Is There A God ???

[Mare Tranquillity]

Just so you know Mare, I think you're probably a very nice and gentle person, and I do appreciate those qualities in people, but when I discuss philosophy/the science of philosophy, I also consider that others might be reading it, and I'm in the "truth telling" business, so that means I'm going to be disagreeing with you all over the place.

The biggest problem I have with your claim of out of body experience is that I don't believe it can be independently and rationally verified.....now you'll probably re-issue me with the challenge to test it myself, but how do I know I've left my body rather than imagined it?.....also, what are the benefits to doing this anyway?

I certainly prefer agnostics to theists on most occasions, however, atheism is the only valid/logical belief we can hold, ie, there's no proof that God exists, and for that matter, God is undefined and subsequently beyond disproving.....I can't even begin to try and disprove something that is undefined.....but if someone could provide me with one physical characteristic of their God, I'd be willing to analyse it.

I accept that there's mystery in the universe, ie, we don't know everything about how it functions, but whatever knowledge we do eventually acquire, it will be in scientific form, not mystical.

I don't dislike people like you Mare, but if you're genuinely interested in the truth, you should read Objectivism/the science of philosophy and also read an article or 2 on what Objective science is......all of this will take you months if not yrs if you're serious.

I have a college education, Mr. Henry, I studied Oceanography, Marine Biology, Seamanship, Mathematics, and my minor was Anthropology. I am firmly grounded in the sciences.

First the issue of god/God. No proof one way or the other, no way to obtain proof one way or the other. The existence of god/God is moot, why discuss it?

Second, your condescending tone is hardly called for, is it? I've studied something that you have not, I don't intend to have anything to say to you about your reluctance to examine the subject. My position is that the job of science is to investigate the unexplained not explain the uninvestigated. If you have never had the experience then how can you know if it has value? I had never had the experience either, but I was curious enough to look at something new and it changed my perspective. You seem to want a guarantee of ultimate value before you put yourself out to look at something new. I can't give you that guarantee, the world is full of weird things, look at them, don't look at them, it makes no difference to me. Suit yourself, the world is full of willfully ignorant people who are too comfortable or too frightened to look beyond the edges of their current experience.

The only way you'll ever be able to decide if out of body consciousness is real or a hallucination is to experience it for yourself. I did not say that it was real, just like god/God, I don't know if it was real, but it certainly seemed real. In one instance I was able to access information that was not available to me from any readily recognizable source, and I verified the accuracy of the information as well. Proof? Nope, but it was an interesting experience that I will accept at face value until I have some reason not to.

Mystical just means that science hasn't figured it out yet. Don't put words in my mouth or meanings in my posts that are not there. Objective science is fine as far as it goes, but it breaks down at some point. Even quantum physics is beyond objective science. The whole business of a particle not having a real existence until someone measures or looks at it seems to put objectivity in a very different light. Objectivity is simply one way of seeing/interacting with the Universe and nothing precludes the possibility of there being other modes of interaction.

 

[DavidHenry]

First the issue of god/God. No proof one way or the other, no way to obtain proof one way or the other. The existence of god/God is moot, why discuss it?

Suit yourself, the world is full of willfully ignorant people who are too comfortable or too frightened to look beyond the edges of their current experience.

Sounds like you're just bored with old fashioned science.
If you can't give me a compelling reason to experiment with your odd idea's, then I'm going to assume there's no value to them apart from the novelty.

Religion is all over the place, if you can't see the value in determining the truth of God's existence, then I'm inclined to give up on you.

Even quantum physics is beyond objective science

LOL, aspects of quantum physics aren't just beyond objective science, but at loggerheads with it.

Btw, I completely misjudged you....I thought you were a earthy crunchy type of person, but it turns out you're a bored technician....your curiosity is a reaction to your boredom, however, you've overshot IMO, you need to go back to where you started, and find out what science is, otherwise you wouldn't have confused quantum physics and objective science in the manner in which you did.

Being that my last reply was sincere, I can only imagine how upsetting this response must be to you, so maybe you should drop out from the conversation, rather than just throw a minor tantrum on top of attempting to throw a spanner in the works for speculation's sake.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

These are the immature and unproductive comments to which I was retaliating against......did you miss them, or is numnuts a HofP attack dog of some form?

David, you're already on thin ice. Don't push it. You have been warned to be careful about personal attacks. Don't worry about what other people are doing.

To answer your question though, at least numinus' insults were accompanied something relating to the topic. Your post contained nothing but childish namecalling.

It's not so big a deal if you goad someone with a line or two at the end or beginning of a substantial post. But posts exclusively designed to call names are not needed here.

 

[DavidHenry]

David, you're already on thin ice. Don't push it. You have been warned to be careful about personal attacks. Don't worry about what other people are doing.

It's not so big a deal if you goad someone with a line or two at the end or beginning of a substantial post. But posts exclusively designed to call names are not needed here.

You still seem to be overlooking the fact that I was retaliating......also, I have no intention of discussing high level subjects with utter ****wits of any description, other than to make asses of their arrogance and stupidity.

Btw, it's just your opinion that it's no big deal to act like a immature brat.....what a hilarious and irresponsible position for a mod to adopt......and yes, yes, I know you're looking for an excuse to ban me whilst appearing to be the good guy.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You still seem to be overlooking the fact that I was retaliating......also, I have no intention of discussing high level subjects with utter ****wits of any description, other than to make asses of their arrogance and stupidity.

Btw, it's just your opinion that it's no big deal to act like a immature brat.....what a hilarious and irresponsible position for a mod to adopt......and yes, yes, I know you're looking for an excuse to ban me whilst appearing to be the good guy.

