God Disproved

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Theologikos
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:51 am
@pondfish,
pondfish;144656 wrote:
Belief. You can't prove or disprove a belief. Belief of anything including GOD.


I believe that the earth is entirely flat and that the sun is just an elaborate hoax. There is person who lifts up a large orange piece of cardboard every day. I also believe that my computer is broken to the point that I can't type any more after this sentence. Oh look a spaceship!:devilish:

And I also believe that humans can't wear shoes, and that my signature won't show up.
 
pondfish
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:55 am
@Theologikos,
You can believe anything you want. It does not make it true. Majority belief do not make anything true. Quit it humans.

You are just wasting time.

Ask questions , never agree or disagree.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:05 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;144662 wrote:
I believe that the earth is entirely flat and that the sun is just an elaborate hoax. There is person who lifts up a large orange piece of cardboard every day. I also believe that my computer is broken to the point that I can't type any more after this sentence. Oh look a spaceship!:devilish:

And I also believe that humans can't wear shoes, and that my signature won't show up.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;144671 wrote:


Are you saying that all sincere beliefs are a viable and insincere beliefs are not? I could just as easily have been told by my father at a very young age of all of those things (he could've given be good reasons and elaborate conspiracies). Were the beliefs that the sun and moon had battles everyday legitimate because they served to explain something? Could those not be disproved as well? There was a reason to believe that the Earth was flat, but we know that belief, no matter its veracity, does nothing to affect reality. If you say that you believe that an invisible unicorn (not being facetious) created stars magically, and we did not know how stars were formed, that this belief is legitimate? That it will do anything to further our understanding anything? And most importantly, that it cannot be disproved?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 01:22 pm
@wayne,
wayne;144412 wrote:
Many people have tried to define god, all have failed miserably.
Why would god fit in your box ?
Wouldn't that make you god?


I sober UP
Laughing

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 12:32 PM ----------

No Humans are able to esape
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 01:40 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;144659 wrote:
Concerning your time remark, I assumed that time could have a starting point ant that nothingness isn't active. (it's in my reply to someone and it is accompanied by a video. You don't have to watch the vid.
As I see it, time is but a mere concept, it does not exist in itself. It's just how we messure and calculate things.

Time can't be added nor substracted from/to something, sure Einstein proved that gravity distorts time, but that's only how we messure time, it's like saying that the rocking of boats or temperature distorts time by distorting pendulum clocks, or temeperature distorts time, by distorting the pendulum's metals contraction/expantion.

Lost At Sea the Search for Longitude Part 1
YouTube - Lost At Sea the Search for Longitude Part 1
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 05:48 pm
@Theologikos,
We count time by certain processes. The rotation of the earth 24hrs. The orbit of the earth around the sun 365+ days. Quartz clocks depend on the oscillation of crystals. Atomic clocks depend on microwave transitions in hydrogen, cesium or rubidium.
The reason why time depends on relative velocities is because these processes are affected by speed and acceleration. Time is nothing more than the rate of certain processes and these processes are affected by acceleration, speed and gravitation.
Time is not some independent variable that proceeds at some universal rate independent of process. Just like space is not some independent variable in which material objects are placed. The initial premise about time in the OP is incorrect.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 05:58 pm
@wayne,
wayne;144472 wrote:
We have faith in lots of things ,we have faith that the light will come on when we flip the switch.


You might think that way but I don't. When I flip a switch, I expect the light to come on, but if it doesn't I know there is something wrong. I don't trust that it will always work, nor do I have faith that it will work. It is absurd to try and rationalize a real experience with a something unsubstantial as faith. Only believers feel the need to try and solidify faith into every day experience as if it in some way gives faith more credit. It's all just a game of make the invisible friend more obtainable.

wayne;144472 wrote:

Faith is to trust in our own belief.


You mean hope the guess is correct?

wayne;144472 wrote:

We make decisions every day about many things.


Yep and I don't base any of them off trust or faith. I make them because they are rational and consistent with past experience. Neither of those can you use with the concept of a god.

wayne;144472 wrote:

God belief is just one of those choices we make.


