–Christian Anfinsen, winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on ribonuclease.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
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 21, 2015 12:34 am

gorgeous wrote:Darwin and many scientists believed in God...------------


Richard Dawkins and many other scientists do not believe in God. Your point?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26372
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 21, 2015 12:35 am

gorgeous wrote:Darwin and many scientists believed in God...------------"The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”.


So Gorgeous, by using both your brain cells "on full power", tell us.....

Who is in charge of Earth

1) God
2) The Alien lizard overlords
3) The Illuminati

They can't all be in charge can they, as you claim?

:D

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby gorgeous » Thu May 21, 2015 12:38 am

Poodle wrote:
gorgeous wrote:Darwin and many scientists believed in God...------------


Richard Dawkins and many other scientists do not believe in God. Your point?

--------just showing many have and think it's crazy to be an atheist....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 » Thu May 21, 2015 12:57 am

gorgeous wrote:
Poodle wrote:
gorgeous wrote:Darwin and many scientists believed in God...------------


Richard Dawkins and many other scientists do not believe in God. Your point?

--------just showing many have and think it's crazy to be an atheist....

Now why are you spending your time among the crazies?

Are the totally insane shunning you?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
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 21, 2015 12:59 am

gorgeous wrote:
Poodle wrote:
gorgeous wrote:Darwin and many scientists believed in God...------------


Richard Dawkins and many other scientists do not believe in God. Your point?

--------just showing many have and think it's crazy to be an atheist....


Scientists are experts in their own fields. Very few of them are qualified in any way to make pronouncements upon personal belief systems. This is like asking Enid Blyton her opinion on the Oort Cloud.

(Enid Blyton - discoverer of the Big Ears Principle).

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

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Thu May 21, 2015 1:20 am

scrmbldggs wrote:So you'd have no issue with people dumping "God, the sky guy", but you'll take offense when the rejection includes your "god, the operating system(s)"?


Why do you make that claim?

I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason and is destined to fade away to complete nothingness is all that exists, or will exist, or did exist, or does exist. Not impossible, but not probable.

But, same as as holy sky God folks are free, you're free to spout whatever you choose and join (or not join) organizations that espouse beliefs you believe and, to spread support for those beliefs, solicit contributions.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26372
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 21, 2015 1:20 am

Poodle wrote: This is like asking Enid Blyton her opinion on the Oort Cloud.


The Noddy book on Oort Clouds was full of speculation and I wouldn't recommend it to any other ten year olds. However Noddy' work in the field of quantum mechanics is superb.
1415494893232_Image_galleryImage_Book_cover_for_Well_Done_.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26372
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 21, 2015 1:23 am

toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

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

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Thu May 21, 2015 1:57 am

The multitudes of operating systems which run reality employ no inbox and do what they do without external input.

I'm also a skeptic, just about different beliefs than those you espouse. Your reference to "we" is "royal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we.

This isn't strictly a science Forum; it's also entertainment:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25079&start=40.

Go here for the harder stuff:
https://richarddawkins.net/

Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:You're right about my (mis)use of the word "worthy". God, the sky guy, can of course do whatever he wants (unless of course he's just nuthin') while god, the operating system(s) composing the networks of things otherwise unnamed relating to a multiversal reality is unrelated to anything worthy or unworthy.


I'm sure "God" is very interested in your opinion. You should pray 24 hours a day and let him know.

So why are you telling this to atheist skeptics on a science forum? We think God is a fictional character from religious literature.

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

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Thu May 21, 2015 2:09 am

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

Magic wands and unicorns obviously exist (in your mind).

Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

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 » Thu May 21, 2015 2:19 am

toroid wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:So you'd have no issue with people dumping "God, the sky guy", but you'll take offense when the rejection includes your "god, the operating system(s)"?


Why do you make that claim?

Do you know the difference between a question and a claim?

I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason and is destined to fade away to complete nothingness is all that exists, or will exist, or did exist, or does exist. Not impossible, but not probable.

What makes you think you know my views?

But, same as as holy sky God folks are free, you're free to spout whatever you choose and join (or not join) organizations that espouse beliefs you believe and, to spread support for those beliefs, solicit contributions.