Jesus H. Christ, David. Retaliating would have been deconstructing his philosophy, not calling him some names. And I really don't want to ban you. I want everyone here to just debate in a civil manner. If you're unwilling to do that, then there is no need for you to be here.

Enough of this. Go play.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sounds like you're just bored with old fashioned science.

What a narrow, judgmental thing to say. I am fascinated by the advances being made by science, old fashioned science is old, I've studied it, my interest lies in what we are learning about NOW. Boring old fashioned science is a good foundation from which to spring into the future, Mr. Henry, but it is not the place for me to live.

If you can't give me a compelling reason to experiment with your odd idea's, then I'm going to assume there's no value to them apart from the novelty

You have the right to assume that ANYONE'S research into unfamiliar areas has no value. This strikes me as kind of a religiously oriented attitude though. One of the problems that sciences faces today is just what you have posted: before one can do the research it has to be PROVEN to have value. Pure science is done for the learning, not for the profit. I study things that interest me, I don't care whether you think they have value or not. Here you are on this thread posting about the existence of God and yet you aren't even interested enough in the question to discover whether you have the ability to lift your consciousness out of your physical body when the experiment is easy and cheap. If you already know everything you need to know, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

Religion is all over the place, if you can't see the value in determining the truth of God's existence, then I'm inclined to give up on you.

Religion and God are not the same thing, in fact there is no proof that there is even a connection between the two. Instead of trying to start at the ultimate end of the problem, I decided to start where I was and use the tools I had at hand. Consciousness is available in every person I meet (okay, maybe not George Bush), but in pretty much everyone else. If people discover that they are not their physical bodies, then that suggests the possibility that there may be other entities who exist without physical bodies... can you say God? What I "can't see the value in" is arguing about something for which there is no unimpeachable evidence. People have been arguing about religion for thousands of years, what will it accomplish for me to do it some more? Better for me to examine the things I have at hand than to spend my time arguing imponderables.

LOL, aspects of quantum physics aren't just beyond objective science, but at loggerheads with it.

Btw, I completely misjudged you....I thought you were a earthy crunchy type of person, but it turns out you're a bored technician....your curiosity is a reaction to your boredom, however, you've overshot IMO, you need to go back to where you started, and find out what science is, otherwise you wouldn't have confused quantum physics and objective science in the manner in which you did.

You are still misjudging me. Why judge me at all? Why do you feel that you know me well enough to state that I am a bored technician? How do you know the genesis of my curiousity? You come across as being very supercillious, speaking down to the "crunchy" proles. The term "objective science" certainly has more than one simple meaning, and for you to announce that I was "confused" without providing any explanation or proof seems pretty arrogant. In fact most of your post seems arrogant.

Being that my last reply was sincere, I can only imagine how upsetting this response must be to you, so maybe you should drop out from the conversation, rather than just throw a minor tantrum on top of attempting to throw a spanner in the works for speculation's sake.

Is this to imply that my post was not sincere? How do you know that your post will be upsetting to me? You haven't done anything yet except sort of parade around with your tumescent ego sticking out in front of you like the cowcatcher on a train. Your accusations of throwing tantrums and spanners is totally without substantiation. I can see how you and Nums would bang heads, he writes kind of like you do, but he uses more bolds and underlines.

 

[DavidHenry]

. If you already know everything you need to know, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

then that suggests the possibility that there may be other entities who exist without physical bodies...

Mare....your response made me laugh, but unfortunately, it's apparent that you're a garden variety mystic, and I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you anymore.
The basis of mysticism is the rejection of reality as absolute, ie, that which exists.

I think you're wrong, but I don't dislike you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare....your response made me laugh, but unfortunately, it's apparent that you're a garden variety mystic, and I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you anymore.
The basis of mysticism is the rejection of reality as absolute, ie, that which exists.

I think you're wrong, but I don't dislike you.

Well at least you are speaking from firm position of knowledge of the subject.

 

[DavidHenry]

Remember folks, there's no so such thing as God as typically defined, and it's quite illogical to be agnostic.
As was mentioned{and rubbished} previously, the only logical view we can hold WRT the universe is that it's eternal, it neither popped into existence out of thin air, nor did a powerful being of any form create it.

God is an imaginary concept which has no physical reference point........as such, all religious doctrines are the thoughts of men, irrational and unscientific men.

 

[9sublime]

How is it illogical to be agnostic? It just shows you can strike a balance between hopping on the bandwagon of whatever your father and his father before him or the wierd guy from the cult told you to believe in, or being so closed minded you wont accept any kind of creating force?

 

[numinus]

the only logical answer is B.

You wouldn't know what's logical if it bit you in the ass.

Science is WAY PAST contemplating a steady state universe - thanks to hawkins. In fact, the classical notion of time has been proven to be FALSE, thanks to einstein's special and general relativity.

Try again.

 

[numinus]

ummm. I don't care. I just know there is no God that is omnipresent, omnipotent or omnimous. we are on our own.

So, by your own admission, you DO NOT base your opinions on facts and logic. No one is a bit surprised.

 

[numinus]

One doesn't have to be an atheist to know the "Bible God" is a fraud. The concept of God is the answer to all the questions, therefore God is truth.

I am not inclined to contemplate god's existence based on the bible - unless such a contemplation proceeds from the understanding that the bible is an ALLEGORICAL device.

 

[numinus]

I don't discuss philosophy with idiots......if you ever manage to grow up, get back to me

Apparently, you can't discuss mathematics as well. I wonder how you are with cosmology and differential geometry?

 

[Segep]

hey num, you seem well versed in cosmology.

Have you ever heard of the Electric Universe, and what do you think of it?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

I know it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but I've seen all the videos and done some snooping on the 'net and I can't come up with anything concrete to refute it. It makes sense to me.