I acutally think it is not a choice. It is a mental disorder and something that needs to be treated. When faced with some reality denial of that reality makes it evident that it is a psychological disorder.

wayne;144472 wrote:

I'm not one of those people who thinks either choice is any more right than the other. It's a personal choice, there is no proof either way, we weigh the evidence and make our own choices.


That is just the thing, there is absolutely NO evidence. So what is being weighed?

wayne;144472 wrote:

If you are willing to wager you must have faith in your belief, no?


No, because I could be wrong. I make my wager because I can base it off past experience and also the knowledge that the god concept is a psychological desire without a basis.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 06:12 pm
@Krumple,
I Think loning for Ultimate Authority is a sort of laziness. Apart from the Question if God is still with US; that's not how a Human should be. We were created they say, for a purpose. To spread around the World and bring News back to Sophia, Gods link with Humanity. Egyption Lore acc. Hermes
 
spiltteeth
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:06 pm
@Theologikos,
Quote:
=Theologikos;143318]Alright guys, I'm making this post so that I can receive criticism on my philosophical position on God's existence. (It is shortened considerably)
*note that none of this is final, we mustn't set our beliefs in stone. There is much work to be done here, and I have barely scratched the surface.*

I decided to form a philosophical position on God's non-existence because I was tired of disproving holy books.

THE GOD OF PARADOX

Alright. First we must begin with defining God in general. God is supernatural and *most* monotheistic belief systems coin God as being omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and pretty much all[anything]. However there is a problem with this. For one, a being or entity cannot logically be omnipotent and any other all-encompassing trait. Obviously, this being cannot be all powerful and, at the same time, have the power to *not* do something imperfectly, or not know something, ect. The second problem is that an omniscient being cannot, by the definition of omniscient even *be* omniscient. This entity cannot conceive something so intricate that it cannot understand it. The same applies with an omnipotent being. This being cannot create something so big that it couldn't lift it. (After some research I found that the omnipotent paradox was already thought up) Sad But that is a tired example, with many faults, so lets use a new one, one that cannot be constricted by gravity. God cannot be powerful enough to not exist. Nor can she be powerful enough to defy her own laws. (explained in further detail below)

Although this disproves most gods today, it does not disprove the An entity that is just "GOD". Since it is impossible for an infallible being to exist, the Greek polytheist view of Gods and goddesses as fallible beings is the only one that can exist so far.


According to most Christian philosophers, God cannot do the logically impossible.
This goes back to Aristotle, and has been a staple in Christian philosophy at least from 1100 on
So omnipotence should not be understood as power which is unlimited in its quantity or variety.
If we understand omnipotence in terms of ability to actualize states of affairs, then it is no attenuation of God's omnipotence that He cannot make a stone too heavy for Him to lift, for, given that God is essentially omnipotent, "a stone too heavy for God to lift" describes as logically impossible a state of affairs as does "a square triangle" and thus describes nothing at all.

Quote:
THE INFINITY DILEMMAYouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
(Explains why we know a universe can come from nothing)


The only thing I am having problems with is that I don't really have a concrete definition for God :/
*Is* God supposed to be infinite, is she supposed to be fallible, if not, is she even God? ect.:perplexed:


I'm a student of astrophysics and cosmology and I think you need to realize that time began at the bigbang. There was no time nor matter nor energy casually prior to the bigbang, thus whatever existed casually prior would necessarily be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial - a pretty generic description of God.
God does not exist in space, casually prior to the bigbang there WAS no time, and God would have to exist in time after the bigbang.

God is eternal - He has always existed and always will exist.

There is no problem.

Quote:
A RETRIBUTIVE DEITY

The last part is the issue determinism, which rules out any retributive deity.
I could write essays on this, but I don't feel like it so you need to watch two short videos: :p

YouTube - Determinism - God's Flaw (part one)

YouTube - Determinism - God's Flaw (part two)

If you have any other attributes for a deity, please list them so that I can gain a better grasp on what God actually is.

A GOD OF ANOTHER REALM

Perhaps this being is outside of our realm and she can affect our laws but in our realm but our laws do not apply to her. So this means all of this reasoning is for naught right?

