Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: Proof of God

  1. #1 Proof of God 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2
    The proof has one definition, one Axiom, seven logical Tautologies with ten corollaries, one Deduction, five Inductions, with (credits), [attributes], and some resolved Paradoxes.

    Definition;
    By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

    (A1) Propositions cannot be both true and false. (Parmenides)
    The axiom of non-contradiction is required to prove anything at all.

    (T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
    (A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
    Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
    A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
    A → A “nothing implies nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
    idA: AA “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
    (∃Ax)(A = x) “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence

    (T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
    (A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
    nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
    ergo nothing is not implicated with something
    ergo everything is implicated with something
    ergo something is self-implicated
    Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
    ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
    ergo everything is causal with something
    ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.
    Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

    (T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan)
    (A ≡ A)∧(idA: AA) [intentional]
    Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

    (T4) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence. (Parmenides)
    (A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [substance]

    (T5) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides)
    (A → A)∧(idA: AA) [pantheism]

    (T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
    (A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [causal]

    (T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars)
    (idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect]
    Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.

    (D1) One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. (Spinoza) [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, monism]
    Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

    Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1]. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

    (I1) E = m⋅c^2 (Jules Poincaré & Olinto Pretto) [immanent]
    Mass-Energy Equivalence; bradyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all spatial things are forms of energy.

    (I2) E = Δt⋅c^2 (Edmund Whittaker & Thomas Bearden) [transcendent]
    Delta Time-Energy Equivalence; tachyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all temporal things are forms of energy.

    (I3) E = (h⋅ω)/2 (Max Planck & Werner Heisenberg) [infinite, omnipresent, perfect]
    Zero-Point Energy; we have a contribution of 1/2 hbar omega from every single point in space resulting in a substantial infinity as well as making energy spatially infinite. Because it is infinite it is unchanging in it's nature, while embodying the existence of all things, it therefore is perfect.

    (I4) ∑E = Et+Ek+Ep (Julius Mayer) [eternal, invincible]
    Conservation of Energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it is temporally infinite.

    (I5) P = ∫ ∇E dv (Mars Turner) [all-power-full]
    Power Integral; power involves the transformation of energy, therefore the infinite, omnipresent, and eternal energy is all-power-full.

    Note; The definitive and causal mechanism for mind-matter interactions (Mars Turner);
    Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are dually related harmonic convergents of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

    Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)
    sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum
    telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
    telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
    mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
    remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis


    by Mars Sterling Turner


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    "Originally Posted by MySiddhi

    You assume that God is unobservable and yet I see God everywhere I look.

    O, I lost my mind years ago... and I hope I never find it."

    http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...proof-god.html


    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    "Originally Posted by MySiddhi

    You assume that God is unobservable and yet I see God everywhere I look.

    O, I lost my mind years ago... and I hope I never find it."

    http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...proof-god.html
    Always the jester.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Proof of God 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by MySiddhi
    By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

    by Mars Sterling Turner
    That is beautifully paraphrased and absolutely correct.

    Sadly, the majority of mankind has manipulated the meaning of God for their own benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    reminds me of the following "proof"

    no cat has 9 tails
    a cat has one more tail than no cat
    hence, cats have 10 tails


    false logic has been used throughout the ages to "prove" just about anything
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    im sorry i cant read all that, but i think i can guess well enough what your saying.

    in short you think god is a way to fill in all the blanks in our understanding of the universe and its creation?

    its really just a superficial band-aid

    replace the word 'god', with the word 'universe', and i might agree.

    but i really don't get why people feel the need to personify the universe as 'god'. care to share it with me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    God is faith, prooving Him removes faith, thus God becomes nothing...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Proof of God 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by MySiddhi
    By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

    by Mars Sterling Turner
    The Physicist Gevin Giorbran reveals his theory of the two orders that you may find interesting at http://everythingforever.com/

    Namaste,
    Kurt
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    God is faith, prooving Him removes faith, thus God becomes nothing...
    Are you confusing faith with blind faith? I have faith in anything that can be proven to my satisfaction. I have faith in proof, so faith is not removed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    God is faith, prooving Him removes faith, thus God becomes nothing...
    Are you confusing faith with blind faith? I have faith in anything that can be proven to my satisfaction. I have faith in proof, so faith is not removed.
    I have faith that we are all naive...though there is no proof.

    Our meager mind, existence and sciencein our vast universe cant possibly comprehend the unknown dimensions. Upon physical death, can our conscience be transmitted across space to a receiver on the other end? Everything has a purpose. The energy in our conscience will continue upon our demise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Proof of God 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by MySiddhi
    Definition;
    By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.
    This definition really does not require proof except for maybe the omniscient aspect. Everything else is pretty much established and accepted as true. If I define God as the chair I'm sitting in, I need no proof; however, if I define God as an omniscient being in our image, then I have my work cut out for me.

    At the very least, you have proven that everything comes from something, assuming, of course, subatomic particles that appear to come into existence from nothing really do in fact come from something.

    Quote Originally Posted by MySiddhi
    Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!
    Here you are assuming that self-causation must be consciousness. The mere fact that something causes something is proof of consciousness? You may want to elaborate, since this is the part that needs proving. You don't need to prove that nothing is nothing and something is something, etc. Try to focus on the controversial aspects of your definition of God.





    Quote Originally Posted by MySiddhi

    (T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars)
    (idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect]
    Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.
    Here you are making some more assumptions. The "unchanging nature" part seems counterintuitive, since change is common. Additionally, energy changes all the time, so what you are trying to prove here isn't part of your definition of God. Your definition included energy, but not perfection or an unchanging nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by MySiddhi
    Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1]. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.
    OK, this is what you need to prove: that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality...



    Quote Originally Posted by MySiddhi
    Note; The definitive and causal mechanism for mind-matter interactions (Mars Turner);
    Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are dually related harmonic convergents of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

    Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)
    sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum
    telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
    telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
    mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and

    Public Policy.
    remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis


    by Mars Sterling Turner
    Well obviously mind and matter are related, since the mind is manifested by matter and energy. Unfortunately, the above references don't establish that there is an unchanging, perfect energy that has consciousness.

    I happen to believe there is a God based on the fact that the universe has a design that makes science and math useful. Nature has designed some very complex systems that exceed all human achievements. If we define intelligence as the ability to design complex systems, then nature is an intelligent designer or God. That is my proof for the day. :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    God is faith, prooving Him removes faith, thus God becomes nothing...
    Are you confusing faith with blind faith? I have faith in anything that can be proven to my satisfaction. I have faith in proof, so faith is not removed.
    The world does not revolve around your head. Your satisfaction is irrelevant. Proof is falsibfiable, as it is viable. God is faith, blind faith, whatever you want to call it. Bottom line is, you prove God; you disprove Him.

    There is no need to prove God.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    God is faith, prooving Him removes faith, thus God becomes nothing...
    Are you confusing faith with blind faith? I have faith in anything that can be proven to my satisfaction. I have faith in proof, so faith is not removed.
    The world does not revolve around your head. Your satisfaction is irrelevant. Proof is falsibfiable, as it is viable. God is faith, blind faith, whatever you want to call it. Bottom line is, you prove God; you disprove Him.

    There is no need to prove God.
    Can you prove your assertions or are they part of YOUR faith? Assuming you only have faith in your assertions, then your assertions are only true in your head and you must also believe that the world revolves around your head if you believe your assertions are facts absent of any proof.

    Here is the bottom line: If you want to convince a non-believer or a skeptic that God exists, then you do need to prove it. If, on the other hand, you only desire to spin your own thoughts and imagination, you need not prove anything. I hope that clarifies the issue for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Can you prove your assertions or are they part of YOUR faith?
    I don't wish to prove any of my assertions in this matter. MY faith? What's that supposed to mean?

    Assuming you only have faith in your assertions, then your assertions are only true in your head and you must also believe that the world revolves around your head if you believe your assertions are facts absent of any proof.
    I am open minded to anything. But I usually don't have faith in much other than God. I don't even want to talk about my religion, that is not the debate here. The world far revolves from my head if that is the case. You don't know me, your assertion is aimed at me as a person, not as a debator in this thread.

    Here is the bottom line: If you want to convince a non-believer or a skeptic that God exists, then you do need to prove it.
    I didn't say you did or did not. I don't want to convince a non-believer or skeptic; I let them believe what they wish. I'm sure they'd respect that enough to grant me the same liberty, not that I am bothered if they don't. If you believe you must prove God exists, then by all means go ahead and do it.

    If, on the other hand, you only desire to spin your own thoughts and imagination, you need not prove anything. I hope that clarifies the issue for you.
    I thought I'd clarified that when I first made my post. I would have thought that my sentences have very much presented that. There was nothing to clarify in the first place. Such a topic is opauqe and hazed anyway, so clarity is the last thing on my mind.

    There is a saying:

    "To see in the dark, do you light a match? Or let your eyes adjust?"

    Which means, that if you:

    A: Light a match... You see only temporarily and only what the match illuminates-which runs out very quickly.
    B: Wait for eyes to adjust.... You see all around you with less clarity, but with the ability to see for a long time.

    Either you chose, the outcome is no more or less clear. You chose to do A or B, and I do the opposite. But the intent is the same.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    You don't know me, your assertion is aimed at me as a person, not as a debator in this thread.
    Well, you obviously don't know me either, but for some strange reason you think you can judge my intentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    I am open minded to anything. But I usually don't have faith in much other than God.
    Sorry your wrong, if you have a single minded faith in anything without any corroborating evidence. Then you cant state you are impartial, non-prejudicial, or non-biased (open minded) at all, and especially not "to anything".
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    You don't know me, your assertion is aimed at me as a person, not as a debator in this thread.
    Well, you obviously don't know me either, but for some strange reason you think you can judge my intentions.
    I comment on them, I make a statement. What I said is what I saw. If that is all you quote from my above response to you, then it seems as though thats all you are interested in. I never said I knew you. I don't want to know you, all that I care about here is your contribution to this thread which it now seems is terminated, unless you can add more other than personal acts you believe I am doing to you. I have all the right to judge your ideas, based on thought and intruige, but I do not judge you as a person. If you think I have, believe me I did not intend to.

    For the record, here is a judgement of you from me if we want to understand this better:

    You remind me of me one year ago.

    Sorry your wrong, if you have a single minded faith in anything without any corroborating evidence. Then you cant state you are impartial, non-prejudicial, or non-biased (open minded) at all, and especially not "to anything".
    I can, because thats what I believe. I don't wish or care to be textbook standard to you or anyone else. All I care about is my understanding. So do you actually have anything to contribute to the OP, any personal opinions on the OP?

    PS Is there any particular motivation behind quoting that part of my response? Because I am confused and am bedazlled to see how you wish to begin a disussion based on my 'faith' in things, how I am allowed to respond to them and how that links towards discussing the existence of God being proved...To which already I have said that I have no wish in prooving Him.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Proof Of God 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    We are all energy bubbles living within a larger energy bubble within this universe. That what mankind calls God is the energy gene within every living thing in the universe. It is within the DNA of life. A gene carries trait codes. Traits have ingrained characteristics, one of which is spirituality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Proof Of God 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Traits have ingrained characteristics, one of which is spirituality.
    Could you please point out that exact trait, where in the physical body it resides and what mechanism it uses to communicate with the spiritual?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Proof Of God 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Traits have ingrained characteristics, one of which is spirituality.
    Could you please point out that exact trait, where in the physical body it resides and what mechanism it uses to communicate with the spiritual?
    Your arse, you can talk out of it to them.


    Kidding kkawohl. :wink:
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Proof Of God 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Could you please point out that exact trait, where in the physical body it resides and what mechanism it uses to communicate with the spiritual?
    Your arse, you can talk out of it to them.


    Kidding kkawohl. :wink:
    Only if your brain is connected to your arse.:wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Proof Of God 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Traits have ingrained characteristics, one of which is spirituality.
    Could you please point out that exact trait, where in the physical body it resides and what mechanism it uses to communicate with the spiritual?
    Atheists naturally vehemently disagree because they claim to be intellectually superior and therefore have all the answers....but....Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death. Dr Lommel, et al, stirred a bit of controversy back in 2001 when they were published in Lancet, Englands noted medical journal. The publication described near death experiences in survivors of cardiac arrest. http://urantia.us/urantia_united_summation.htm

    Dr Lommel said, During life we can receive aspects of our consciousness into our body as our waking consciousness. During cardiac arrest, the functioning of the brain and of other cells in our body stops because of anoxia. The electromagnetic fields of our neurons and other cells disappear, and the possibility of resonance, the interface between consciousness and our physical body is interrupted, and our heightened consciousness may be experienced outside the body, sometimes in another dimension without our material concept of time and space. The almost unavoidable conclusion is that at the time of physical death consciousness will continue to be experienced in another dimension, in an invisible and immaterial world, the phase-space, in which all past, present and future is enclosed. Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an NDE did not quite die, but they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Proof Of God 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Atheists naturally vehemently disagree because they claim to be intellectually superior and therefore have all the answers
    No worries. I'll be sure to pass on your claim of intellectual superiority to any atheists I meet.

    Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death.
    That's often how these kind of pseudosciences begin, they start out with an extraordinary conclusion and then proceed to contrive evidence to support their assertions. In your link, it appears that the conclusion is based on religious doctrine.

    Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an NDE did not quite die, but they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain.
    Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how people can provide such accurate descriptions of events... very close to death and without a functioning brain.

    Of course, one would have to "believe" there is more to it than beyond the simple reasoning of these events are just brain activity.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Proof Of God 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Atheists naturally vehemently disagree because they claim to be intellectually superior and therefore have all the answers
    No worries. I'll be sure to pass on your claim of intellectual superiority to any atheists I meet.

    Thanks...but don't talk to yourself for too long, it may go to your head.

    Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death.
    That's often how these kind of pseudosciences begin, they start out with an extraordinary conclusion and then proceed to contrive evidence to support their assertions. You are right of course Dr. Q (ball) 8) In your link, it appears that the conclusion is based on religious doctrine. Sure, but it's only for believers.
    Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an NDE did not quite die, but they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain.
    Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how people can provide such accurate descriptions of events... very close to death and without a functioning brain. Yup, the brain dies but the energy, the spirit that is you may continue...but you have to be a nutty believer.
    Of course, one would have to "believe" there is more to it than beyond the simple reasoning of these events are just brain activity.
    Now you got it Dr. Q
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Proof Of God 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Thanks...but don't talk to yourself for too long, it may go to your head.
    Again, no worries. I would never let your claim of intellectual superiority go to my head. I might laugh a lot, though.

    Yup, the brain dies but the energy, the spirit that is you may continue...but you have to be a nutty believer.
    I had already asked you to demonstrate the "trait" you claim, the so-called spirit and where it is in the human body and what mechanism it uses to communicate. I've yet to see anything from you in that regard. Perhaps, this is another one of those "wishes?"

    Why would you have to be a "nutty believer?"
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Proof Of God 
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    I had already asked you to demonstrate the "trait" you claim, the so-called spirit and where it is in the human body and what mechanism it uses to communicate. I've yet to see anything from you in that regard. Perhaps, this is another one of those "wishes?"

    Why would you have to be a "nutty believer?"
    Science can only prove the physical...not the spiritual...they exist in another dimension...hence science claims they are "nutty believers."

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Proof Of God 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Science can only prove the physical...not the spiritual...they exist in another dimension...hence science claims they are "nutty believers."
    lol, stop contradicting yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: Proof Of God 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Science can only prove the physical...not the spiritual...they exist in another dimension...hence science claims they are "nutty believers."
    lol, stop contradicting yourself.
    He's not...

    His two personalities are just confrontational...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Says Anakin....I mean Darth Vader. :P
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    Science can only prove the physical...not the spiritual
    i think it would be more fair to say "logic can only prove the provable"

    but before you get defensive, let me say i dont worship logic either.

    i'm begining to think that mathematics is more of a reflection of the structure of our brains, than workings of the universe itself. it only seems to reflect the universe because the system was 'created' in order to make sense of the universe (to allow us to exist within it).

    to clarify, i will admit that maths perfectly reflects our reality, because our reality is defined by our perception, which is defined by the structure of our brains.

    this inherent energy in our consciousness that you keep refering to intrigues me.

    i'll call it mental energy, for lack of a better word (stop me if im wrong).

    i'm reminded of William McCormick's plight on the physics forum.

    he would argue that its the structure of our brains which give rise to our consciousness, all the energy transfers within it can be observed (at least roughly with modern public technology), and the source of that energy can be accounted for. creating third party systems to explain this phenomenom [specifically, illusions created via certain structures] is at best, unnecessary.

    it seems theoretical physics and religion have even more in common than i thought. which is a bit of an eye opener for me.

    to give you something solid to reply to; i would like to know what makes you think that the universe requires a 'third party' energy source in order to exist, especially since you dont seem to require an explanation for how this energy source came into existance.

    this post was directed at kkawohl, but all responses are welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by redrighthand
    it seems theoretical physics and religion have even more in common than i thought. which is a bit of an eye opener for me.

    to give you something solid to reply to; i would like to know what makes you think that the universe requires a 'third party' energy source in order to exist, especially since you dont seem to require an explanation for how this energy source came into existance.

    this post was directed at kkawohl, but all responses are welcome.
    Physicist Gevin Giorbran eloquently answers your question (second order) at http://everythingforever.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    looks interesting, don't have time to read it today but ill have a shot at it tomorrow.

    im sure it will only produce more questions for me to ask you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    jjg
    jjg is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    33
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q8ZStPBsKQ

    Here's some good arguments that deal with the issues at hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q8ZStPBsKQ

    Here's some good arguments that deal with the issues at hand.
    Creation can be the source of energy that caused the Big Bang...so creationists and evolutionists may be equally correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    jjg
    jjg is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    33
    I have no problem with evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Quote Originally Posted by jjg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q8ZStPBsKQ

    Here's some good arguments that deal with the issues at hand.
    Creation can be the source of energy that caused the Big Bang...so creationists and evolutionists may be equally correct.
    Creationism adds another level of complexity to an already simple concept, hence it can be discarded as useless information.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Creation can be the source of energy that caused the Big Bang...so creationists and evolutionists may be equally correct.
    Creationism adds another level of complexity to an already simple concept, hence it can be discarded as useless information.
    Religions will exist as long as the earth exists...they will always say they are right and you will always say that you are right...stalemate...capitulation makes more sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl
    Religions will exist as long as the earth exists...they will always say they are right and you will always say that you are right...stalemate...capitulation makes more sense.
    Theists have been forced to change their doctrines throughout the ages as we progress with knowledge and education. You never see science having to change it's theories in favor of religious doctrines. Hence, you're dead wrong when you claim a stalemate. Religious doctrines continue to lose ground.

    Capitulation is for those who wish to remain ignorant.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Theists have been forced to change their doctrines throughout the ages as we progress with knowledge and education. as they should You never see science having to change it's theories in favor of religious doctrines. Hence, you're dead wrong when you claim a stalemate. Religious doctrines continue to lose ground. because most are based on superstitions

    Capitulation is for those who wish to remain ignorant.
    Or wish to stay alive...In this 21st Century, the Age of Technology, we are still plagued by religious beliefs that may be a contributing cause of terrorism, killings and wars between nations. Belief in a God who causes catastrophes, punishes people and who created the universe out of nothing as if by magic was brought about by hysteria and superstition. These thought processes need to be reassessed and brought up to date. Open-minded people must use common sense to determine whether this God was incorrectly perceived, misinterpreted and misunderstood by the masses of a bygone era.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by kkawohl

    Or wish to stay alive...In this 21st Century, the Age of Technology, we are still plagued by religious beliefs that may be a contributing cause of terrorism, killings and wars between nations.
    Then, why are you promoting religious beliefs? You are contradicting yourself, again.

    Belief in a God who causes catastrophes, punishes people and who created the universe out of nothing as if by magic was brought about by hysteria and superstition. These thought processes need to be reassessed and brought up to date. Open-minded people must use common sense to determine whether this God was incorrectly perceived, misinterpreted and misunderstood by the masses of a bygone era.
    Common sense understands that gods have never been shown to exist, hence the concept of gods and religion can be discarded entirely.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior kkawohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Then, why are you promoting religious beliefs? You are contradicting yourself, again.

    I am advocating the adoption of transcendology by religions. This would eliminate superstitions and bring some rationality into them. If you can't fight them... :wink:

    Common sense understands that gods have never been shown to exist, hence the concept of gods and religion can be discarded entirely.
    God is whatever one wants it to be....my concept is that it is The Source of energy. It can provide inspiration and comfort....religions will NEVER be discarded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •