What is God?
July 19, 2017 at 6:31 pm #3667
@Reg: I do not believe your God exists because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
That is YOUR opinion based on how you have internalized your own knowledge and understanding of the universe.
Science cannot be the measure by which we determine the existence of God. There is compelling evidence of intricate patterns in the mathematical field alone to suggest there is a certain order to the universe. For some that alone is evidence enough to suggest there is a God. But any field of science does not set out to “prove a God exists.
There is a ton of evidence that belief in God is actually good for us. I commented on this in the other thread as you had asked and am still waiting your response.
July 19, 2017 at 7:10 pm #3670
- This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by Reg the Fronkey Farmer. Reason: to tidy up html
That is YOUR opinion based on how you have internalized your own knowledge and understanding of the universe.
My opinion is based upon a lifetime of never seeing any evidence for any god. There is none. You have none. Kyrani Eade has none. No theist has any that they will share. You both may have life experiences that have led you to conclude there is a god but they are subjective interpretations.
Claiming that there is an intricate mathematical order to the Universe is an appeal to the Argument from Design. I don’t know how many times I need to say this but arguing that this indicates a god is not EVIDENCE. It is an Argument. We can argue how valid the evidence is once we see some. Until then all theists can do is make appeals with various arguments. They can’t even define their God.
I agree that science does not set out to proof that a god does or does not exist. Science only deals with the natural world. By default a god would have to exist outside of the natural world. On one hand theists cannot help themselves and seem obliged to insist that the latest scientific discoveries are proofs their gods are real. On the other hand they dismiss Science when it tells them we were not created as “man and woman” or the flood never happened, or the Exodus story is bunk.
Whether or not there is evidence to suggest that belief in a god is by itself useful is irrelevant. It is not evidence for a god.
And can I get a straight one line answer here: Do any theists reading this really believe that they are in communication with their God, the Creator of the Universe and that because they believe this they will become an immortal? You all continuously evade answering this.July 19, 2017 at 8:02 pm #3671
You both may have life experiences that have led you to conclude there is a god but they are subjective interpretations.
That’s all we can ever really have isn’t it?
They can’t even define their God.
Or is it that you don’t accept the definitions offered?
By default a god would have to exist outside of the natural world.
Im glad we can agree on that.
Whether or not there is evidence to suggest that belief in a god is by itself useful is irrelevant.
I never used the words “useful.” At least not that I can recall….I made the claim that it is actually GOOD FOR US PHYSICALLY….mentally emotionally etc..which begs the question of “If It is good for us on a physical level then we must need God.” Maybe all of this time that I was spinning my wheels trying to live without God and getting fucking nowhere closer to any sort of real answers – was the problem. Because I was never supposed to be that way. I’m too messed up to not need God. If you aren’t – congratulations. I’m envious of your self-sufficiency.
And can I get a straight one line answer here:
Do any theists reading this really believe that they are in communication with their God, the Creator of the Universe and that because they believe this they will become an immortal? You all continuously evade answering this.
YesJuly 19, 2017 at 8:37 pm #3676
I will offer a definition of god if it makes sense and does not contradict itself.
If we both agree that a god must exist outside of the natural world then how do you communicate with each other? What medium do you have to interpret what god is saying to you? Do you think a supernatural belief system leave people better equipped to deal with the problem of life in the natural world?
I am fully supportive of you in your quest to find meaningful answers. If religious belief is giving you real support and a pathway to genuine answers, then I am behind you.
It is not that I am self-sufficient but rather that I am incapable of believing in something I do not believe exists. If I was to map out a chart to self-sufficiency it would not involve the supernatural. I cannot give my mental assent to something that I do not believe is real. That is why I ask for evidence to study. If theists have none all I ask is for them to be honest and admit they take it on faith.
I am incapable of believing that I will exist in 173.54 billion years time.July 19, 2017 at 10:05 pm #3679
If we both agree that a god must exist outside of the natural world then how do you communicate with each other? What medium do you have to interpret what god is saying to you?
