Is Memory the Key to Disproving the Existence of God?

[TENYEARS]

If any of you were really interested in answers you would have them. If you do not and you debate, you are obviously not interested enough to find the truth. This is all that it is. This is all that it ever was. This is the quiet secret you keep to your self. The one you do not speak of, but you know it deep down. To find the truth requires to ask the question to unlock that which you already know.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

ok tenyears since all of us are SOO stupid, how about you tell us O enlightened one

 

[Deca-of-CD]

An agnostic is not a person who "doesn't know".. It simply is a person who doesn't believe anything unless said person can see proof of it..

. . .. bwahaha..

I have several ideas (really? ... damn) on this...

1- God exists and he/she is laughing his/her ass off at anyone who is searching for a GUT/TOE that does not exist..

2- God exists, but he/she also created an equation so that people can waste thousands of years trying to find a GUT/TOE...all so he/she can laugh his/her ass off at us..

3- There is no God, and we won't figure out a GUT/TOE for another few hundred years..

4- It doesn't matter.. we are all going to die in a flaming nuclear holocaust in 7 years, 4 days, 2 hours, 37 minutes, and 51 seconds..

Of course, those are just the random things I could think of at this moment -_- Give me 20 minutes, and I can write a book full of different solutions @_@

 

[selfAdjoint]

Then of course there's Shakespeare's image of god as a mean little boy pulling the wings off flies (i.e. us).

 

[TENYEARS]

TsunamiJoe, stupid is something that does not exist, it is given a name for the appearance of defined action in defined circumstances and yet it has no reality. Stupid does not exist, this is the reality.

 

[n0n]

agreed TENYEARS, stupidity is an illogical, a connecting of false points made by our inability to understand(or accept) what we are, like you said in #152. funny, this is the very idea behind Generations of learned traditions. but humanity is not stupid in any sense of the word, no matter how illogical we can be, we are still always trying to figure things out, no matter how simple or complex. we can be stupid for little individual moments, but that is the un-order or true chaos of existence.

 

[Allah]

Another argument

Squeeze is missing the argument.

I think that we will all agree that God is a perfect being, i.e. he does not need or want anything.

Therefore, WHY WOULD A GOD CREATE A UNIVERSE?

 

[TENYEARS]

Non, I have a key to a door, you may have it if you can understand this statement. Humans are never stupid, stupidity does not exist. How? Why? In the same sence, has any human in the history of the world ever been illogical?

 

[Alem2000]

Are you guys physicists or loosers? Why would God creat a universe...ill tell you that's far from physics...if you want an answer go to seminary or a theology school...physics CAN NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. So what I am saying is

A PRIEST CAN NOT TELL YOU ABOUT ELECTROMAGNATISM...A PHYSICIST CAN NOT TELL YOU ABOUT GOD!

 

[Allah]

Of course a priest can if he has a minor in physics and if physics removes the need for a creator then there might as well not be one.

 

[Alem2000]

Well to be down to Earth #1 there arnt really even that many of us physics majors(relativlely speaking) #2 There arent really any priests that minor in physics(relatively speaking ). And on the other note, its not physics place to remove the need for a creator. I mean come on! Let's get serious, what does physics do...in a nutshell...look at phenomina and give it a math equation that seems to model it in the best way(being synicall). Physics is not and humans are not sophysicated enough to rule out the posability of a creator. The chances of the just eveolving...thats a stupid idea..there has to be a creator. I mean what are the chances of life just appering...there is an axiom I learned in biology.."life comes from life"..it doesn't just upack its bags one day and say hello I am life. What do you think Allah.

 

[Allah]

If everything can be described mathematically, then what place would a God have?

Life is thought to exist on Venus
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,406876,00.html

We cannot know the chances of life appearing, since we only have one planet to examine. The current theory of how life came to be is either organic material from a comet "life from life" or spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is when pure sitting water generates proteins, amino acids and other stuff. I think this has been done in a lab.

I agree with you, Physics and humans are still in there infancy. Today, no we could not totally eliminate God, which proposes an even bigger question. Do we want to?

 

[TENYEARS]

There is a god and there is perfect physics. One cannot exist without the other. When you understand, you will understand why.

 

[n0n]

Alem2000, where is god if the universe is a fractal. lookup fractals and galaxies, what is physics within such a thing, but a synthesizer creating a sound (or just something that does something because we deside what something is or something desides what something is).

