Notices
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 601 to 653 of 653
Like Tree229Likes

Thread: Will a atheist believe if god really sends a sign?

  1. #601  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I understand your argument and agree in principle. But the reality does not paint such an entertaining picture. I hear cries of "death to the unbeliever or infidel" and see pictures of people dying on the television depicting real life results of people "serving their truth" against people "serving their false gods".
    That is why I personally find the situation with the abrahamic religious conflicts to be both ridiculous and hilarious. If more than one side call upon their deity's favor in the upcoming conflict and their calls are granted, I imagine it to be an omnipotent entity arm-wresting with itself; which arm will loose, and can an omnipotent entity even lose?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #602  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,804
    I think God revealing itself to the world would make a great book or movie. Has it ever been attempted? Not talking Bruce Almighty. There's so many different directions the story could go.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #603  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Your claim was that any religion with similar heritage that claimed the same stories and figures, etc. worships the same deity.
    In a sense, Yes. In a monotheistic genre, there exists a singular creator-type deity. That is to say that if deities exists within this genre, there is only one such entity, and this naturally applies to the abrahamic genre. For the purpose of the following questions, the words "You and/or Your" are addressed to adherents of the various branches of the abrahamic religions and not SowZ37 specifically.


    • Q1a: Who (or more specifically which entity) enacted the Great Flood as mentioned in your religious tradition?
    • Q1b: Is this entity the deity that you worship?


    • Q2a: Who (or more specifically which entity) commanded abraham to deliver his son isaac as a sacrifice?
    • Q2b: Is this entity the deity that you worship?


    • Q3a: Who (or more specifically which entity) imparted the ten commandments to moses?
    • Q3b: Is this entity the deity that you worship?


    • Q4a: Who (or more specifically which entity) parted the Red Sea so that moses and the Israelites could cross it?
    • Q4b: Is this entity the deity that you worship?


    If you have more than two answers that points to the entity being the deity (singular) from your subscribed/preferred abrahamic religion and your secondary answer being a Yes, continue on with the next and last two questions.


    • Q5a: Does the religion that you subscribe to describe a creation story with a pair of progenitor (one male and one female), and them having sired two sons called cain and abel?
    • Q5b: Did one of the sired sons take the life of his brother?


    All we require now are at least one adherent from each of the three major abrahamic religions, and we can have a verdict as to whether they are in fact worship the one and same deity within their genre.
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity? Why not ask, "Do you believe that G-d is a giant seventeen armed frog man who flies about space on a tricycle?" By your argument, I can say no and someone else can say yes and we are still worshipping the same deity. Which I find ridiculous.

    As to all your questions, my answer to most of them is going to be a complex one since I take scriptures figuratively.

    If believing the same stories is what means two people believe in the same deity, then by that metric I believe in a different deity than many other followers of Abrahamic religions But I don't believe that metric is accurate. Culture and religion are not nearly as simple and clear cut as you propose and cannot be divided into neat and easy categories based on fairly arbitrary questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #604  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #605  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I think God revealing itself to the world would make a great book or movie. Has it ever been attempted? Not talking Bruce Almighty. There's so many different directions the story could go.
    No.. The concept has not been the bases of a story I am familiar with.. Not a comedy spoof of religion or the religious.
    Even from my atheist view 'It's a interesting concept with some very big problems..' What form would this God take..
    Could the story be told without us ever actually seeing God. Could he be a alien life form just wanting to have guided humanity..
    What direction could this take ? Would it be too funny to have humanity finally find and make contact with and to discover the aliens are God.
    ( I base this on the concept ; That humanity is 'man' as God could be gods..) just a thought that maybe I will not go down this road. ..
    Can anyone recall it being done as a book or film ?
    Last edited by astromark; July 21st, 2014 at 06:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #606  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I believe StarTrek had several episodes about gods. "Q" was one of them. Q (Star Trek) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Star Trek: Q's Lessons - YouTube
    Last edited by Write4U; July 21st, 2014 at 07:28 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #607  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    Can anyone recall it being done as a book or film ?
    Does the movie The Adjustment Bureau qualify?

    There may be other short stories on a deistic deity type theme, but I am unable to recall any at the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #608  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I think God revealing itself to the world would make a great book or movie. Has it ever been attempted? Not talking Bruce Almighty. There's so many different directions the story could go.
    Sean Connery did reveal himself many times (in early James Bond films) I even saw in The Rock where he rolled under the flaming swords East of Eden (Or were they East of Manhattan?)
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #609  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are. If I believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil, saying that we believe in the same G-d because stories happen to coincide and the origins of the beliefs come from common ancestors is about as sensible as telling two historians, one who believes in the battle of thermopylae and one who doesn't, that they actually believe in the same war since they both believe in Athens. It doesn't make any sense. Not all monotheists believe in the same G-d any more than all polytheists believe in the same pantheon. I don't understand the attempt to oversimplify these cultural differences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #610  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are. If I believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil, saying that we believe in the same G-d because stories happen to coincide and the origins of the beliefs come from common ancestors is about as sensible as telling two historians, one who believes in the battle of thermopylae and one who doesn't, that they actually believe in the same war since they both believe in Athens. It doesn't make any sense. Not all monotheists believe in the same G-d any more than all polytheists believe in the same pantheon. I don't understand the attempt to oversimplify these cultural differences.
    Now do you see the problem atheists face when trying to conceptualize a god. Theists cannot even do it.

    If you can "believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil", then the argument of One god is moot, no?

    There are as many gods as there are believers and they are all different. Monotheism does not exist if the One god in me is not the same god as the One god in you.

    I just ran across this little piece of info about religions and the fundamental incompatibility of religions.
    I am constantly astounded in the ability of religious leaders to demonize women.

    Every Girl Will Get A Period, But The Ones Who Live Here Go Through It In A Very Bizarre Way
    http://www.upworthy.com/every-girl-w...rre-way?c=upw1
    Last edited by Write4U; July 21st, 2014 at 02:38 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #611  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are. If I believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil, saying that we believe in the same G-d because stories happen to coincide and the origins of the beliefs come from common ancestors is about as sensible as telling two historians, one who believes in the battle of thermopylae and one who doesn't, that they actually believe in the same war since they both believe in Athens. It doesn't make any sense. Not all monotheists believe in the same G-d any more than all polytheists believe in the same pantheon. I don't understand the attempt to oversimplify these cultural differences.
    Now do you see the problem atheists face when trying to conceptualize a god. Theists cannot even do it.

    If you can "believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil", then the argument of One god is moot, no?

    There are as many gods as there are believers and they are all different. Monotheism does not exist if the One god in me is not the same god as the One god in you.
    No, that doesn't follow at all. That one person believes something incompatible with what I believe in does not mean either of us is wrong. That one or both of us is wrong in our conceptualization of G-d does not mean there is definitely not a G-d. This type of logic could not be used in any other situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #612  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are. If I believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil, saying that we believe in the same G-d because stories happen to coincide and the origins of the beliefs come from common ancestors is about as sensible as telling two historians, one who believes in the battle of thermopylae and one who doesn't, that they actually believe in the same war since they both believe in Athens. It doesn't make any sense. Not all monotheists believe in the same G-d any more than all polytheists believe in the same pantheon. I don't understand the attempt to oversimplify these cultural differences.
    Now do you see the problem atheists face when trying to conceptualize a god. Theists cannot even do it.

    If you can "believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil", then the argument of One god is moot, no?

    There are as many gods as there are believers and they are all different. Monotheism does not exist if the One god in me is not the same god as the One god in you.
    No, that doesn't follow at all. That one person believes something incompatible with what I believe in does not mean either of us is wrong. That one or both of us is wrong in our conceptualization of G-d does not mean there is definitely not a G-d. This type of logic could not be used in any other situation.
    I think you are misinterpreting my post, but actually you are confirming the conclusion of my post.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #613  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are. If I believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil, saying that we believe in the same G-d because stories happen to coincide and the origins of the beliefs come from common ancestors is about as sensible as telling two historians, one who believes in the battle of thermopylae and one who doesn't, that they actually believe in the same war since they both believe in Athens. It doesn't make any sense. Not all monotheists believe in the same G-d any more than all polytheists believe in the same pantheon. I don't understand the attempt to oversimplify these cultural differences.
    Now do you see the problem atheists face when trying to conceptualize a god. Theists cannot even do it.

    If you can "believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil", then the argument of One god is moot, no?

    There are as many gods as there are believers and they are all different. Monotheism does not exist if the One god in me is not the same god as the One god in you.
    No, that doesn't follow at all. That one person believes something incompatible with what I believe in does not mean either of us is wrong. That one or both of us is wrong in our conceptualization of G-d does not mean there is definitely not a G-d. This type of logic could not be used in any other situation.
    I think you are misinterpreting my post, but actually you are confirming the conclusion of my post.
    Then rephrase it. How does 'the one G-d I believe in doesn't match the one you believe in' mean that neither can exist? Where do you conclude that for there to be a G-d, we must all have a conceptualization of the one true one inside us? Where do you get this conclusion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #614  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are. If I believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil, saying that we believe in the same G-d because stories happen to coincide and the origins of the beliefs come from common ancestors is about as sensible as telling two historians, one who believes in the battle of thermopylae and one who doesn't, that they actually believe in the same war since they both believe in Athens. It doesn't make any sense. Not all monotheists believe in the same G-d any more than all polytheists believe in the same pantheon. I don't understand the attempt to oversimplify these cultural differences.
    Now do you see the problem atheists face when trying to conceptualize a god. Theists cannot even do it.

    If you can "believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil", then the argument of One god is moot, no?

    There are as many gods as there are believers and they are all different. Monotheism does not exist if the One god in me is not the same god as the One god in you.
    No, that doesn't follow at all. That one person believes something incompatible with what I believe in does not mean either of us is wrong. That one or both of us is wrong in our conceptualization of G-d does not mean there is definitely not a G-d. This type of logic could not be used in any other situation.
    I think you are misinterpreting my post, but actually you are confirming the conclusion of my post.
    Then rephrase it. How does 'the one G-d I believe in doesn't match the one you believe in' mean that neither can exist? Where do you conclude that for there to be a G-d, we must all have a conceptualization of the one true one inside us? Where do you get this conclusion?
    Truth is Relative?
    But you are still not reading close enough. I did not say that a god could not exist, I said monotheism does not exist.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #615  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Why is it that these arbitrary questions determine if we worship the exact same deity?
    These questions aids in detecting the identity of the deity worshiped by the deeds and stories as attributed to it in their respective religious literature, and not which bits and pieces within their religious literature the present age adherents personally accepts and/or does not accepts.

    If you like I can include within a some trick questions identifying deities from different chapters in the the Bhagavad Gita just to toss things up.
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are. If I believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil, saying that we believe in the same G-d because stories happen to coincide and the origins of the beliefs come from common ancestors is about as sensible as telling two historians, one who believes in the battle of thermopylae and one who doesn't, that they actually believe in the same war since they both believe in Athens. It doesn't make any sense. Not all monotheists believe in the same G-d any more than all polytheists believe in the same pantheon. I don't understand the attempt to oversimplify these cultural differences.
    Now do you see the problem atheists face when trying to conceptualize a god. Theists cannot even do it.

    If you can "believe in a divinely simple, abstract and largely naturalistic G-d that defines goodness and someone else believes in a hyper personified G-d with a literal wife and children who defies all laws of physics and is utterly evil", then the argument of One god is moot, no?

    There are as many gods as there are believers and they are all different. Monotheism does not exist if the One god in me is not the same god as the One god in you.
    No, that doesn't follow at all. That one person believes something incompatible with what I believe in does not mean either of us is wrong. That one or both of us is wrong in our conceptualization of G-d does not mean there is definitely not a G-d. This type of logic could not be used in any other situation.
    I think you are misinterpreting my post, but actually you are confirming the conclusion of my post.
    Then rephrase it. How does 'the one G-d I believe in doesn't match the one you believe in' mean that neither can exist? Where do you conclude that for there to be a G-d, we must all have a conceptualization of the one true one inside us? Where do you get this conclusion?
    Truth is Relative?
    But you are still not reading close enough. I did not say that a god could not exist, I said monotheism does not exist.
    And your logic still doesn't follow. That people don't all believe in the same G-d doesn't mean a monotheistic deity couldn't exist. What precludes the possibility that one person is right and another wrong? It isn't my responsibility to read between the lines and capture the subtext of your posts. If you have an argument, make it. Give your reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #616  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    And I see no reason why how you conceptualize a deity and what you believe its nature is is not relevant, while stories are.
    I should point out that we speaking specifically of the monotheistic abrahamic genre, and the stories and deeds attributed to it and the subsequent obedience to (what has been characterized as) it's instructions/words/laws/moral of the story/etc. are what defines whether or not adherents belong to those religious groups.

    An adherent of abrahamic religions is only such if he/she accepts to some extent the truthfulness and/or validity of the stories that have been attributed to their deity of choice, otherwise why identify themselves as being affiliated to the respective groups, and it makes one wonder just how much of their religious literature do they throw out the window whilst retaining some or little to none of the traditions and practices. The entire point of possessing religious literature that is held as canon by the respective groups is to have a basis by which they can establish their religious lore and derive a definitive and authoritative "word" on what is it to be and how to be an adherent of the different religious groups. If as you say some of these adherent conceptualizes their deity of preference as and with abstract qualities, they will still need to rely on some characteristical references from their religious literature, otherwise one qualifies as a deist and not as a member of the abrahamic religions.

    Coming back to whether the three major abrahamic religions are in fact worshiping the same deity, there is little doubt that they aren't since their respective religious literature shares a common source in which stems from the word of their religious patriarchs. Remove the figures within and the authoritative words that comes with them, and the entire system crumbles since they and the words/stories/message attributed to them is what establishes the identity of the religious group(s) and the subsequent religious identity of their adherents.

    In any case, I may willing to join you in a separate thread if you wish to to discuss more on this since we are going off-topic with more than a handful of posts in this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #617  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    In any case, I may willing to join you in a separate thread if you wish to to discuss more on this since we are going off-topic with more than a handful of posts in this one.
    Whether it is off-topic or not: nicely written!
    *like*
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #618  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    I think it is not necessary to believe in God just because it is written or even proved by the theist. It should be your personal experience and your value of Truth that should form your view of "God".
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #619  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    I think it is not necessary to believe in God
    How does this claim tie in with your other one?
    It's "not necessary" to believe but it IS "arrogant" to not believe.
    Er, yeah...

    or even proved by the theist
    Proved?

    It should be your personal experience and your value of Truth that should form your view of "God".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #620  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    It should be your personal experience and your value of Truth that should form your view of "God".
    The lowest of all possible standards of evidence---- subject to failability of the human mind's false positive receptability of the supernatural, denial when the answer is difficult to accept (e.g.,we are joining our pets when we die) and self-delusion.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #621  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    It should be your personal experience and your value of Truth that should form your view of "God".
    The lowest of all possible standards of evidence---- subject to failability of the human mind's false positive receptability of the supernatural, denial when the answer is difficult to accept (e.g.,we are joining our pets when we die) and self-delusion.
    "bELIEF IN God" is on about the same level too isn't it. There is just the subtle indications that one takes on board and either believes or if they don't take them disbelieves. So it does start off without much evidence for sure and some might call it self-delusion. I can see the point you are making.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #622  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    It should be your personal experience and your value of Truth that should form your view of "God".
    The lowest of all possible standards of evidence---- subject to failability of the human mind's false positive receptability of the supernatural, denial when the answer is difficult to accept (e.g.,we are joining our pets when we die) and self-delusion.
    OTOH, an atheist can make a very plausible case that "we rejoin our pets when we die, except not in the same form", but as part of the holomovement, and back it up with science.

    As a fan of David Bohm, I like his vision of the holomovement (wholeness in flux) as compared to ID and IC in theism.

    The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called "Fragmentation and Wholeness". There Bohm states the major claim of the book: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how "each relatively autonomous and stable structure is to be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole" (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.
    Holomovement - encyclopedia article about Holomovement.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #623  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    ...
    As a fan of David Bohm, I like his vision of the holomovement (wholeness in flux) as compared to ID and IC in theism. ...
    Sometimes I wonder if you are David Bohm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #624  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    ...
    As a fan of David Bohm, I like his vision of the holomovement (wholeness in flux) as compared to ID and IC in theism. ...
    Sometimes I wonder if you are David Bohm.
    I don't agree with all of his philosophy, but his science appeals to me. It sounds so natural and best of all it does not violate any of the current theories of GR, QM, M-theory, multiple universes and and specifically addresses the method where particle duality is explained on a universal scale.

    But as an ex-musician I may be predisposed toward wave theory. It seems wave mechanics is a "common denominator" of all things ?
    Last edited by Write4U; July 23rd, 2014 at 07:06 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #625  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    71
    I just don't know where the thread is going.I request everyone please don't post from the topic other than the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #626  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    71
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #627  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    If you pray for my water to be turned into gold and it happens, I assure you I would believe in your god and pray for your water to be turned into gold.

    But scientifically I'm sure you know that gold cannot form on the earth, except in very small quantities at experimental level. It takes a super nova to produce gold and the gold we find on earth was formed not in heaven, but in HELL.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 25th, 2014 at 06:41 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #628  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    I just don't know where the thread is going.I request everyone please don't post from the topic other than the subject.
    I don't know what you expect of me but I am "entertaining" the implications of the OP question.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #629  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    I just don't know where the thread is going.I request everyone please don't post from the topic other than the subject.
    That isn't one of the rules of the forum, is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #630  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    God will have to do more than "send a sign" in order for me to believe.

    God will need to provide actual, conclusive and verifiable proof rather than some ambiguous "sign" that can be open to interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #631  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    God will have to do more than "send a sign" in order for me to believe.

    God will need to provide actual, conclusive and verifiable proof rather than some ambiguous "sign" that can be open to interpretation.
    Describe what you expect please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #632  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Many here trust their thoughts and observations. So they'll believe miracles, yes, though they squirm now to deny they're ever entertain such thoughts or make such observations.

    Some of us distrust our own perceptions and our own minds, and will reject even "conclusive and verifiable" miracles. We admit we could delude ourselves, and foresee that in moments of dementia we probably will. The way forward from that self-doubt is to take a position of absolute faith against miracles, gods, etc. Only faith is impervious to reasoning and evidence.

    But I guess if I lose all my dignity and integrity first, I could dispense with my faith that was supposed to safeguard those same virtues. Then I'd be free to believe anything.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #633  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    If you pray for my water to be turned into gold and it happens, I assure you I would believe in your god and pray for your water to be turned into gold.

    But scientifically I'm sure you know that gold cannot form on the earth, except in very small quantities at experimental level. It takes a super nova to produce gold and the gold we find on earth was formed not in heaven, but in HELL.
    Means you won't have a scientific explanation for it?Will it qualify for you as a sign from god?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #634  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Many here trust their thoughts and observations. So they'll believe miracles, yes, though they squirm now to deny they're ever entertain such thoughts or make such observations.

    Some of us distrust our own perceptions and our own minds, and will reject even "conclusive and verifiable" miracles. We admit we could delude ourselves, and foresee that in moments of dementia we probably will. The way forward from that self-doubt is to take a position of absolute faith against miracles, gods, etc. Only faith is impervious to reasoning and evidence.

    But I guess if I lose all my dignity and integrity first, I could dispense with my faith that was supposed to safeguard those same virtues. Then I'd be free to believe anything.
    Where did you learn to speak thus?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #635  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    If you pray for my water to be turned into gold and it happens, I assure you I would believe in your god and pray for your water to be turned into gold.

    But scientifically I'm sure you know that gold cannot form on the earth, except in very small quantities at experimental level. It takes a super nova to produce gold and the gold we find on earth was formed not in heaven, but in HELL.
    Means you won't have a scientific explanation for it?Will it qualify for you as a sign from god?
    Absolutely, you claim to have connection with god, so if anyone would be able to ask god to do ME a favor, it would prove that those who truly believe have access to god. OTOH, if I as a sceptical atheist, would ask, god may decide I was not sincere enough and deny me, which would not convince me that god exists.

    Why should I presume to ask god for any favors? OTOH if you did, that would be a gesture of generosity on your part and god would reward you with confirming your faith and at the same time convert me into a believer.

    From your point of view, why would god take time out for my selfishness if I asked. However, if you asked god to do me a favor and He made it happen, you will have proved that god exists.

    I would immediately convert and pray to god to turn YOUR water into gold. No doubt such an unselfish exchange would please God, no?

    So the ball is in your court. You have made the proposition that God could and would do such a thing, now it's up to you to prove it.

    But yes indeed, if water somehow turned into gold without obeying the laws of nature, why should I not come to believe in miracles and the miracle maker.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 26th, 2014 at 06:43 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #636  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Many here trust their thoughts and observations. So they'll believe miracles, yes, though they squirm now to deny they're ever entertain such thoughts or make such observations. Some of us distrust our own perceptions and our own minds, and will reject even "conclusive and verifiable" miracles. We admit we could delude ourselves, and foresee that in moments of dementia we probably will. The way forward from that self-doubt is to take a position of absolute faith against miracles, gods, etc. Only faith is impervious to reasoning and evidence. But I guess if I lose all my dignity and integrity first, I could dispense with my faith that was supposed to safeguard those same virtues. Then I'd be free to believe anything.
    So does that mean Bald is a hair colour and not-collecting stamps is a hobby?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #637  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    I just don't know where the thread is going.I request everyone please don't post from the topic other than the subject.
    God has spoken! I can tell -- it's a very large font.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #638  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Many here trust their thoughts and observations. So they'll believe miracles, yes, though they squirm now to deny they're ever entertain such thoughts or make such observations.

    Some of us distrust our own perceptions and our own minds, and will reject even "conclusive and verifiable" miracles. We admit we could delude ourselves, and foresee that in moments of dementia we probably will. The way forward from that self-doubt is to take a position of absolute faith against miracles, gods, etc. Only faith is impervious to reasoning and evidence.But I guess if I lose all my dignity and integrity first, I could dispense with my faith that was supposed to safeguard those same virtues. Then I'd be free to believe anything.
    a) Can you cite a "conclusive and verifiable miracle?

    b) The statement that Faith is impervious to doubt is false. There are countless examples of people beginning to doubt religion's virtues or actually rejecting Theism altogether.

    c) You are morally responsible to maintaining your dignity and integrity. Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith does not make you moral!
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #639  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Where did you learn to speak thus?
    From my brain? If you're flattering me, thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Many here trust their thoughts and observations. So they'll believe miracles, yes, though they squirm now to deny they're ever entertain such thoughts or make such observations.

    Some of us distrust our own perceptions and our own minds, and will reject even "conclusive and verifiable" miracles. We admit we could delude ourselves, and foresee that in moments of dementia we probably will. The way forward from that self-doubt is to take a position of absolute faith against miracles, gods, etc. Only faith is impervious to reasoning and evidence.But I guess if I lose all my dignity and integrity first, I could dispense with my faith that was supposed to safeguard those same virtues. Then I'd be free to believe anything.
    a) Can you cite a "conclusive and verifiable miracle?

    b) The statement that Faith is impervious to doubt is false. There are countless examples of people beginning to doubt religion's virtues or actually rejecting Theism altogether.

    c) You are morally responsible to maintaining your dignity and integrity. Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith does not make you moral!
    a) Is in contrast to Daecon's statement he'd believe a sign from god if it were "conclusive and verifiable": I personally wouldn't believe my own eyes, or my mind, in that scenario. If you're asking what I'd rate a sign of that caliber, okay: Clouds part and a huge bearded man looms over the city, everybody awestruck. He commands stuff and immolates a few sinners and so forth. After many miraculous days we're jostling into arks as the waters rise... and I can't possibly believe we're dealing with a deity or supernatural forces.

    b) Those people lose faith, or never had it to begin with. I define faith as "belief in absence of, or regardless of, evidence". And here I mean it in the "leap of faith" or "blind faith" sense. Willful or deluded, irrational faith, that actively resists doubt. It can even be formulated such that testing it only entrenches it. You've observed this capacity in people haven't you?

    c) Faith has much to do with integrity, and without integrity our morals must be pretty ...random. I can assure you that in certain matters I won't change my mind, no matter what fresh evidence or bright ideas crop up. Perhaps you have another means of sticking to your word. How do you do it? Is it that you'll maintain an established behaviour even if your changing beliefs tell you otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Many here trust their thoughts and observations. So they'll believe miracles, yes, though they squirm now to deny they're ever entertain such thoughts or make such observations. Some of us distrust our own perceptions and our own minds, and will reject even "conclusive and verifiable" miracles. We admit we could delude ourselves, and foresee that in moments of dementia we probably will. The way forward from that self-doubt is to take a position of absolute faith against miracles, gods, etc. Only faith is impervious to reasoning and evidence. But I guess if I lose all my dignity and integrity first, I could dispense with my faith that was supposed to safeguard those same virtues. Then I'd be free to believe anything.
    So does that mean Bald is a hair colour and not-collecting stamps is a hobby?
    You refer to the argument that being atheist implies nothing. In some utopian world, perhaps that could be true. In my world, my family, upbringing, my circle, that's almost true. The irony for embattled atheists who most use the argument, it's far from the truth: like, being a vegetarian, or a draft dodger, or simply someone who doesn't use drugs, is yes going to have experience and beliefs in common with others who reject the same thing.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #640  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Where did you learn to speak thus?
    From my brain? If you're flattering me, thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    you people tell me what sign will make you believe?.What if you pray and ask for water being turned into gold?and this really happens.Will you believe?
    Many here trust their thoughts and observations. So they'll believe miracles, yes, though they squirm now to deny they're ever entertain such thoughts or make such observations.

    Some of us distrust our own perceptions and our own minds, and will reject even "conclusive and verifiable" miracles. We admit we could delude ourselves, and foresee that in moments of dementia we probably will. The way forward from that self-doubt is to take a position of absolute faith against miracles, gods, etc. Only faith is impervious to reasoning and evidence.But I guess if I lose all my dignity and integrity first, I could dispense with my faith that was supposed to safeguard those same virtues. Then I'd be free to believe anything.
    a) Can you cite a "conclusive and verifiable miracle?

    b) The statement that Faith is impervious to doubt is false. There are countless examples of people beginning to doubt religion's virtues or actually rejecting Theism altogether.

    c) You are morally responsible to maintaining your dignity and integrity. Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith does not make you moral!
    a) Is in contrast to Daecon's statement he'd believe a sign from god if it were "conclusive and verifiable": I personally wouldn't believe my own eyes, or my mind, in that scenario. If you're asking what I'd rate a sign of that caliber, okay: Clouds part and a huge bearded man looms over the city, everybody awestruck. He commands stuff and immolates a few sinners and so forth. After many miraculous days we're jostling into arks as the waters rise... and I can't possibly believe we're dealing with a deity or supernatural forces.
    If that was a condensed version of the bible, I agree. However, if these things actually occurred in violation of all Universal laws, there would be no choice but to believe in a Greater Intelligence. Personally I rate that scenario at the bottom of the list of posibilities. If for no other reason that it would be impossible for a god to violate its own integrity by breaking its own laws.

    b) Those people lose faith, or never had it to begin with. I define faith as "belief in absence of, or regardless of, evidence". And here I mean it in the "leap of faith" or "blind faith" sense. Willful or deluded, irrational faith, that actively resists doubt. It can even be formulated such that testing it only entrenches it. You've observed this capacity in people haven't you?
    I agree. I see absolutely no reason place my faith in the existence of a supernatural motivated but unknowable being.
    c) Faith has much to do with integrity, and without integrity our morals must be pretty ...random. I can assure you that in certain matters I won't change my mind, no matter what fresh evidence or bright ideas crop up. Perhaps you have another means of sticking to your word. How do you do it? Is it that you'll maintain an established behaviour even if your changing beliefs tell you otherwise?
    Being a Humanist, my moral compass is due to my mirror neural system, which enables me to feel compassion and provides my moral incentive to contribute.

    Philosophically I try to practice the golden rule, which I compare to symbiosis, where individuals share resources and each contributes to the benefit of both.
    A perfect example of symbiosis is the relationship between bees and flowers. As a consequence, this cooperative arrangement has fed 70% of herbivores that ever lived. I call that a magnificent triumph of nature. A lesson in Morality.

    I use these type of examples to shape my behavior and relationships. Just critical secular thinking, such as the declaration of the Bill of Rights shows that morals can be arrived at through benign and knowledgeable logic.

    But IMO, greed, such as turning water into gold (reference to aniother thread), is in violation of natural law and always produce negative consequences. The culprits can be found in all people equally, theist and atheist alike. I even agree with scripture on that and in fact all 7 deadly sins will always produce a negative outcome. (the bible had it right on that one), but of course these are secular morals, as is the golden rule, not attached to any god or religion. It is how nature functions.

    Our use of chemicals is responsible for beginning to destroy the bee population and the dire consequences are already felt in many parts of the world. In short, for the earth's living population to enjoy a life in harmony with the demographics as well as the ecosystem, we better learn to conserve and share and exchange resources for humanity to flourish.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #641  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    Dear friends,I am an atheist but I think if god would send a sign I will truly believe in him.All the people here are very good in science so I have to ask a question to you all-Situation 1 - What if you asked God for a sign and said you will believe after it comes to you.You asked it at night and you suddenly find your self in the holy site of Islam - Mecca and you were in suppose London.You can take a thing from that place which would prove that you visited there after again coming back to London. Dont laugh ,I am not mad.What will you conclude?.If you deny then why?.Thank you.
    How would you know it was 'GOD' that answered your prayer and not some other being ? And why would you pray to something you believed did not exist ?

    The manner in which your question is phrased suggests a belief in God.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #642  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ Regardless of the rest of humanity, The sciences I so dearly cling to.
    I find no truths of religious deities found as supported by my science.. NONE..
    BUT that I can not argue your religiously held doctrines away. For some and not me that is all this issue is.
    What you believe is yours, and little is gained by telling you it's wrong.. If you were to look you would see.
    That you will not is a result of years of indoctrinated fears and myths.. Seek a strong education and learning is all you need..
    but denial is not the way forward.. education is just as science is my God. So be it.. 'Never wrong..'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #643  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    71
    Please don't make it confusing?.Can water by anyway become gold on earth in normal conditions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #644  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    no !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #645  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    if these (miraculous) things actually occurred in violation of all Universal laws, there would be no choice but to believe in a Greater Intelligence.
    No choice for you maybe. Some people are able to choose what to think.

    I dunno. Maybe it comes down to how well you trust your own judgment. If you anticipate losing it, or merely having brain farts, then you may want to establish limits.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #646  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2
    In the same sense as unanswered questions about the Big Bang; water turning into gold would not persuade me to start believing in ghosts. I would merely conclude that there is a fact about nature that I don’t yet understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #647  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Barycenter View Post
    In the same sense as unanswered questions about the Big Bang; water turning into gold would not persuade me to start believing in ghosts. I would merely conclude that there is a fact about nature that I don’t yet understand.
    We know how gold is formed and the physics involved. It requires extreme temperatures and extreme pressures to form a gold atom.

    We can simulate it in a lab but the energy involved is too great to make any appreciable quantity. In any case it does not involve hydrogen which is an element itself.

    However water can "carry" gold (particles) and when the water is evaporated it's gold would remain along with any other solids present in the water.

    This could be so easily exploited by a con-man as proof of the ability to turn water into gold.

    Interesting side note: The red glass in the glass-in-lead windows of old cathedrals is caused by gold at nano scale.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 30th, 2014 at 04:58 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #648  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barycenter View Post
    In the same sense as unanswered questions about the Big Bang; water turning into gold would not persuade me to start believing in ghosts. I would merely conclude that there is a fact about nature that I don’t yet understand.
    We know how gold is formed and the physics involved. It requires extreme temperatures and extreme pressures to form a gold atom.

    We can simulate it in a lab but the energy involved is too great to make any appreciable quantity. In any case it does not involve hydrogen which is an element itself.

    However water can "carry" gold (particles) and when the water is evaporated it's gold would remain along with any other solids present in the water.

    This could be so easily exploited by a con-man as proof of the ability to turn water into gold.

    Interesting side note: The red glass in the glass-in-lead windows of old cathedrals is caused by gold at nano scale.
    Hey man,Let's say its normal tap water.Then?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #649  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barycenter View Post
    In the same sense as unanswered questions about the Big Bang; water turning into gold would not persuade me to start believing in ghosts. I would merely conclude that there is a fact about nature that I don’t yet understand.
    We know how gold is formed and the physics involved. It requires extreme temperatures and extreme pressures to form a gold atom.

    We can simulate it in a lab but the energy involved is too great to make any appreciable quantity. In any case it does not involve hydrogen which is an element itself.

    However water can "carry" gold (particles) and when the water is evaporated it's gold would remain along with any other solids present in the water.

    This could be so easily exploited by a con-man as proof of the ability to turn water into gold.

    Interesting side note: The red glass in the glass-in-lead windows of old cathedrals is caused by gold at nano scale.
    Hey man,Let's say its normal tap water.Then?.
    Still no problem!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #650  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barycenter View Post
    In the same sense as unanswered questions about the Big Bang; water turning into gold would not persuade me to start believing in ghosts. I would merely conclude that there is a fact about nature that I don’t yet understand.
    We know how gold is formed and the physics involved. It requires extreme temperatures and extreme pressures to form a gold atom.

    We can simulate it in a lab but the energy involved is too great to make any appreciable quantity. In any case it does not involve hydrogen which is an element itself.

    However water can "carry" gold (particles) and when the water is evaporated it's gold would remain along with any other solids present in the water.

    This could be so easily exploited by a con-man as proof of the ability to turn water into gold.

    Interesting side note: The red glass in the glass-in-lead windows of old cathedrals is caused by gold at nano scale.
    Hey man,Let's say its normal tap water.Then?.
    You're making the claim. You answer the question how and why it would not violate any laws of physics.
    Last edited by Write4U; August 2nd, 2014 at 04:23 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #651  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    Dear friends,I am an atheist but I think if god would send a sign I will truly believe in him.All the people here are very good in science so I have to ask a question to you all-Situation 1 - What if you asked God for a sign and said you will believe after it comes to you.You asked it at night and you suddenly find your self in the holy site of Islam - Mecca and you were in suppose London.You can take a thing from that place which would prove that you visited there after again coming back to London. Dont laugh ,I am not mad.What will you conclude?.If you deny then why?.Thank you.
    Why would this hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent being reveal itself to it's creations? If I were God the LAST thing I'd want is a bunch of my tiny-brained children asking me for favors and fighting with each other about the nature of my mind (which is obviously TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE to an intelligent animal).

    Rather, I would want my creations to PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #652  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawman View Post
    Dear friends,I am an atheist but I think if god would send a sign I will truly believe in him.All the people here are very good in science so I have to ask a question to you all-Situation 1 - What if you asked God for a sign and said you will believe after it comes to you.You asked it at night and you suddenly find your self in the holy site of Islam - Mecca and you were in suppose London.You can take a thing from that place which would prove that you visited there after again coming back to London. Dont laugh ,I am not mad.What will you conclude?.If you deny then why?.Thank you.







    Why would this hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent being reveal itself to it's creations? If I were God the LAST thing I'd want is a bunch of my tiny-brained children asking me for favors and fighting with each other about the nature of my mind (which is obviously TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE to non-omniscient, non-omnipotent humans).

    Can you imagine if your children instead of growing up and making lives for themselves, spent their time groveling around on their hands and knees WORSHIPING you in synagogues, churches, and mosques they built in your name?

    Rather, I would want my creations to PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to the universe that I created for them and learn to manipulate it's physical properties so that they might SURVIVE THE NEXT EXTINCTION EVENT.

    In other words, I'd want them to be SCIENTISTS!!

    It's time for all humans to grow up, let go of religion, and start cooperating long enough learn to deflect the next comet or asteroid with our name on it among other things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #653  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by RobinM View Post

    It's time for all humans to grow up, let go of religion, and start cooperating long enough learn to deflect the next comet or asteroid with our name on it among other things.
    I really miss having a working "Like" button
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. New member sends his greetings
    By citizenzen in forum Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 1st, 2014, 05:37 PM
  2. U.S. sends B-2 bombers to South Korea
    By cosmictraveler in forum In the News
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: June 27th, 2013, 06:12 AM
  3. An Atheist Meets God
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 12th, 2008, 03:58 PM
  4. However, the “Game Over” sign is about to go on.
    By newcastle in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 9th, 2008, 12:08 AM
  5. Atheist vs religion about if there is a God
    By Ezra in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: August 16th, 2007, 03:53 PM
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
  •