God communicates to me in my thoughts and through other people. I think there is strength in numbers and the more people are praying the more things happen that show God is real.
Do you think a supernatural belief system leave people better equipped to deal with the problem of life in the natural world?
I think we need both a worldview that embraces science and scientific discoveries, but also – science only has so many answers. I’ve certainly seen that with me and my son.
If theists have none all I ask is for them to be honest and admit they take it on faith.
It is on faithJuly 19, 2017 at 10:46 pm #3681
Can I ask what answers God has given you that the natural world could not? Maybe another way of putting the question is to ask what answers do you think God can tell you that natural world science cannot?July 19, 2017 at 11:49 pm #3684
Only God can tell me what to do and how to protect my son and keep him alive into adulthood and become a productive member of society. I know that for certainJuly 20, 2017 at 12:49 am #3685
See Belle, I completely agree here. If you’re not taking Gods word via a human interface, but listening inside your head, you’re pretty much doing what I do, but I think of it as consulting myself. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong! I’m saying we have different interpretations for pretty much the same thing 🙂July 20, 2017 at 1:05 am #3686
Yes in a way you are right. I spent a good year or so thinking that way….I came to realize over time that there was and still is too much outside of my ability to control to ever possibly have all the answers. It was and always will be too much to bear alone. So I started embracing church again. Reaching out to community. Allowing people to PRAY for me and asking for help outside of the realm of secular therapy and medication etc (although those things play a role in my life to this day they failed to bring meaningful answer.)
The answer (for me) is full surrender to God because I cannot do it alone. And it has meant for me honestly – becoming a Christian again. Parts of what I was missing are now being filled in and it is the sum of all my efforts, along with community – strength in numbers, along with my faith that has allowed me to at least know that I am closer to the answers.
I am raising a son that is very high risk. I am helpless to control the situation no matter how many “experts” I get involved…But I have seen the positive effect that he has experienced when we pray to God before bedtime. Or listen to a song about God in the car. No one can ever convince me that those things are meaningless. They are the very things I tried so hard to live without. And sometimes the only things that suffice.July 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm #3692
@Kyrani. “Both sides are using scientific arguments”. I’ve yet to hear a scientific explanation for God – I hear the god of the gaps argument for things that science has yet to explain, but I’m fascinated with the idea that science backs religion in some way. I thought religion was all about faith, and faith by definition was unsupported by evidence. Are you saying faith is no longer required? On a side note, Isaac Newton did his gravity thing as a sideline. His main work was alchemy, the study of turning base metals (lead) into gold. He wasn’t very good at that. We are lucky he took a bit of time off to examine gravity.
First faith is being defined as “belief unsupported by evidence”, but most of the people that are doing that are not religious. There are some religious people holding that view but I think most of them are really rogues on the inside, or people that can’t explain the evidence that they have.
Really no one believes anything without evidence. Yes, the evidence may be flimsy sometime but it is still, for them, evidence. For instance they may believe some idea because they have it from an authority. And this goes right across the board. Most doctors believe that some medical procedure is needed to treat or cure disease because that was what they were taught at med school.
However what I have seen, the strong evidence about belief and evidence, is that the foul game play that cheats a person into reacting adversely as to develop some form of disease, requires the person cheated to actually believe and idea presented to them, mostly mentally through a closely related person. And this is done by the use of a concealed threat, which is made concurrent, with the presented idea. So that a person may erroneously associate the emotional reactivity with the idea, consider it evidence for the idea and hence form a belief. If people could be sold ideas without evidence inhumane people would hardly go to this much trouble to cheat their “loved ones” or others with whom they have some relationship, e.g., workassociates.
About Newton’s attempts at alchemy, we have a great deal to be thankful for because this lead to the whole science of chemistry. Together with physics, chemistry is one of the hard sciences.
Science does, to some limited extent, provide some evidence for the existence of a creator. The only real dispute is who that creator is. Some like to imagine aliens in another Universe creating this Universe, others favor the disembodied brain in a jar, which has consciousness of course, of course.. thinking this Universe into being, and so on.