That is our created existence, why would their be some kind of lame short cut as, "do you accept god?" if you do not know what god is then what are you accepting, you can say "all" but do you know what that means, do you put your very being trying to undersand everything in every way from all 5 senses of you, to every other person within your vision, what they think, what you think, the warmth of the sun on your face but try and imagine the warmth others are feeling. Even if people are haveing a bad day try and imagine it. I try, I know its not even close to right and I don't base my desisions on such a thing, but I won't stop until I do understand and I have had some cool moments of vision.

Even not within your field of vision, things exist to the right and left of you, you cannot see them but whatevers their is thier; above you, below you, and behind you. But this doesn't just extend to our feet or the sky or the computer monitor right in front of me, or the kitchen to my back, but through the carpet, the wood floor, the basement, the cement, the random collection of rocks, dusts, and sediment, till liquid rock like less then 25 miles below and above 270.48 miles above, and doesn't by far stop thier, but i do hehe.

point is if you cannot except what random is, you cannot except what random does. random, their is a concept that needs to be discussed, what is god if such a word exists, but random its "godly" self, just like we humans are.

Tenyears I think that answered it yea?

everything is pretty orderly, but no, everyone is crazy everywere and why not. Just being drives every human into insanity, we just learn to accept and limit ourselfs in some way that's the something you, I see it in my brothers 6 month old boy, and he's still just the cutest thing, that's the gray area that is. what?

 

[TENYEARS]

Madness is a human attribute. There are different levels, but it is exists the same in all people. For those that do not understand, they are locked in a bowl that has no sides, the more one understands the further one goes. The extension is not only understanding, but a becoming of what we really are, and that is quite unbelieveable at first and then normalizes itself into a way. The the level gets bumped up and you say wow again and then it is just life. When I speak of visions or other things now, it is just part of life and that is all. Like the sun shining or the wind blowing.

 

[Deca-of-CD]

"Physics is not and humans are not sophysicated enough to rule out the posability of a creator. The chances of the just eveolving...thats a stupid idea..there has to be a creator. I mean what are the chances of life just appering...there is an axiom I learned in biology.."life comes from life"..it doesn't just upack its bags one day and say hello I am life. What do you think Allah."

-that Alem guy...

Funny thing, I just saw a program about Life... It isn't just about the chances of just evolving O_O .. Micro something anothers (meh, sleep deprivation -- and it isn't microorganisms, so meh on whoever just had that thought..) were present 3.9 billion years ago and stuff from ... stuff O_O ... And all this other stuff I can't really remember right now... and... ... You know what, give me 15 hours of sleep and I'll try to remember exactly what was said in the program... plus I don't know how to word the things I do remember.. It was, "The Planets" on The Science Channel.. Sooooo...yeah..

Yeah yeah, I know it says "What do you think Allah"... But meh...

 

[patricksamples]

honey doodle of a melon scratcher

for all those god-lovers:
could god make a stone so heavy that he, himself, could not lift it?
huh?
anyone?

 

[bola]

I think that for a god to exist, he would have to be outside the system.
He would not be made by sub atomic particles, he would be completely outside the universe and all its laws.

He would have his own system for controlling the things inside, but he would not be a true god if he was made by particles, cause then he would be a slave to those particles.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I will say that the topic starter assumes that god is somehow part of the universe, that he's made up of particles.
If he was then your post would be correct.

And also, if god wasn't part of the system, he could create a stone so large no one could lift it, but since he's not part of the system to begin with, he COULDNT be held account for if he could lift it. The logic "can god create a stone so heavy not even he can lift it" only works if god himself was made of particles, but when he is not, we don't know his ways for controlling the particles inside the universe, and as such it doesn't matter.

All in all, I hardly doubt a god exists, there may be a creator outside our universe, but I don't think he controls anything here, I think the universe is self contained and needs no outer control.

 

[RAD4921]

My theory of the universe

The universe has glass sides with air holes poked into the top.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The universe has glass sides with air holes poked into the top.

And food gets sprinkled down into it every morning?

 

[TsunamiJoe]

or meybee god created physics so that he would not have to control every precise piece of the multiverse at once until an anomoly presented itself

like the computer your using, i doubt that your running dos to veiw this website, and the majority are probably using windows or mac, you click a button and a menu pops up, someone coded that event so that you wouldn't have to manually enter out a directory string

 

[TENYEARS]

You all know the answers but you have not acknowleged them. Why? The answers are part of you. You know you only kid yourselves because you are to busy doing what? The truth is here the truth is now the truth is beneath your feet.

 

[franznietzsche]

And food gets sprinkled down into it every morning?

DUH! Otherwise we'd starve.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

i say we poll to get tenyears to stop making pointless posts...

DUH! Otherwise we'd starve.

lol why can't we grow our own food?

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Perhaps his most elegant and explicit statement about religion was written in 1929: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. it does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but vecause he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, not two separate things."

Einstein would often make a distinction vetween two types of Gods, which are often confused in discussions about religion. First, there is the personal God, the God that answers prayers, parts the waters, and performs miracles. This is the God of the Bible, the God of intervention. Then there is the God that Einstein believed in, the God of Spinoza, the God that created the simple and elegant laws othat govern the universe.

-Einstein's Cosmos, Dr. Michio Kaku, p. 129

 

[TENYEARS]

That would be an interesting poll which would show much which is already obvious to me, would it be obvious to you? I like it best when the band wagon goes against the flow, it shows the obvious. That is why you put your worst foot forword, only those that that are hungry will consume the crumbs. Not an ego response only the truth, would you know the difference?

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Now you're just trying to get more posts...

 

[TsunamiJoe]

honestly mate can't you find another area to blather your false pretext? your not contributing at all to the topic at hand.

but yes mate, deca, your considerably right. Or should i say Einstein was considerably right. ha either way nice presentation

 

[holly]

My physics professor of last semester said he never discusses religion in class because physics is not the province of that subject. He discusses physics. Every single PhD physicist I know is a believer, specifically, Christians, except for two who are Muslims. They do not mingle the two things, and work on solving physics problems, of which there are evidently more than enough to keep them all busy in their own field and out of the field of theology. They express confusion that people try to mix the two, as if physicists are final arbiters of What Is.

 

[imonly12but im smart]

No offense to anyone who is deeply religous but religon is what restrains man from the peaceful ideals of science one such case is so impervious to outside beliefs that they teach their own children to hate anyone who doesn't believe in something that does not exsist. (ala, christ, god, moses/middle east/ NAZIs(booo))

 

[Deca-of-CD]

What does Moses, the Middle East, and Nazis have in common?

And I was in church a few weeks ago (Note: forced to go O_O damnit..) and the dude was ranting about other religions being wrong, and that their followers are going to quote, "burn in HELLLL!", ending in a high pitch rush of anger that is common for Baptist preachers.. I was sitting there, already bored and unwaivered, and thought "Holy ****ing ****.. This guy is such a bigot, he doesn't even know anything about the other religions..." .. meh, my point is.. Too many people make up their mind BEFORE they hear the argument.. Just like liberals and conservatives--those ****ing pricks.. Which is kind of the case through out this whole thread.. And don't call me a hypocrite saying "Well, you seem to have made up your mind before you heard the blahblah" .. .Actually, I have enough religious (mainly Christian) friends whom have attempted, numerous and unsuccessful I might add, to 'convert me to Christianity'.. So I've pretty much heard all I'll ever want to hear about Christianity..

 

[TsunamiJoe]

*sigh* nazism wasnt a religion and you sound like everyone else on the planet who doesn't actually know what nazism truly was - even i dont, but I've vaguely got it down to purification, which is everyones goal...i mean your greatest nazi example didnt do a great job with it...but no one pays attention to that...also:

moses?? christ and god are all in the same religion base...

and the middle east??

i think you need to turn cnn abc nbc cbs OFF and realize the media has gone to the crapper and doesn't actually show reality

 

[n0n]

truely the best belief is believe what you want. for it ensures survival within your being of 'understand', what really confuses me is why is understanding looked at as bad. like, its good in this area but if you understand this, no that won't work, example: good to understand god, bad to understand science (note: to me science is great). What does it mean to understand god, and what's the difference in understanding science. both look for absolute trueth, both blerr beyond all comprehension in explaining what is the true universe at hand.

 

[Entropy]

Funny if you actually read the Bible you'd know that going with you feeling and trusting you "heart" is considered foolish. The Bible says the heart can be wicked, important decision should be made from what you know and not what you feel. The Bible actually incourages you to increase your knowledge and understanding. Believing isn't about some fuzzy feeling you have inside you, its about knowledge.

