A Proof That God Exists

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 61)

Showing posts 1,201 - 1,220 of1,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1243
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Scientists have observed that many autistic people are atheists.

Research suggest that atheism is, more generally, indicative of a neurological syndrome such as a severe chemical imbalance in the brain?

Speculation that atheism and such aberrant and idiosyncratic behavior may be treated with appropriate therapy and drugs?

Journal of Autism VII.7
Imhotep

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1244
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are here for entertainment.
And you are very entertaining. Kinda' like Cheech and Chong.
Shhh. Dave?
"Dave's not here"

Why thank you Buck
I am glad you are entertained.
May the force be with you

“Stop, I say stop it boy, you’re doin’ alot of choppin’ but no chips are flyin’

“Is he to be doomed to utter destruction?… Will he be rendered non compos mentis?”

For Mel Blanc - RIP
Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1245
Apr 27, 2013
 
Evidence that religion is learned, but not real.
Lincoln wrote:
Scientists have observed that many autistic people are atheists.
Research suggest that atheism is, more generally, indicative of a neurological syndrome such as a severe chemical imbalance in the brain?
Speculation that atheism and such aberrant and idiosyncratic behavior may be treated with appropriate therapy and drugs?
Journal of Autism VII.7
Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1246
Apr 27, 2013
 
I hope he used a condom.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that Jesus rode dinosaurs??

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1247
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody misconstrued it. He just lied about it.
I believe there exists a creating source of intelligence and purpose. I believe there is abundant evidence to support this conclusion - not direct evidence, but deductive. Some call this entity "God".
I do not believe the Bible was dictated by God. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a man who existed, but he was not "god" in any peculiar way and did not even claim to be.
I believe the Abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity, islam) are false and inherently evil as a concept.
I believe Christianity was founded solely on the claimed out-of-body experience of Paul, a fake rabbi.
I believe the contemporary followers of Jesus did not believe he was God, or the Atonement for sin, and very nearly killed Paul for preaching that he was.
I believe all mankind are "sons of god", this being in the sense that we are "of the nature" of the creator. "Imago dei" (image of God) is one way of putting it. It means we were created in love with the inclination to, ourselves, create in love.
I believe any belief system that contains judgement, punishment, or insiders and outsiders has nothing whatsoever to do with God.
I believe in evolution, and that man evolved over time. I do not believe it is possible that the process is not designed.
I can't definitively prove any word of this, which is why I refer to it as "belief".
I believe our existence is a mystery, with a few hints along the way.
That's very clear and probably much appreciated by more than just me. Interesting take on the Abrahamic religions, too. Do you have any beliefs about how the God you believe in interacts with Hs creations?

“official chess Grand master”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1248
Apr 27, 2013
 
Autistic people are not atheists. I know a Christian who is autistic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1249
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kidding, right?
I also have to explain "2" to you?
"2" is an abstract idea that can be applied to actual events because of the nature of "2". "2" events are observable and quantifiable - a definite value is represented.
"Infinite" is an abstract idea that cannot be applied to actual events because of the nature of "infinite". "Infinite" events are not observable and quantifiable, and if they were, they would not be infinite.
Applying "infinite" to actual events (or actual anything) is a self-contradiction.
Smart mathematicians and logicians know this. You will never be in that club.
"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite is solely that of an idea."
David Hilbert
"An infinite number of real parts of time passing in succession appears so evident a contradiction that no man whose judgement is not corrupted would ever be able to admit it."
David Hume
"The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics; infinity is merely a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits"
German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss
All previous to the work of Cantor.
"Actual infinity does not exist. What we call infinite is only the endless possibility of creating new objects no matter how many exist already"
French mathematician Henri Poincare
Or that there is always a previous time.
You, my confused friend, are a perfect example of the arrogance resulting from an idiot being overtrained.
Well,*someone* here is confused and arrogant.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1250
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Prove it.
First of all, causality, to the extent it exists, is an aspect of the physical world. As such, it is not a matter of logic, but a matter of observation, testing, the making of hypotheses, etc. In other words, it is a question of *science*. All actual observations of causal connections have the cause previous in time to the effect. Unless you have a counter observation and/or a theory that fits the data better, that *is* the proof.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1251
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you don't understand logic. Logic involves causality.
Completely and utterly wrong. Logic involves how to form deductions from assumptions. It consists of rules of inference and the use of such.
"Broad logical possibility" includes metaphysical possibility. If something is metaphysically absurd, it is logically absurd.
Metaphysics is absurd. At best it is baseless speculation and at worst it is insane apologetics.
The universe popping into existence uncaused is metaphysically absurd, therefore logically absurd.
Well, perhaps the problem is with metaphysics and not with logic. We have learned long ago that metaphysics provides no answers. It simply re-arranges the assumptions of the person doing the metaphysics. it provides nothing testable, noting certain, and nothing useful. As such, it is safely and advisedly ignored.

The question is whether the scientific theories based on the best observations and tested the most thoroughly allow for a possibility of the universe being uncaused. In fact, they do. if your metaphysics disagrees, that is too bad for your metaphysics.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1252
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
That's very clear and probably much appreciated by more than just me. Interesting take on the Abrahamic religions, too. Do you have any beliefs about how the God you believe in interacts with Hs creations?
My thinking is that "God" is an element of consciousness - present to a greater or lesser degree in all things. It's highest presence is in humans, as the evolved brain is the most advanced earthly vehicle for this consciousness. When the human became self-aware, self-conscious, he looked around and contemplated "Why?...there must be a god speaking to me".

I think interaction occurs with awareness. I think this is what the Galilean prophet tried to teach. He was the "son", or in the nature of God; of the same consciousness.("If you have seen me, you have seen the Father") He offered the Samarian Woman at the Well "living water", on the spot. No death on the cross, no atonement of blood. He offered her nothing but awareness, and indicated it was all she needed.("The kingdom is within you...") Important was his choosing of her - as she came to draw water when no one else was around, being looked down upon by others.(I can relate.) Yet, he chose her to make the first announcement of himself to the Samarians.

I think the purpose is evolution and interaction - all our millions of brain cells were present by the third trimester en utero, and what followed were connections among the many - this is recapitulated by the macro world. I believe life on the planet is connected by one matrix, and that connection is evolving, ever more intimately connected.

How else to explain Facebook?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1253
Apr 27, 2013
 
Carchar king wrote:
Autistic people are not atheists. I know a Christian who is autistic.
I am not the least autistic. Can't draw a lick.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1254
Apr 27, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, causality, to the extent it exists, is an aspect of the physical world. As such, it is not a matter of logic, but a matter of observation, testing, the making of hypotheses, etc. In other words, it is a question of *science*. All actual observations of causal connections have the cause previous in time to the effect. Unless you have a counter observation and/or a theory that fits the data better, that *is* the proof.
Logic operates in the physical world, as do the laws of physics.

Your proof of causation being necessarily previous to the effect is simply a restating of the original statement, "causation is necessarily previous to the effect". That's not a proof.

Your proof is just an intuitive conclusion. The reason is it not valid is it assumes the context of universe time for all cause and effect.

That is not an assumption you can make, particularly when considering the "causation" of universe time itself.

If considering whether causation is required for an entity beginning to exist, it is invalid to use the entity itself (time) as part of the premise.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1255
Apr 27, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

All previous to the work of Cantor.
Cantor's work did not contradict the comments on infinity of those cited.

Cantor's "infinity" is limited to theoretical mathematics, and that is the only place it is valid, just as pointed out by Hilbert, Poincaire, Gauss, etc.

Applying infinity to physical existence, as lucid mathematicians know, yields self-contradictions. It works in math theory only if compensations are built in.

No infinity has ever been discovered, and the prospect that one will be discovered is exactly zero. This is fortunate, as the actual existence of infinities in the universe would mean there cannot be any discrete computational foundation to reality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1256
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic operates in the physical world, as do the laws of physics.
Your proof of causation being necessarily previous to the effect is simply a restating of the original statement, "causation is necessarily previous to the effect". That's not a proof.
Your proof is just an intuitive conclusion. The reason is it not valid is it assumes the context of universe time for all cause and effect.
Then by all means, please *define* what you mean when you say that 'A causes B'. All definitions I have seen require time for causality. If you have a different one, please give it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1257
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Applying infinity to physical existence, as lucid mathematicians know, yields self-contradictions. It works in math theory only if compensations are built in.
No, it works quite well in 'math theory'. Whether a particular aspect of math is applicable depends on the observations and models used in science to explain those observations. It is quite common for those models to use various types and aspects of infinity. Furthermore, they do so without contradictions or 'compensations'.
No infinity has ever been discovered, and the prospect that one will be discovered is exactly zero. This is fortunate, as the actual existence of infinities in the universe would mean there cannot be any discrete computational foundation to reality.
Another bold claim. Care to support it? How would actual infinities mean there cannot be a 'discrete computational foundation to reality'(whatever that means)? And why is such a foundation necessary?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1258
Apr 27, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Completely and utterly wrong. Logic involves how to form deductions from assumptions. It consists of rules of inference and the use of such.
<quoted text>
Metaphysics is absurd. At best it is baseless speculation and at worst it is insane apologetics.
<quoted text>
Well, perhaps the problem is with metaphysics and not with logic. We have learned long ago that metaphysics provides no answers. It simply re-arranges the assumptions of the person doing the metaphysics. it provides nothing testable, noting certain, and nothing useful. As such, it is safely and advisedly ignored.
The question is whether the scientific theories based on the best observations and tested the most thoroughly allow for a possibility of the universe being uncaused. In fact, they do. if your metaphysics disagrees, that is too bad for your metaphysics.
The universe beginning to exist uncaused is logically impossible.

Making such a claim of that possibility renders you logically incoherent.

By beginning to exist, the universe had to not exist. Otherwise it could not BEGIN to exist. If something is capable of both not existing, then existing, it is "contingent". This means it does not exist without cause, or it would always exist, never "not existing".

Contingent entities are dependent, meaning they rely on cause. If they did not, then they contain their own cause, and are necessary. If an entity is "necessary", it had to always exist and never "begin" to exist.

You also don't know what metaphysical means in philosophy.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1259
Apr 27, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it works quite well in 'math theory'. Whether a particular aspect of math is applicable depends on the observations and models used in science to explain those observations. It is quite common for those models to use various types and aspects of infinity. Furthermore, they do so without contradictions or 'compensations'.
<quoted text>
Another bold claim. Care to support it? How would actual infinities mean there cannot be a 'discrete computational foundation to reality'(whatever that means)? And why is such a foundation necessary?
If any infinity existed it could not be mathematically computed, and there could be no computational representation of the universe.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1260
Apr 27, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it works quite well in 'math theory'. Whether a particular aspect of math is applicable depends on the observations and models used in science to explain those observations. It is quite common for those models to use various types and aspects of infinity. Furthermore, they do so without contradictions or 'compensations'.
<quoted text>
Another bold claim. Care to support it? How would actual infinities mean there cannot be a 'discrete computational foundation to reality'(whatever that means)? And why is such a foundation necessary?
That's what I said - it works in theory.

Infinity is an idea. It is a way of thinking of things. It is a useful fiction. It does not exist in the universe.

If realized, the infinite would cease to be infinite, so it can never be discovered.

Find the infinite, then add one. Your infinite disappeared, so it was not really infinite. Then repeat.

Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1261
Apr 27, 2013
 
In my doughnut there are an infinite number of infinities.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If any infinity existed it could not be mathematically computed, and there could be no computational representation of the universe.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1262
Apr 27, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by all means, please *define* what you mean when you say that 'A causes B'. All definitions I have seen require time for causality. If you have a different one, please give it.
If time is required for causality, how would you discuss the cause of time?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,201 - 1,220 of1,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••