There is a flaw with this system. We literally cannot use any of our words to describe her realm. If that deity cannot be disproved with the concepts of our realm, (time ect.) then nothing from our lexicon could be used to even explain that deity. If I couldn't disprove that her realm needed to be created and that she couldn't have been the cause, then nothing in her realm is logical. No logic can be applied and the only thing she can begat in her realm would be completely inconceivable and illogical itself. So, what's wrong with that? All that means is that we just can't understand her, right? Well, the thing is, we can't even use the term illogic to describe her realm. That creates quite a quagmire. She can't be illogical and she can't be logical, at the same time!. Because we can't use those terms. Our absolute and definitive words cannot be used on concordance either. So now try it with the terms existence and nonexistence.

This covers the popular position that "god's ways are not our ways" and that our logic can't be used on her.

But, the other option is that this deity is logical . . . (what ever else follows doesn't matter) Time does not permit a logical being.

Science doesn't need to tell us much to disprove a God. That is where philosophy comes in. Of course you can't empirically disprove, with publicly verifiable, evidence that God doesn't exist (hard scientific) but with principles of logic and a bit of knowledge about concepts of time, a deity can be disproved. When people hold the position that God cannot be disproved they are thinking scientifically. It is like saying scientifically disprove that there isn't an invisible undetectable clown on my head! As of now, you can't do that based on what the definition of clown is. If the definition of clown was:
an invisible and undetectable being that was eternal and infinite, we could have a chance at disproving it.


I have no idea why God can't exhibit logic when He exists in time.
And there are ways to disprove God - for instance if you prove His qualities are logically impossible ie evil could logically NOT exist if God were all good etc
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:09 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
You are God, prove yourself, what sort of a subject could be that is not self subjection even self benevolence.
You are no use to God if you are no use to yourself and others, because God cannot be realised if you dont first realise yourself.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:41 pm
@sometime sun,
[CENTER]God Bes Proved

Hapiness Occurse
?

God Bes lived a while on Ibiza. After the Fall of Barcelona teh Familt of Hannibal retreated to Africa, near Tunis.

I think Happy Bes stayed behind !
Yust a bed-timer...Laughing
[/CENTER]
 
William
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 04:11 am
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;143318 wrote:
Alright guys, I'm making this post so that I can receive criticism on my philosophical position on God's existence. (It is shortened considerably)

I decided to form a philosophical position on God's non-existence because I was tired of disproving holy books.


Holy books are not "wholly books". None are. Most have serious holes in them making all books "holey books", ha! All books are god books; have you read them all? There is a consensus that will lead to the conformity this is what we can interpret what, who, where, when and why god is.

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
Alright. First we must begin with defining God in general. God is supernatural and *most* monotheistic belief systems coin God as being omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and pretty much all [anything].


Supernatural? We can't even come to an agreement as to what natural is, let alone what "supernatural" is. Like trans-humanism? We haven't become human yet, so I guess we will must skip it, huh? Like working a jigsaw puzzle with a knife in your hand, ha!

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
However there is a problem with this. For one, a being or entity cannot logically be omnipotent and any other all-encompassing trait.


Being or entity? Those are our ignorant, limited words for there are no words to ascertain what "it" is that is the "core" to the universe's function. All we can know is what we can receive through our known senses. Omnipotent is a bit ambiguous in that we use power. Whether that is an essential paradigm of the universe has not been determined. Omniscient is a better term in that it receives it will maintain a balance that will insure it forward continuum. Anything that is antagonistic to that it will adjust accordingly...............including us. It is fully cognitive of all that is going on.

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
Obviously, this being cannot be all powerful and, at the same time, have the power to *not* do something imperfectly, or not know something, ect.


Being, Power, Do? Please explain? Person, Strength, Perform? Him, Sinew, Act? We are it's human functionaries! To the extent we understand power we assume such definitions to the universe.

If you don't mind allow me to explain it another way. Yes, the universe is dynamic and energetic and it is balanced in all that is. Power as it applies to "force" is quite a different thing. If there is a waste it will force an equilibrium instantly if that is even imaginable in our cognitive reasoning? At the most we can observe waste and it's detriment to us; yet the universe has already accounted for it. In that accounting, it will be either positive or negative as it relates to our existence. In other words if we don't try and achieve that balance it will account for the waste that is US and it does, it's call death. In our analysis we apply costs as we do only what we can afford to do; the universe knows of no such costs but does adjust. Just as we observe the human wastes that arise from those who cannot afford the cost of living we demand. In that inequity we create iniquity that is a detriment to ourselves. If we are not careful, we will waste away and the Earth will survive without us. Let us hope we soon learn what "equal" truly means; emphasis on sooner than later.

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
The second problem is that an omniscient being cannot, by the definition of omniscient even *be* omniscient.


By our understanding! I think it immaculately cognitive of all that is going on macro and micro to a degree we a long way from fathoming.


Theologikos;143318 wrote:
This entity cannot conceive something so intricate that it cannot understand it, nor can this being create something so big that it couldn't lift it (After some research I found that the omniscient paradox was already thought up


This entity? Who would that be exactly? It is only a paradox in that "we" don't understand it. We are the ones who make it complicated. If
the universe finds it necessary to move a mountain, it will use us/e
(nergy) to accomplish that feat and will waste no energetic entity that is us in accomplishing it. There will be an equilibrium involve in it removal provided it is universally necessary.

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
The next information deals with an infinite being. It is important to note that when you hear someone saying "...before time" ect.they don't know what they are talking about.


Agreed. We do think we don't have enough of it though, huh! We just gotta turn that puppy loose.

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
We use time based on events (big bang) and we say this is the beginning of time. It is not. Time doesn't need an event to exist,.....


Agree here likewise, but...............

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
....it continues to exist with nothing, and nothing is the only thing that can exist with it.


.......here I do not agree. Perhaps we could if you said "something" instead of "nothing"? No pun intended, ha!


Theologikos;143318 wrote:
Although this disproves most gods today, it does not disprove the An entity that is just "GOD". Since it is impossible for an infallible being to exist, the Greek polytheist view of Gods and goddesses as fallible beings is the only one that can exist so far.


You mean a GOD, like in a Good Omniscient Deity? Like God is we, but we are not He? We just need to understand what is good is, is all, huh?

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
The only thing is that an infinite being also cannot exist. The only things that can exist infinitely are time, ideas and nothingness.


Theo, how can time and infinity be compatible? Time presupposes an "end of time" by some understanding therefore making it ambiguous at the very least in understanding what exactly time is, if it exists at all. If we believe in the infinity of the universe, time wouldn't matter, would it? Ha, we spend so much time surviving we don't have the time to live.

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
Since existence itself (before the universe, when there was just nothing {no energy at all) is defined in time, and time always existed, there could be no beginning.


Confusing, huh! I think we would be better off just saying something has always existed. Time is a monkey wrench in our equations. We assume in that we begin and end, so does the universe. Hmmm? Let's say, if something always existed and we are, no doubt a part of the universe, we too always were and always will be. Now that make more sense than trying to figure out time, beginnings and endings. In our erroneous thinking we do create our paradoxes when the universe has none. Like which came first the chicken or the egg; or when an irresistible force collides with an immovable object or Schrodinger's cat, and to be or not to be, ha! Let's just say "we be and we will always be" in some form or another.







Theologikos;143318 wrote:
Theists will say that God is outside of time, but he can't be, because (like I just wrote) existence is defined by time.


I think or hope I have offered that which will question that.

Theologikos;143318 wrote:
Because time is moving infinitely in both directions, for God to have always existed, he could never have gotten around to creating the universe since his existence is in an infinite regression.


Theo, in both directions? Please, if you don't mind how is it that you come to that opinion? It may contract as our lungs live and breathe, but regress? I don't think so. We may regress as it relates to transmigration of the soul as some kind of universal justice or Karma, ha, (I know that idea will raise a lot of eyebrows); but I don't think the universe regresses in any respect.

Theo I am going to end my parsing here. I think redundancy is the reason. Please digest what I have offered and if you still feel as you do please express why. Thanks

As far as the videos you supplied I choose not to comment for then it would become more confusing. Dawkins and Krauss offer little to me at all. Those who profess to be intellectually proficient as these two men do, their condescending attitudes really piss me off. Sorry. The other two said a lot too but not in such away most will understand it.