More psychic gymnastics? Or just an insecurity issue?
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 » Thu May 21, 2015 2:39 am

toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.
"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 21, 2015 5:01 pm

The answer to your compound first question is no.

To the second: yes.

To the third: If I erred please enlighten me.

I can't answer the fourth until you elaborate in detail on what "psychic gymnastics" means.

With regard to the the fifth: again please elaborate.

scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:So you'd have no issue with people dumping "God, the sky guy", but you'll take offense when the rejection includes your "god, the operating system(s)"?


Why do you make that claim?

Do you know the difference between a question and a claim?

I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason and is destined to fade away to complete nothingness is all that exists, or will exist, or did exist, or does exist. Not impossible, but not probable.

What makes you think you know my views?

But, same as as holy sky God folks are free, you're free to spout whatever you choose and join (or not join) organizations that espouse beliefs you believe and, to spread support for those beliefs, solicit contributions.

More psychic gymnastics? Or just an insecurity issue?

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

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Thu May 21, 2015 5:27 pm

Straight questions? As opposed to gay questions, crooked questions, or something else?

The comment which resulted in your negative observation IMHO is straightforward. I'd suggest starting around post #60.

I covered your last paragraph in previous posts. What's wrong with acknowledging that our views differ? Why does going around and around regarding all permutations and combinations of ideas behind differing beliefs appeal to you?

Why put a clock on the leaning Tower of Pisa?

"Well, what good's the inclination if you haven't got the time."

Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

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 May 21, 2015 9:54 pm

toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

Straight questions? As opposed to gay questions, crooked questions, or something else?

Yeah, just like that. You avoid answering. I'm beginning to suspect that you're trying to avoid having to face questions because you aren't confident in your answers.

The comment which resulted in your negative observation IMHO is straightforward. I'd suggest starting around post #60.

You failed to give us any idea of your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.

I've already made a full reply to post #60. The universe exists. That's the only thing you've said. You also asked us some questions, which some people have answered (I'm one of them); our answers differed, but you yourself never gave your own answers, so we don't know if you agree with any of our answers.

We know that you believe "god is the name of the process underlying reality" but I still can't figure out why you believe that. I'm not even sure what means, or even if it has any significant meaning at all.

I covered your last paragraph in previous posts.

You "covered" it by failing to answer my questions. I don't consider that "covered". I'll ask them again: If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

It's annoying that you won't answer even my questions about which questions I should be asking you.

Why does going around and around regarding all permutations and combinations of ideas behind differing beliefs appeal to you?

The reason I keep asking you questions is because you keep going around and around without giving any information that would answer those questions. You walk a crooked path.
"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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26372
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 22, 2015 1:15 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.


Toroid are you saying "I don't have any theory" at all?

Have you read the existing scientific theories such as the ekpyrotic model or cyclic models? What is wrong with those scientific theories?

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

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sat May 23, 2015 3:37 pm

It's easy to be annoying to an individual and difficult to annoy everybody. The comment you made relates with certainty only to your views as an individual.

God is what a person thinks it, or s/he is or isn't. You shouldn't be asking me questions. It's annoying. There's nothing to figure out.

Interest groups advocating atheism seek donations and more adherents to their expressed non-beliefs. The path at that juncture becomes crooked indeed because it involves simultaneous non-belief and belief from donors and followers. Debating god is silly (for me.)

The universe is. Beyond that nothing can be stated with certainty (except, philosophically: "I am because I think I am.") The significance of things believed to exist is for a believer (or non-believer) to assess. God's significance is for each human consciousness to evaluate. The same for existence. My belief holds answers for me but not for you.

We (you and I) disagree.

Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

Straight questions? As opposed to gay questions, crooked questions, or something else?

Yeah, just like that. You avoid answering. I'm beginning to suspect that you're trying to avoid having to face questions because you aren't confident in your answers.

The comment which resulted in your negative observation IMHO is straightforward. I'd suggest starting around post #60.

You failed to give us any idea of your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.

I've already made a full reply to post #60. The universe exists. That's the only thing you've said. You also asked us some questions, which some people have answered (I'm one of them); our answers differed, but you yourself never gave your own answers, so we don't know if you agree with any of our answers.

We know that you believe "god is the name of the process underlying reality" but I still can't figure out why you believe that. I'm not even sure what means, or even if it has any significant meaning at all.

I covered your last paragraph in previous posts.

You "covered" it by failing to answer my questions. I don't consider that "covered". I'll ask them again: If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

It's annoying that you won't answer even my questions about which questions I should be asking you.

Why does going around and around regarding all permutations and combinations of ideas behind differing beliefs appeal to you?

The reason I keep asking you questions is because you keep going around and around without giving any information that would answer those questions. You walk a crooked path.

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

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sat May 23, 2015 3:54 pm

Thank you for bringing a recent developement to my attention: the ekpyrotic scenario. I'll form an opinion regarding whether it's right or wrong or just a possibility after reading more about it from people who are knowledgeable about it.

I form opinions and beliefs based on what I read from professionals in cosmology, physics and other scientific pursuits. My professional experience is blue collar.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.


Toroid are you saying "I don't have any theory" at all?

Have you read the existing scientific theories such as the ekpyrotic model or cyclic models? What is wrong with those scientific theories?

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 » Sat May 23, 2015 4:51 pm

toroid wrote:The significance of things believed to exist is for a believer (or non-believer) to assess. God's significance is for each human consciousness to evaluate. The same for existence.

God's significance depends on evidence to her/his existence. AFAIK, no such evidence has ever been discovered, no matter how much those who merely believe assert it exists.

So for me, said significance is nil. I was born without a god involved and no one has been able to talk me into accepting the existence of one on their (and others) word alone either.



What's your beef with people of like mind to organize and invite others of like mind to discover a community that's been not available until then. And that the running of such an organization naturally demands resources just as any other does?

Interest groups advocating atheism seek donations and more adherents to their expressed non-beliefs. The path at that juncture becomes crooked indeed because it involves simultaneous non-belief and belief from donors and followers. Debating god is silly (for me.)

Tough luck. Your tribe is the cause for the debates.
Hi, Io the lurker.

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 » Sat May 23, 2015 5:03 pm

Evidence for God existed long before science was a thing because the scientific evidence for God came at the time we discovered we had a reflection.

This topic is squashed.
  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 » Sat May 23, 2015 5:49 pm

Image
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
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 » Sat May 23, 2015 7:13 pm

But - you know that first person - the one who first looked into a clear pool and saw a reflection? How did that person know it was a reflection?

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 » Sat May 23, 2015 7:33 pm

Interesting. The concept of a reflection had to exist prior to seeing yourself in water because to use the word reflection, to describe what was visible in water, would have been a metaphorical understanding. "Seeing" your reflection. The term would not have had its literalism like it does today. Something we take for granted.
  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 » Sat May 23, 2015 8:19 pm

Image

:-P




phpBB [video]
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
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 » Sat May 23, 2015 9:24 pm

digress wrote:Interesting. The concept of a reflection had to exist prior to seeing yourself in water because to use the word reflection, to describe what was visible in water, would have been a metaphorical understanding. "Seeing" your reflection. The term would not have had its literalism like it does today. Something we take for granted.


I'm not convinced, digress. I'm not at all sure that anyone having no experience whatsoever of reflections would even consider that they might be images of themselves - they would be the wrong way round for a start. There is a (tenuous, I admit) idea that such an occurrence may be the basis of the European Bronze Age habit of chucking nice objects into the water for the use of the ancestors and/or gods. They certainly chucked a lot of stuff in.

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 » Sat May 23, 2015 11:11 pm

toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

Straight questions? As opposed to gay questions, crooked questions, or something else?

Yeah, just like that. You avoid answering. I'm beginning to suspect that you're trying to avoid having to face questions because you aren't confident in your answers.

The comment which resulted in your negative observation IMHO is straightforward. I'd suggest starting around post #60.

You failed to give us any idea of your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.

I've already made a full reply to post #60. The universe exists. That's the only thing you've said. You also asked us some questions, which some people have answered (I'm one of them); our answers differed, but you yourself never gave your own answers, so we don't know if you agree with any of our answers.

We know that you believe "god is the name of the process underlying reality" but I still can't figure out why you believe that. I'm not even sure what means, or even if it has any significant meaning at all.

I covered your last paragraph in previous posts.

You "covered" it by failing to answer my questions. I don't consider that "covered". I'll ask them again: If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

It's annoying that you won't answer even my questions about which questions I should be asking you.

Why does going around and around regarding all permutations and combinations of ideas behind differing beliefs appeal to you?

The reason I keep asking you questions is because you keep going around and around without giving any information that would answer those questions. You walk a crooked path.

It's easy to be annoying to an individual and difficult to annoy everybody. The comment you made relates with certainty only to your views as an individual.

God is what a person thinks it, or s/he is or isn't. You shouldn't be asking me questions. It's annoying. There's nothing to figure out.

Interest groups advocating atheism seek donations and more adherents to their expressed non-beliefs. The path at that juncture becomes crooked indeed because it involves simultaneous non-belief and belief from donors and followers. Debating god is silly (for me.)

The universe is. Beyond that nothing can be stated with certainty (except, philosophically: "I am because I think I am.") The significance of things believed to exist is for a believer (or non-believer) to assess. God's significance is for each human consciousness to evaluate. The same for existence. My belief holds answers for me but not for you.

We (you and I) disagree.

We certainly do disagree.

It's quite easy to annoy everyone who is listening. I've known several experts.

"God" is not what a person thinks it is. "God" is a word with a definition. You should be explaining your non-standard definition, otherwise what you're saying won't convey the meaning you intend. Your non-standard use of words leaves everything to figure out.

No one here is asking for a donation. No one here is even debating god. No one (that I'm aware of) is seeking adherents. We're looking for understanding, and you're failing to provide it. You keep using the term "god" but you seem to be doing so with a non-standard definition, which I'd like to understand.

There is a great deal that can be stated with equal certainty to the statement, "the universe is". Remember, I agreed that "the universe exists" is a given; that simply means I won't dispute it, not that it can't be disputed. There are people on this forum who have disputed it in the past. (I am not one of those who have done so...at least, I think I'm not. It's possible I may have done so to demonstrate a point, but I don't remember it.)

So, please. Explain your beliefs in understandable ways if you're going to post about them at all.
"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 » Sat May 23, 2015 11:35 pm

Poodle wrote:
digress wrote:Interesting. The concept of a reflection had to exist prior to seeing yourself in water because to use the word reflection, to describe what was visible in water, would have been a metaphorical understanding. "Seeing" your reflection. The term would not have had its literalism like it does today. Something we take for granted.


I'm not convinced, digress. I'm not at all sure that anyone having no experience whatsoever of reflections would even consider that they might be images of themselves - they would be the wrong way round for a start. There is a (tenuous, I admit) idea that such an occurrence may be the basis of the European Bronze Age habit of chucking nice objects into the water for the use of the ancestors and/or gods. They certainly chucked a lot of stuff in.


You don't think it would have been considered. Well, I had not considered that.
  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
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8122
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 » Sat May 23, 2015 11:50 pm

digress wrote:
Poodle wrote:
digress wrote:Interesting. The concept of a reflection had to exist prior to seeing yourself in water because to use the word reflection, to describe what was visible in water, would have been a metaphorical understanding. "Seeing" your reflection. The term would not have had its literalism like it does today. Something we take for granted.


I'm not convinced, digress. I'm not at all sure that anyone having no experience whatsoever of reflections would even consider that they might be images of themselves - they would be the wrong way round for a start. There is a (tenuous, I admit) idea that such an occurrence may be the basis of the European Bronze Age habit of chucking nice objects into the water for the use of the ancestors and/or gods. They certainly chucked a lot of stuff in.


You don't think it would have been considered. Well, I had not considered that.


No - that's not quite what I said. My point was how the concept of a reflection being related directly to an observer would even be possible. I'm not sure that it COULD have been considered, let alone would have been.Our "first observer" had no idea what he/she looked like.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby gorgeous » Sun May 24, 2015 12:54 am

hi gord
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest