Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From Hueff -- an observation submitted in support of a proposition.
From Ryrge -- Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
Definitions of God and universe:
Of God from Ryrge -- Maker of everything that is not Himself (himself means His person-self).
Of universe from Ryrge -- the totality of existence where we reside in and are part and parcel of.
-------------------------------
Now, before everything else, there can be no absolute certainty with human knowledge, that is certain, one of two exceptions, namely, that there can be no absolute certainty with human knowledge.
And here is the other exception, it is absolutely certain that there is God maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
Here is just the same an accommodation from me to you atheists, I grant that God is also like man a part and parcel of the universe which is the totality of existence.
Please keep to the present task, which is not into proving by evidence or any way and any means that God exists, proving to atheists; but into the exposition of what kind of evidence is applicable for substantiating the existence of God.
This board here is on religion and philosophy, not into extreme engineering, therefore if you keep on in that attitude of machine shop precision you will be like the robotic polisher of a piece of ceramic who is so scrupulously polishing and polishing and polishing and on and on and on until he breaks the ceramic,
And the robotic polisher will be thrown out by his employer master.
What else? Wait.
Okay, keep busy with this observation from me, atheists do not have discipline when it comes to systematic thinking, they jump in all directions and like headless chickens give the impression of life to shallow bystanders but no genuine mental exertions, that is also why people like myself see only mental confusion in their mind.
Proof of that? Read the posts of atheists here.
-----------------
Here are some aphorisms from yours truly:
If you cannot see clearly, don't blame the scenery, blame your eyes.
If you are disappointed with your lover, don't blame her, she has more goodies that you are not attending to, but you are regretting the petit mole in an inner ear.
Don't credit too much cognitive prowess and honesty to yourself, all men are dummkopf with forked tongue.
God in Genesis' first line is described as "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and in the Apostles' Creed as "Father almighty creator of heaven and earth," but you atheists want to have Him face the press to explain and His life and acts.
Some Christians of weak stamina sign up with loud atheists after reading best [sic] sellers from charlatan atheists more keen on sales than love for their readers, when they weak Christians should also be reading the best from 2000 years of Christian thoughts.
I can always use more inputs on what is evidence and how it operates, so please everyone occupy yourselves with what kind of evidence is appropriate for substantiating the existence of God corresponding to my concept of God which is also for Christians the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe.
Now, here is the bombshell if it is any bombshell at all.
The kind of evidence appropriate to God is in the domain of causality, because God is in concept the maker of everything that is not Himself.
Now you atheists will jump up and down with foaming in your mouths, when you should be doing some very serious disciplined thinking.
From Hueff -- an observation submitted in support of a proposition.
From Ryrge -- Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
Definitions of God and universe:
Of God from Ryrge -- Maker of everything that is not Himself (himself means His person-self).
Of universe from Ryrge -- the totality of existence where we reside in and are part and parcel of.
-------------------------------
Now, before everything else, there can be no absolute certainty with human knowledge, that is certain, one of two exceptions, namely, that there can be no absolute certainty with human knowledge.
And here is the other exception, it is absolutely certain that there is God maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
Bzzzzzt. That is absolutely NOT a certainty. It may be your fervent belief, but that doesn't make it fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Here is just the same an accommodation from me to you atheists, I grant that God is also like man a part and parcel of the universe which is the totality of existence.
Please keep to the present task, which is not into proving by evidence or any way and any means that God exists, proving to atheists; but into the exposition of what kind of evidence is applicable for substantiating the existence of God.
This board here is on religion and philosophy, not into extreme engineering, therefore if you keep on in that attitude of machine shop precision you will be like the robotic polisher of a piece of ceramic who is so scrupulously polishing and polishing and polishing and on and on and on until he breaks the ceramic,
And the robotic polisher will be thrown out by his employer master.
What else? Wait.
Okay, keep busy with this observation from me, atheists do not have discipline when it comes to systematic thinking, they jump in all directions and like headless chickens give the impression of life to shallow bystanders but no genuine mental exertions, that is also why people like myself see only mental confusion in their mind.
Proof of that? Read the posts of atheists here.
Lovely personal attacks against all the atheists here. In my estimation, we are the ones making honest attempts at logical discourse here. YOU seem to be hell-bent (pun intended) on posting tangential rants and belittling other posters that are trying to participate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Here are some aphorisms from yours truly:
If you cannot see clearly, don't blame the scenery, blame your eyes.
If you are disappointed with your lover, don't blame her, she has more goodies that you are not attending to, but you are regretting the petit mole in an inner ear.
Don't credit too much cognitive prowess and honesty to yourself, all men are dummkopf with forked tongue.
God in Genesis' first line is described as "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and in the Apostles' Creed as "Father almighty creator of heaven and earth," but you atheists want to have Him face the press to explain and His life and acts.
Some Christians of weak stamina sign up with loud atheists after reading best [sic] sellers from charlatan atheists more keen on sales than love for their readers, when they weak Christians should also be reading the best from 2000 years of Christian thoughts.
Wow, thanks for that. What, exactly, does it have to do with the discussion at hand about evidence, how it operates and how that might be applied toward the existence of "God"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
I can always use more inputs on what is evidence and how it operates, so please everyone occupy yourselves with what kind of evidence is appropriate for substantiating the existence of God corresponding to my concept of God which is also for Christians the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe.
Advice that you might want to take to heart for yourself, judging from this post I'm quoting....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Now, here is the bombshell if it is any bombshell at all.
The kind of evidence appropriate to God is in the domain of causality, because God is in concept the maker of everything that is not Himself.
Now you atheists will jump up and down with foaming in your mouths, when you should be doing some very serious disciplined thinking.
Ryrge
Not a bombshell in the least. Why? You are starting with a faulty premise: "God is the creator of everything that is not himself." That is a giant assumption by you.
Why can you not simply answer what evidence is out there that leads YOU to believe that there is an intelligent creator?
07-28-2011, 05:46 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
All Ryrge is doing is equating his belief with knowledge and knowledge with a fact and that fact as evidence.
Therefore, since he believes that God exists and 'knows' that God exist he has a fact that is evidence of God existing.
Quote about evidence: 'Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.'
Ryrge knows Gods exist.
Knowing God exist is a fact.
A Fact is Evidence.
Therefore, there is evidence that God exists.
Or it may be something more elabrate like this:
Ryrge believes God exist.
Ryrge knows this belief to be true.
Truth are facts.
Facts are evidence.
Therefore, there is evidence that God exists.
Is that what this thread was all about? It is all personal subjective evidence based on internal 'knowledge' about his own beliefs that he uses as evidence for God's existence.
As much as you may not like it, it is perfectly possible that the universe sprang into existence from the multiverse without a "maker". It just is. And it is perfectly possible that as the universe cooled, energy could transform into matter, and due to gravity, that matter could collapse into nebulae, stars, planets, and solar systems, all without a "maker". And it is perfectly possible due to atomic electromagetic attraction, atoms could bond into molecules and amino acids, all without a "maker". And amino acids bond into proteins and cellular membranes and long molecules called DNA, and cells divide and multiply, and be organisms. Then, through natural selection and genetic recombination and mutation, those organisms evolve into all the diversity of life we observe today, all without a "maker".
Now, it is also possible that there was a "maker" who made the universe. Which model you believe is up to you, but both are possible. One thing that is for sure, it is definitely not knowable that there was a maker of everything, far from it. In fact, a careful examination reveals that there probably wasn't a maker.
It is possible that the multiverse from whence the universe came "always existed". I put that in parentheses because it is not technically correct, because time is created and is contained within each universe, so the multiverse does not exist on a timeline, it just is; therefore uncreated. If you find that strange, it is no more strange than a god that has "always existed", not on a timeline, and just is; therefore uncreated.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 07-28-2011 at 06:17 PM..
As much as you may not like it, it is perfectly possible that the universe sprang into existence from the multiverse without a "maker". It just is. And it is perfectly possible that as the universe cooled, energy could transform into matter, and due to gravity, that matter could collapse into nebulae, stars, planets, and solar systems, all without a "maker". And it is perfectly possible due to atomic electromagetic attraction, atoms could bond into molecules and amino acids, all without a "maker". And amino acids bond into proteins and cellular membranes and long molecules called DNA, and cells divide and multiply, and be organisms. Then, through natural selection and genetic recombination and mutation, those organisms evolve into all the diversity of life we observe today, all without a "maker".
Now, it is also possible that there was a "maker" who made the universe. Which model you believe is up to you, but both are possible. One thing that is for sure, it is definitely not knowable that there was a maker of everything, far from it. In fact, a careful examination reveals that there probably wasn't a maker.
It is possible that the multiverse from whence the universe came "always existed". I put that in parentheses because it is not technically correct, because time is created and is contained within each universe, so the multiverse does not exist on a timeline, it just is; therefore uncreated. If you find that strange, it is no more strange than a god that has "always existed", not on a timeline, and just is; therefore uncreated.
You have tried your damnedest to use scientific jargon to argue for the existence of God without calling it God, Hueff. You failed. "It just IS" . . . no matter what label (multiverse, nature, universe . . . whatever) you put on it is a God claim! When you factor in the existence of consciousness and intelligence . . . God is undeniable. Your shallow understanding of all the implications of the existence of conscious intelligence is the reason you retain your materialist beliefs.
Everything is energy in various vibratory "events" that are constantly becoming (being) . . . so in that sense everything is "material" or substance using energy as the substance. But the states of pure energy events (light-squared molecular "speed") and the various states of matter events (sub-light molecular "speeds") are separated by a quantum change in becoming (being).
And here is the other exception, it is absolutely certain that there is God maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
I love how this troll blames others for not being genuine. He then turns around and after nearly 200 posts on the concept of evidence in relation to gods admits it's just something he assumes. Great job. Golf clap.
You have tried your damnedest to use scientific jargon to argue for the existence of God without calling it God, Hueff. You failed. "It just IS" . . . no matter what label (multiverse, nature, universe . . . whatever) you put on it is a God claim! When you factor in the existence of consciousness and intelligence . . . God is undeniable. Your shallow understanding of all the implications of the existence of conscious intelligence is the reason you retain your materialist beliefs.
Everything is energy in various vibratory "events" that are constantly becoming (being) . . . so in that sense everything is "material" or substance using energy as the substance. But the states of pure energy events (light-squared molecular "speed") and the various states of matter events (sub-light molecular "speeds") are separated by a quantum change in becoming (being).
God isn't defined well-enough to even begin to support or refute it.
Look, as much as you like to claim that I too ignorant and uneducated to understand why materialism could never account for consciousness, I believe I have a strong enough background in physics (I once was a physics major and I earned a minor), psychology (I earned a M.A., and was well on my way to completing a Ph.D.), and philosophy, which has been a hobby of mine since I was 14-years-old, and I have taken some formal classes in it in college and grad school. Anything you would present that I am not familiar with, I am quite capable of looking up. I am doing just fine going through and critiquing your synthesis (I slowed down because my life has been busy).
You claim that it is logically impossible to account for consciousness in a materialist framework, implying that materialist scientists and theorists will never find the explanation through materialist assumptions. When asked to provide a logical proof that it is indeed impossible, you refuse, say it is too much work, and imply that we don't have the background to understand it anyway. That, to use a phrase that is a favorite of Ryrge, is a cop out. If you don't want to produce the proof, then point me to article or something, in which someone else has proven it. If you can't do that then dispense with your claims that it is logically impossible. It seems the vast majority of modern scientists working in the field believe a materialist explanation is achievable and some have surely already looked into whatever you might claim as proof that it is logically impossible and found the argument insufficient. So, you are in the minority, all the more reason to prove your point.
In general, I like you, but there is one thing you do that I can not stand, and that is when you put me and others down for any reason, but especially for stuff you can't back up. I also don't like how you mingle established scientific fact, with your own speculations that you talk about as if they were also scientific fact, making no distinction. You act like you are educating people on what is well-known by the scientific community when you are really educating them in your own speculations. There is no problem with you believing them, but don't misrepresent them as established fact.
You have tried your damnedest to use scientific jargon to argue for the existence of God without calling it God, Hueff. You failed. "It just IS" . . . no matter what label (multiverse, nature, universe . . . whatever) you put on it is a God claim!
That all depends on what your definition of "god" is, then. Hueff's post makes absolutely no claim of an intelligent creator type of "god" which is what 99.9% of the world thinks of when someone says "God".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
When you factor in the existence of consciousness and intelligence . . . God is undeniable. Your shallow understanding of all the implications of the existence of conscious intelligence is the reason you retain your materialist beliefs.
This bit makes you sound like a pompous douche, FYI. I'm not saying you ARE one, I'm simply saying that statement makes you sound like one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Everything is energy in various vibratory "events" that are constantly becoming (being) . . . so in that sense everything is "material" or substance using energy as the substance. But the states of pure energy events (light-squared molecular "speed") and the various states of matter events (sub-light molecular "speeds") are separated by a quantum change in becoming (being).
That's great - I have no idea what it has to do with the topic of this thread (defining acceptable evidence when applied to the God belief), however.
God isn't defined well-enough to even begin to support or refute it.
God is the Source of everything that exists. Whatever else we BELIEVE ABOUT God remains in the beliefs category until scientifically validated, period. Our beliefs do NOT define, delimit or in any other way impact on the EXISTENCE of God. They are beliefs . . . including yours, Hueff (multiverse, purposeless, non-conscious, unintelligent, etc.).
Quote:
Look, as much as you like to claim that I too ignorant and uneducated to understand why materialism could never account for consciousness, I believe I have a strong enough background in physics (I once was a physics major and I earned a minor), psychology (I earned a M.A., and was well on my way to completing a Ph.D.), and philosophy, which has been a hobby of mine since I was 14-years-old, and I have taken some formal classes in it in college and grad school. Anything you would present that I am not familiar with, I am quite capable of looking up. I am doing just fine going through and critiquing your synthesis (I slowed down because my life has been busy).
You claim that it is logically impossible to account for consciousness in a materialist framework, implying that materialist scientists and theorists will never find the explanation through materialist assumptions. When asked to provide a logical proof that it is indeed impossible, you refuse, say it is too much work, and imply that we don't have the background to understand it anyway. That, to use a phrase that is a favorite of Ryrge, is a cop out. If you don't want to produce the proof, then point me to article or something, in which someone else has proven it. If you can't do that then dispense with your claims that it is logically impossible. It seems the vast majority of modern scientists working in the field believe a materialist explanation is achievable and some have surely already looked into whatever you might claim as proof that it is logically impossible and found the argument insufficient. So, you are in the minority, all the more reason to prove your point.
In general, I like you, but there is one thing you do that I can not stand, and that is when you put me and others down for any reason, but especially for stuff you can't back up. I also don't like how you mingle established scientific fact, with your own speculations that you talk about as if they were also scientific fact, making no distinction. You act like you are educating people on what is well-known by the scientific community when you are really educating them in your own speculations. There is no problem with you believing them, but don't misrepresent them as established fact.
The sensitivity and misunderstanding of the word ignorance here is legion. It simply means you lack the background knowledge that is relevant to the discussion. This insult obsession and put down mentality here indicates you (collective, generic) are taking the discussions personally instead of objectively addressing the issues.
I like and respect you and the others here who are taking the time to try to discuss and not just dismiss the issues presented in my views. What you call speculations are extrapolations of extant knowledge into the deeper implications that they represent. For example . . . once you realize that everything is energy in various forms of vibratory EVENTS (spherical standing waveforms) continuously becoming . . . and not permanent forms (particles, materials, us, etc.) that endure throughout time . . . the implications are legion. Resonance theory, quantum theory and spectral frequency analyses lead to a variety of automatic conclusions that you call speculation. That is why I refer to the ignorance in the discussions . . . not to insult or put down anyone.
God is the Source of everything that exists. Whatever else we BELIEVE ABOUT God remains in the beliefs category until scientifically validated, period...
Doesn't it seem that the mere existence of "god" need be scientifically validated first?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is all personal subjective evidence based on internal 'knowledge' about his own beliefs that he uses as evidence for God's existence.