William
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 04:12 am
@spiltteeth,
spiltteeth;144905 wrote:
I have no idea why God can't exhibit logic when He exists in time.
And there are ways to disprove God - for instance if you prove His qualities are logically impossible ie evil could logically NOT exist if God were all good etc
That's why he has the goody 2 shoe Arch Angel Gabriel who stood with God when 1/3 of the angels rebelled, and the rebels were cast down from the heavens?
 
pinfall
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 07:06 am
@Theologikos,
The best arguement that I have heard for the existance of a God is that God's are, by definition, an entity of faith. As their is faith in the God then their is surely an entity of faith (or a God). Personally I think that belief itself is an imaginary concept so I cannot comment upon my religious stance.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 08:06 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;145100 wrote:
That's why he has the goody 2 shoe Arch Angel Gabriel who stood with God when 1/3 of the angels rebelled, and the rebels were cast down from the heavens?


[CENTER]

[/CENTER]
 
wayne
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 08:47 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;144884 wrote:
You might think that way but I don't. When I flip a switch, I expect the light to come on, but if it doesn't I know there is something wrong. I don't trust that it will always work, nor do I have faith that it will work. It is absurd to try and rationalize a real experience with a something unsubstantial as faith. Only believers feel the need to try and solidify faith into every day experience as if it in some way gives faith more credit. It's all just a game of make the invisible friend more obtainable.



You mean hope the guess is correct?



Yep and I don't base any of them off trust or faith. I make them because they are rational and consistent with past experience. Neither of those can you use with the concept of a god.



I acutally think it is not a choice. It is a mental disorder and something that needs to be treated. When faced with some reality denial of that reality makes it evident that it is a psychological disorder.



That is just the thing, there is absolutely NO evidence. So what is being weighed?



No, because I could be wrong. I make my wager because I can base it off past experience and also the knowledge that the god concept is a psychological desire without a basis.


Just because "you" don't see the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.
Not all Indians are good trackers.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 10:38 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer&Prothero;144757 wrote:
As I see it, time is but a mere concept, it does not exist in itself. It's just how we messure and calculate things.

Time can't be added nor substracted from/to something, sure Einstein proved that gravity distorts time, but that's only how we messure time, it's like saying that the rocking of boats or temperature distorts time by distorting pendulum clocks, or temeperature distorts time, by distorting the pendulum's metals contraction/expantion.


We count time by certain processes. The rotation of the earth 24hrs. The orbit of the earth around the sun 365+ days. Quartz clocks depend on the oscillation of crystals. Atomic clocks depend on microwave transitions in hydrogen, cesium or rubidium.
The reason why time depends on relative velocities is because these processes are affected by speed and acceleration. Time is nothing more than the rate of certain processes and these processes are affected by acceleration, speed and gravitation.
Time is not some independent variable that proceeds at some universal rate independent of process. Just like space is not some independent variable in which material objects are placed. The initial premise about time in the OP is incorrect.


This will be a response to Hexhammer and Prothero because your points are similar.

You both make good points. Time is a principle we use to chart change, and that speed of change can be subjective depending on relativity. Although that is interesting, the point is that, no matter the rate of time, it still is changing relative to us, and relative to the subatomic particles. The relativity is irrelevant. (:shifty:) If something changes state, time exists. I understand that time is not an independent variable; it exists when something changes. The thing is that nothingness is active and changing. I do plan on adding the various theories of time as well. (circular ect.) The position I take is just one, and as this is a work in progress, I will add the other theories of time on here as well.

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 01:30 PM ----------

spiltteeth;144905 wrote:
According to most Christian philosophers, God cannot do the logically impossible.
This goes back to Aristotle, and has been a staple in Christian philosophy at least from 1100 on
So omnipotence should not be understood as power which is unlimited in its quantity or variety.
If we understand omnipotence in terms of ability to actualize states of affairs, then it is no attenuation of God's omnipotence that He cannot make a stone too heavy for Him to lift, for, given that God is essentially omnipotent, "a stone too heavy for God to lift" describes as logically impossible a state of affairs as does "a square triangle" and thus describes nothing at all.


Yes, I thought about this, but if this god is omnipotent, what role should logic have? For example, gravity governs our existence, could god not just do away with the idea of gravity entirely? Sure nothing would make sense, and nothing would work, but he can't be bound by laws, even if he made them.
If God wanted to make a square triangle, then the instant he made the triangle, the definition would change. I did not want to go into conflicting all[attributes] because not everyone's idea of a god is omnibenevolent ect. But I do believe that we can take the all-perfect approach. In other words if God is all-perfect in, he can't create imperfection. But the thing is, that perfect and good are subjective. Also, imperfection would become perfection, and only in the eyes of God would it really matter. There are certainly flaws with the first paradox bit, but I plan to sort them out in my next edit.



spiltteeth;144905 wrote:
I'm a student of astrophysics and cosmology and I think you need to realize that time began at the bigbang. There was no time nor matter nor energy casually prior to the bigbang, thus whatever existed casually prior would necessarily be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial - a pretty generic description of God.
God does not exist in space, casually prior to the bigbang there WAS no time, and God would have to exist in time after the bigbang.
God is eternal - He has always existed and always will exist.
There is no problem.


Some would say that time began at the Big Bang, but the Big Bang theory does not attempt to describe the origin of the universe, but how the universe developed from a singularity. Nor does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside of the universe. Nothingness is, on extremely small scales, in physics, due to the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity, nothing is really a boiling brew of virtual particles on a time scale so small that you cannot see them. We cannot measure virtual particles directly, but we can measure their effects indirectly. For example we can chart the effects with mathematic calculations, of the particles in a proton. The empty space, accounts for 90% of the mass of the protons. So time is infinite. And the point is not null.

spiltteeth;144905 wrote:
I have no idea why God can't exhibit logic when He exists in time.
And there are ways to disprove God - for instance if you prove His qualities are logically impossible ie evil could logically NOT exist if God were all good etc


He can exist in time, but not infinitely. I was assuming that god was infinite, so in order for him to be infinite, he would need to be in another realm or an alternate universe where none of our logic applies. Including time.

Thank you for your criticism I really enjoyed reading it. (sorry for the delay, I have been very busy with school-work.)
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 12:15 pm
@Theologikos,
You can deny the fact U have no good explanation for thing happening. Kierkegaart is busy with his own problems and Spinoza speaks only Portugese and some Dutch. Who you turn to ?

After years I started praying again, not to often. But still.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 12:25 pm
@William,
William;145099 wrote:
Holy books are not “wholly books”. None are. Most have serious holes in them making all books “holey books”, ha! All books are god books; have you read them all? There is a consensus that will lead to the conformity this is what we can interpret what, who, where, when and why god is.

That is true, and I must admit I have not read them all, so you've got me there.


William;145099 wrote:
Supernatural? We can’t even come to an agreement as to what natural is, let alone what “supernatural” is. Like trans-humanism? We haven’t become human yet, so I guess we will must skip it, huh? Like working a jigsaw puzzle with a knife in your hand, ha!


Well, by definition, everything that happens in nature becomes natural.
That is, if we can physically explain it. And not just then, but potentially as well. So if something, by definition is just magic, it is no longer supernatural. And if magic is explained, it is not magic anymore. Is there anything wrong with this definition?

William;145099 wrote:
Being or entity? Those are our ignorant, limited words for there are no words to ascertain what “it” is that is the “core” to the universe’s function. All we can know is what we can receive through our known senses. Omnipotent is a bit ambiguous in that we use power. Whether that is an essential paradigm of the universe has not been determined. Omniscient is a better term in that it receives it will maintain a balance that will insure it forward continuum. Anything that is antagonistic to that it will adjust accordingly...............including us. It is fully cognitive of all that is going on.

True as well, But I am saying that if God is just the ordering principles of the universe, then they are natural. They can be explained and discovered seen and used. IF one wants to maintain that position, then we are just fooling around with wordplay. We can essentially just say God is nature. :perplexed:
But where does it end?