No offense to anyone who is deeply religous but religon is what restrains man from the peaceful ideals of science one such case is so impervious to outside beliefs that they teach their own children to hate anyone who doesn't believe in something that does not exsist. (ala, christ, god, moses/middle east/ NAZIs(booo))

What about Stalin, Lenin or Mao? Absence of religion really made those men "peaceful". You know Athesist can be just as impervious to religion as religous people are to other religions.

 

[phreak]

What about Stalin, Lenin or Mao? Absence of religion really made those men "peaceful". You know Athesist can be just as impervious to religion as religous people are to other religions.

Yes, but in today's world, religion seems to be the cause of many problems.

Atheism hasn't been the cause of problems for quite a long time.

[This conversation seems to be going toward the direction of an argument rather than a discussion. Try to steer it the other direction, because good rarely comes from an argument]

 

[zhaggy]

it depends on how you wish to look at God's existence...
either as a know-it-all,or as a catalyst,
who brings about change from one moment to another.
thus in theory creating new universes in different dimensions

 

[TsunamiJoe]

thas a good point very few wars have began not based on religion, though WW1 wasnt on religion and still big but the crusafdes on theotherhand i think were worse, meybe?

 

[n0n]

god is this: a wise man once said to be wise is to know you know nothing, and I shall add this, pun intended. get it?

What is nothing? Nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself.
and so,
inf. n=1->
N = inf. distance & inf. closeness (or Time and Nothing)
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number
N = (0*10^n) (0/10^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
something within time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (multi - fractals).

what is order to ever changeing complexity? is it a single fractal? but fractals cannot explain the universe within a whole, but it does explain our individual minds. the idea of multi-fractal can. but do not doubt the size of infinity, for as our universe will die it will become like eather a seed or like the randomness that causes the seed to grow. it will take an almost infinite amount of time but it will happen and existence will all occur again in some other way. for the infinitness of a multi-fractal would be so huge that our universe is at that point of infinite closenes, at this time.

The word of a N0N who truly understands N0N/g0d can only be as clear as the whole of N0N/g0d needs it to be. people who believe in things happen because of some devine intervention are crazy, things happen because their is a logical process for things to happen, and if you want to apply some super power to it go for it, but that idea limits the human creativity, and thierfor limits your understanding of N0N/g0d, and is not consistant with the logic of N0N/g0d.

live in peace with all, do not war with anyone over things that do not need war over, and that should be the way of it always. Do not war over missunderstanding, war over the fact that one chooses not to understand. But do not fight, discuss as a war of intellectual blending to find both your answers as a correctness, and peace will exist. This is really hard for humans but it must be done or the conflict will rise to a point of no return and we could very well end our own being just from one button (lol humanity is so lame that we have a selfdestruct button, well symbolically anyways)

 

[Entropy]

thas a good point very few wars have began not based on religion, though WW1 wasnt on religion and still big but the crusafdes on theotherhand i think were worse, meybe?

Actually most wars are fought for personal reasons and then people create religious excuses for it. But its also the same is for scientific theories which have also been used to create excuses for horrible things, like social-darwinism.

And your crazy if you think the crusades could even compare to WW1. With the invention of machine guns and mass production aloud armies to be created far faster, meaning it was easier to get more soldiers which inturn lead to more massacars. Not to mention also the development of chemical warfare.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

i meant on deathscale *sigh* there were like 10 some odd crusades wasnt there? HUGE BATTLES i believe it to be larger then ww1 in my opinion

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Death scale?.. (since i don't know about WWI's counts, i will use WWII's)

Russians: Something like, 450,000
Allies: ~400,000
Nazi-Germans: Like.. +20some million
Holocaust Victims: ~9mil
Japan (fighting and a-bombs): Haven't a clue, but I'm guessing higher than 100k..

And I thought there was like... 14 Crusades... .. . .and what was the point of the Crusades?

And Entropy, it's spelled massacre ^_^

 

[TsunamiJoe]

well not to get seriously off topic I am going to tie in the answer to your question with this topic

the crusades as it were i believe was christianity vs. muslims or sommit out in the middle east wasnt it? but if you were a god and such and loved your creation would you protect them or sommit?

 

[yesicanread]

Oh. I got to say something.

You use the circle. I do as well. It is fitting I reply.

1.) The planar congruent triangle is made up of 3 points.
Point symmetry has 3 points.
Reason: given.

3.) The first point symmetry point is AB.
The second point, the centre, could be AA or BB.
The third last point could be AB.
Reason: given.

6.) The triangle made by 3A or 3B is a set of one symmetry point + the centre, and is a congruent triangle to the opposite symmetric point.
Reason: given.

7.) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Format: (1 : the shape, size, and general makeup (as of something printed)).
A triangle is a shape. 2 triangles is 360 degrees. A circle is a shape. A circle is 360 degrees.
Reason. given.

8.) A format/shape/circle = radius action. One radius act does not = a circle format, you need many radius act(ion). One radius action = 180 degrees triangle shape when it causes a reaction via point symmetry.
Reason: given.

9.) Therefore. Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference !

10.) ( Radius = Action ) < Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference.

11.) Radius = Radius. So the Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference existed! Pre-formatted.

12.) So the memory made by the radius/action man to create a reaction. Was already pre-formatted by the radius/action man.
Man = Man, Action = Action. Thought = thought. Existance = existence.
( Radius = Action ) < Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference.

13.) If existence was before God. Congruent triangle = man = thought. How was the Man, God not in existence. With memory to create ? Answer: God is = to a man. Omnipotent/present, omnesient.

Have a nice day.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Points 1 - 6: Not very clear statement of geometry

Point 7: Dictionary definition

Points 8 - 13: Don't follow from above and constitute (a)private theory, and (b) religion.

 

[yesicanread]

Sorry ? I don't follow ?

Points 1 - 6: Not very clear statement of geometry

Point 7: Dictionary definition

Points 8 - 13: Don't follow from above and constitute (a)private theory, and (b) religion.

I'm sorry selfAdjoint. But I don't completely follow on how 8 - 13 doesn't constitute a complete logical thought that is correct in the order made.

If you would. Please, please show me the direct number in the numbers I listed. And, please, please, tell me how it is flawed.

Anybody who cares too. Look over each number in order and see if it makes sense, number by number. If you see a flaw. Please, please, tell me on this thread what that flaw. Specifically detailed, is.

Thank you.

 

[IronGeek]

This thread is silly. So are most theisms, imho, but why bother convincing anyone of it? I feel that the concept of "God" or "gods" are simply catch-all explanations for anything one cannot readily explain. If you think otherwise, that's cool.

 

[reilly]

Quite a long time ago David Hume, for all practical purposes, suggested that you can't prove anything. Godel did much the same thing -- roughly speaking, he came up with the formal version of, How high is up? To attempt to force "reality" into a particular mode by means of language is and will always be a fruitless endeavor. As far as nature is concerned, human language is not the voice of command, but rather the voice of description.

That being said, for those interested in such things, there is a fascinating book of a few years ago; Brain Science & The Biology of Belief: Why God Won't Go Away, by A. Newberg MD, Eugene D'Aquili , V. Rause. They suggest, on the basis of clinical work including brain scans, that we well might be hardwired to have the concept of God, ior, at least some of us.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[drumrboi]

I'm no authority on this subject but I just spent the last half hour or so reading an extremely informative article concerning this topic. The article can be found here: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?overture.com
This guys insight is unreal. Anyhow, enjoy.

 

[J.Troy]

Imparcticle wrote

"I suggest you get your facts straight. There have been multiple instances where historians have admitted that the historical references made in the bible are infact, true. That is, consistent with the history books. There have been quite a few documentaries concerning this on the History Channel. Though I could not find
exactly what I was looking for on the History Channel website ( ironically, I found an essay concerning the history of biblical archeaology), I found another site:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

Note the author is a PhD archaologist. I believe his opinion must have some weight (as he has studied to the highest degree)."
----------------------------------------------------------

The bible is in fact very loosley based on real people and events part myth part fable. Most of which has never been proven. I just took a look at the link you posted and its terrible. Many many claims with very little support.

There is no and i repeat zero extrabiblical evidence of Jesus.
If you think genisis happened i don't know what to tell you
Even the fabled exodus is in doubt.
I could go on but I think you get the point.

If you think the History channel has presented an accurate representation of biblical history you got another thing coming. I suggest you read into MODERN biblical scholarship and perhaps even take a look at the Jesus seminar.

 

[kekly]

It's true not all of the bible has been proven however nothing in it has been proven as false either.