More seriously though we have the growing body of evidence that the Universe is a simulation or hologram, in other words “a creation”. And this is the view of very well respected physicists like Stephen Hawkins (British) and Leonard Susskind (American). If you are interested here on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY&t=920s&spfreload=1
The view that the Universe is a hologram means that necessarily matter is also information. And certainly Susskind is trying to make the information physical, but that can’t always be defended. However the problem is bigger. It is not only the presence of information, it also involves rules that govern that information and hence the nature of the physical.
In quantum theory, we also have a problem with explaining how nature, i.e., the physical actually exists at the microscopic level. When not observed what is matter? The conclusion some physicists come to, e.g., Heisenberg, is that the properties exist in superposition, but do they? Does matter even exist at all? Is it only some probability distribution of what possibly can be observed! It seriously challenges the view of “materialism is all that there is” as the reality. It points to some sort of non-physical reality being fundamental upon which or in which the physical comes into being. And what about “the rules” or laws that govern what is and is not? This also smacks of some intelligence.
So here again the ideas of aliens and supercomputers somewhere in another universe is being discussed but if there is a creator of some sort, then it can equally be true to say that the creator is God. Some are trying to lump this with the old “God of the gaps” argument but here it points to something other than the material, so this old argument is not valid.
The faults in Evolutionary Theory is yet another area. We have millions of years of nothing but microbes and then we have the Cambrian explosion. This was a relatively short “event”, which happened about 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period. In this time the fossil record shows that most major animal phyla suddenly appeared. There is no evidence of evolution. There are no half way forms. This is sure baffling. But there is more evidence, which also points to intelligence.
When we consider how genetic switches work, we can’t really dismiss and intelligence behind genetic expression. It is far different to turning your light switch on or off, where a switch is flicked from one position to another. In genetic switching a binding (protein) segment is removed to turn it off and discarded. Then when the switch is turned on again the cell remakes the bit that was discarded and slots it into the appropriate place. A simpler version happens in procaryotes like bacteria, but it is still in the same sort of way.
There are three good short videos on this link http://media.hhmi.org/biointeractive/click/Gene_Switches/01.html
If you want to read more in depth here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26872/figure/A1275/?report=objectonly
How can this happen without intelligence and even some level of consciousness, some non-local consciousness?
I also saw some interesting effects in cancer cells, which I will share with you. My findings fly in the face of the Cancer cell evolutionary theory. I observed that it was stem cells in a particular organ or tissue that modify their expression deliberately and there is a lot of shuffling of genes and many segments turned on and off. And these are all reversible. More startling is that these changes occurred with perceptions of possible harm in the area in question. Thus our perceptions and especially when they become beliefs, cause stem cells to effectively change expression as to generate a novel organ, which is a cell barrier and like any other organ it has:
<li style=”list-style-type: none”>
- 1. a micro-environment e.g., stromal cells and others, which communicate with the cancer stem cells and other cancer cells,
2. a basal membrane that defines the organ,
3. a blood supply,
4. communication with immune cells, e.g., the creation of exosomes, which are transferred to immune cells that go and prepare a new site (for metastasis).
5. And the immune cells assist the cancer stem cells to travel to the prepared new location!
All this medical researchers and doctors are saying comes from damage and mis-copying and supposed evolutionary changes? No! It is all intelligent changes.
Once the person sees that the ideas/ beliefs of possible harm are bogus, the body undoes the changes and restores normality. I can vouch for that having had many episodes of cancer and able to deliberately effect spontaneous remission AND now prevent the development of cancer.
This shows that the medical paradigm that we are “meat robots, which evolved from fish (last count that I saw being suggested), is only a story that puts the doctors in the driver’s seat. And the ride is very expensive and very dangerous to boot!
This is evidence that points to a conscious being, which has intelligence because it is evidence that there is intelligence that can affect right down to the sub-cellular level and non-local ( Higher/ Supreme Being) as well as local (conscious being/ soul) consciousness and that reality is not about dead matter self organizing and becoming minds and consciousness etc.
July 20, 2017 at 1:09 pm #3694
- This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by Kyrani Eade.
Evolution, being change, is not the same as creation, which may be either change or the replacement of nothing by something. Evolution does not need a force to cause or guide it, as it is the shaping of survival outcomes of both nonrandom and random events according to their survival value in their environment. Creation may or may not need a force to cause it, since we do not know, in cases such as the universe or life, exactly how creation occurred. There may be a question about the original creation of the universe, but even witih regard to original creation, it is not clear that it was an event, as we currently view events (if it was a big bang, it probably was, but other models do not view it as a discrete event). In any case, positing an entity that was the force that caused creation, not only leads to an infinite regress, it says nothing about the characteristics of that force (it could have been a one-off, nanosecond long force, which no longer exists, for instance). Arriving at anything that resembles most humans current conceptions of God from either the original creation of the universe (again, assuming it meets our conception of an event) or from the course of evolution, is an exercise in imagination, with no evidence to support such a conception.
Evolution is being justified on the ground that we see adaptation and thus adaptation is being embraced as evolution, but adaptation is not about random mutations that then go on to develop new genes and then new species. We have been breeding dogs for the last 2000 years and none of them have become a new species. Dogs will interbred with wolves, the original animals from which we have bred dogs.
Animals will adapt in accordance with their environment but that needs “a force to cause to guide it“. So for instance the Galapagos Finches got thicker, bigger beaks when there was drought and the seeds were tougher to crack, but their beaks returned to being fine and small when the weather changes and the seeds were finer and easy to crack. This sounds more like design and intelligent changes to me.
And the same goes for the Lenski experiment and his E. coli bacteria. They already had the citrate transporter gene AND the regulatory elements AND the genetic switches. All the “new information” that he is claiming, was only about turning a switch on! I wondered why?
I asked Lenski if he double blinded the bugs, just in case they could insightfully perceive what he knew, i.e., that there was citrate in the broth as well as glucose, but he didn’t respond.July 20, 2017 at 1:29 pm #3695
Animals will adapt in accordance with their environment but that needs “a force to cause to guide it“.
No. Evolution is unguided.July 20, 2017 at 2:06 pm #3696
@Kyrani – you’re a “primate change denier”? How is evolution incompatible with religion? Why not just give this one up? By this stage, it really looks medieval and backward. If you love science so much, why is evolution rubbish?July 20, 2017 at 2:30 pm #3697
In other words, isn’t it a bit silly to claim that the Bible is a science textbook?July 20, 2017 at 2:36 pm #3698
Kyrani said: The growing consensus amongst physicists is that the Universe is a simulation, a hologram.
No, it is not. Please show the peer-review evidence to show this. Consensus is reached by the peer review process.
I am not going to go chasing for research papers, better you can hear it from the horse’s mouth.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says prefers to be called agnostic “ BUT says “I remain unconvinced by any claims anyone has ever made about the existence or the power of a divine force operating in the universe.” Atheist!
He is a theoretical physicist and well respected in the scientific community. He is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. Since 1996, he has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City.
Professor of Mathematics as Southampton University.
Lawrence Krauss atheist, American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and director of its Origins Project.
George Smoot is an American astrophysicist, cosmologist, Nobel laureate, atheist??? maybe.. at the University of California at Berkeley. He has no ties to the Intelligent Design community, and Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He considers the best explanation for certain features of the natural world to be a teleological or purposeful cause
Leonard Susskind theoretical physicist, Atheist Stanford University
When Stephen Hawking (theoretical physicist, atheist) elegantly described the relationship of quantum mechanics with black holes, he inadvertently opened the door to a radical possibility: that our universe, as we know it, is like a hologram.
leading physicists Brian Greene and Cumrun Vafa explain here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LsHmMHfaF4
And they are only “some of” the highly respected physicists, who hold that the Universe is a simulation or hologram. And I have chosen only those that are atheist. There are heaps more.
And of course there are plenty making millage of this that are considered pseudoscience by many. I have not included any of them.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.