William;145099 wrote:
If you don’t mind allow me to explain it another way. Yes, the universe is dynamic and energetic and it is balanced in all that is. Power as it applies to “force” is quite a different thing. If there is a waste it will force an equilibrium instantly if that is even imaginable in our cognitive reasoning? At the most we can observe waste and it’s detriment to us; yet the universe has already accounted for it. In that accounting, it will be either positive or negative as it relates to our existence. In other words if we don’t try and achieve that balance it will account for the waste that is US and it does, it’s call death. In our analysis we apply costs as we do only what we can afford to do; the universe knows of no such costs but does adjust. Just as we observe the human wastes that arise from those who cannot afford the cost of living we demand. In that inequity we create iniquity that is a detriment to ourselves. If we are not careful, we will waste away and the Earth will survive without us. Let us hope we soon learn what “equal” truly means; emphasis on sooner than later.


I Agree wholeheartedly. But that is just the laws of nature working.

William;145099 wrote:
By our understanding! I think it immaculately cognitive of all that is going on macro and micro to a degree we a long way from fathoming.


Okay, so we can't understand this omniscience, but isn't all-knowing, just that? Whether we can understand or comprehend the concept of omniscience is up for debate, but I don't see how you can create something so intricate that you cannot understand it. But as you said, we will never be able to.

William;145099 wrote:
This entity? Who would that be exactly? It is only a paradox in that “we” don’t understand it. We are the ones who make it complicated. If
the universe finds it necessary to move a mountain, it will use us/e
(nergy) to accomplish that feat and will waste no energetic entity that is us in accomplishing it. There will be an equilibrium involve in it removal provided it is universally necessary.


see above

William;145099 wrote:
.......here I do not agree. Perhaps we could if you said “something” instead of “nothing”? No pun intended, ha!


Ah but nothing is something. See my reply above this one.

William;145099 wrote:
You mean a GOD, like in a Good Omniscient Deity? Like God is we, but we are not He? We just need to understand what is good is, is all, huh?


Precisely, but I try not to give it any subjective qualities. We could debate what "good" is forever.

William;145099 wrote:
Theo, how can time and infinity be compatible? Time presupposes an “end of time” by some understanding therefore making it ambiguous at the very least in understanding what exactly time is, if it exists at all. If we believe in the infinity of the universe, time wouldn’t matter, would it? Ha, we spend so much time surviving we don’t have the time to live.


Well, not necessarily, Time could move in ray, a circle or a line. And maybe, if nothingness wasn't active, a line segment. Only the line segment version would presuppose an end.

William;145099 wrote:
Confusing, huh! I think we would be better off just saying something has always existed. Time is a monkey wrench in our equations. We assume in that we begin and end, so does the universe. Hmmm? Let’s say, if something always existed and we are, no doubt a part of the universe, we too always were and always will be. Now that make more sense than trying to figure out time, beginnings and endings. In our erroneous thinking we do create our paradoxes when the universe has none. Like which came first the chicken or the egg; or when an irresistible force collides with an immovable object or Schrodinger’s cat, and to be or not to be, ha! Let’s just say “we be and we will always be” in some form or another.


Well, we are a part of the universe. And we will always exist in some form. I try not to assume that time has a beginning and an end, but I do plan on addressing all of the theories on time.
I've always wondered why the chicken/egg question was so difficult. The answer is either that the egg came first, but it didn't come from a chicken or that, since they are booth the same material, that the came at the same time just in different forms.


William;145099 wrote:
Theo, in both directions? Please, if you don’t mind how is it that you come to that opinion? It may contract as our lungs live and breathe, but regress? I don’t think so. We may regress as it relates to transmigration of the soul as some kind of universal justice or Karma, ha, (I know that idea will raise a lot of eyebrows); but I don’t think the universe regresses in any respect.


Well, from my position, since nothingness cannot be nonexistent. :shifty: and time exists with nothingness, time must move infinitely in both directions. In a line. Past time is being created as we type. I am not saying that the universe regresses, it has a starting point. Just that the nothingness and time before the expansion, is in infinite regress.

William;145099 wrote:
As far as the videos you supplied I choose not to comment for then it would become more confusing. Dawkins and Krauss offer little to me at all. Those who profess to be intellectually proficient as these two men do, their condescending attitudes really piss me off. Sorry. The other two said a lot too but not in such away most will understand it.

Yes Dawkins can be a prick, and although Kraus "dissed" philosophy in his video, I still believe it is worth watching. It is, however, entirely up to you.

I really appreciate your time and your criticism William.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 05:53:08