First, god would have to interrupt all regularly scheduled tv and radio programs and proceed to broadcast the 1812 overture. Then all the volcanoes on earth would have to erupt purple bubbles simultaneously. All religious fundamentalists would then have to grow wings on their asses and serenade the atheists, on harp, with beautiful twinkly ballads of love whilst the atheists all renounced darwin as an extra-terrestrial mole. Light would then have to slow down to 13.2 mph and i'd like to see pelicans surfing these slow waves(for effect). Then George Bush Junior would need to be caught french kissing Osama by a ressurected Jimi Hendrix. Jimi would then proceed to play the star spangled banner backwards with his elbows.
That would do it for me.
An act of god, but it would appear that vedder has beat me to that description of events.
Well I think to the degree that we look for God on the outside, and not look for God on the inside, then to that degree we would have missed the point. This is why God is not known to make many cameo appearances, for indeed we might believe in God as the comedian, or God as the clown, but not God as the Creator.
All it takes is for God to suffuse me with his supernatural faith. Then I will believe and I will also be convinced because I don't believe any soulless force could do that to me.
Before answering that, I would have to see a working definition of God in the first place. It seems believers would have differing opinions on that, but it isn't a problem. Often, God is defined in terms that are purely negatives and the idea relates to nothing we've experienced, so is a non concept.
So it would be best to define it, since I can't believe/disbelieve in something without knowing what it is in the first place.
How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?
From the thread, Think! ...
I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them.
Like he said
No matter what he/she did, how would I know if it is God, or the Q?
Sounds more like Q to me!
Or Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey!
The greatest gift a so-called god could give the human race is freedom of thought. Religion puts restraints on all freedom of thought, it's designed to control the masses. Once the human race rids itself of those pagan beliefs, then and only then can we move on to a higher intelligence.
Ground of being is rather vague, since that can be interpreted as just about anything. For physicalism, the ground of being could be a unified field. Purpose and meaning are human ideals that don't really add anything to the actual concept of what God is.
I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them. [/QUOTE]
It all comes down to defining this "supreme being". Is he personal? What properties does he/she/it have?
And yet without purpose and meaning we have no set of values which, I think is the main thing, above all else.
Would you have me describe why the sky is blue? It's as you said, the answer varies greatly, depending upon the number of differing viewpoints on this planet. And yet rightfully so, because how else would you go about describing that which is all-encompassing except from your own point of view?
Why couldn't it be approached like any other theory, like the theory of evolution, in terms of its cause and effect? (and in this sense I mean "rationally"). Obviously the Universe will still be here whether we establish God as its origin or not. While I doubt very much that anything will change, except perhaps some people may be required to show a little more compassion towards others. Even so, one doesn't necessarily need to invoke God to even suggest this.
All I can say is that there is evidence, and it's all a matter of whether one wants to conduct the research for oneself or not.
At first one of the main reasons that I felt I believed was because of all the stuff Jesus said which I found very in truth. But as I've read philosophy I've noticed some things i.e. that a philosopher Confusius said his Golden Rule 500 years before he did, and my believes started failing.
Empirically I've not met any particularly wise christian people compared to non-christians, although maybe more giving.
And rationally, as above, when reading philosophy I feel that does more for me here.
To be reconvinced I think both these aspects need to be confronted.
In order to restore faith, you must find a happy medium between blind faith and logical disdain
Well, first there has to be evidence that can be checked by others who may completely disagree with you. This is certainly the way of science.
If you wish it investigated as a scientific endeavor, clarify your evidence, develop hypotheses which make falsifiable predictions. If it is not possible to produce falsifiable predictions, then you are likely outside the domain of science.
Why don't we start here and now - state a couple of pieces of evidence, and come up one or more reason derived predictions based on that evidence. Make sure your conclusions are the simplest that fit the evidence.
I look forward to your post.
And yet the theory of evolution is just that, a theory isn't it? In which case all I have to offer up here, as is the case with evolution, is conjecture.
However, I have been able to amass enough proof for myself, to answer this question on a personal level which, is more in line with the title of this thread.
While I'm afraid all I can do is speak from my own experience, and do so to the best of my ability. I don't know if that's good enough to begin a debate or not?
Another thing, is that once you establish something, you tend to get a little bit lazy, as it no longer requires all this additional evidence -- as it would in a debate -- to back it up. In which case I might seem a little short-handed in some of my replies, as I'm not always dwelling on such things. Nor do I always feel like there's something there to be said.
Well, I think it would be a nice start if he'd at least come over once for dinner.
I'm sure we could find a way to take it forward from there.
Going back to an earlier post, cant be bothered to quote it, but maybe god is the Q, and maybe he/it has created life on this planet just to see how much fun he can have with us by giving us all freedom of thought, maybe he is having bets with all of his Q mates to see how long it takes for us to destroy the world that we live in, maybe it just wants to laugh at all of our petty little arguements about religions that he probably started on his own just to confuse the earths population, maybe i have just got back from the pub after a few drinks and dont know when to stop typing.
To sum up all of that rubbish maybe Q is just having a laugh with his mates.
What does it take one to be convinced that God (the being which is defined as the consciouss omnipotent omniscient infinite eternal being and creator of the universe) actually does not exist?
But consider this:
The being defined as above has a fundamental flaw that makes it into an inpossibility.
The argument is not that eternal infinite being can not exist, since we can conceive of the material world, that it was not created but existed always.
The argument is however that the eternal infinite material world itself (which is the highest or most broad form of being, since there is nothing outside or beyond it) can not exist in consciouss or subjective form.
To be consciousness, means to be consciousness of something. but by definition there is not something beyond or outside the eternal infinite material world itself.
To be subjective can only be defined if there is something that forms an objective basis for that.
To be selfconsciouss and selfaware can only be meaningfull if there is something that you can distinguishe between that which is you, and that what is not you. You can not reflect on yourself, if there is nothing outside you, to reflect on.
So consciousness has no meaning and can not be defined in the context of the eternal infinite existing material world, which is all being.
We are an expression, a development product, of the material world, which can exist in subjective and consciouss form, cause we can reflect on and be aware of the world, which itself exists in objective form. This objective world had to be already there, forming and constituting the reason and cause for our own existence.
We can distinguish between ourselves, and that what is outside, apart from and independend from us.
Any form of consciousness requires there to be an objective world in first (primary) instance, that causes consciousness to become existent, and which can be related to in a subjective way.
The material world in total can only be something objective, and can not have any consciousness of itself. Instead we - our human form - makes that the world exists also in subjective form. We are the way in which the universe, the material world, can reflect on itself and can be consciousss of itself.
So the existence of something in consciouss form, prior to there being a material world in objective form, is therefore an impossibility.
Definitional argument flaw. You are using the common definition of theory and the scientific definition as equivalent. They, though spelled and pronounced the same, they are in fact, completely different in meaning.
Theory, in common usage is no more than conjecture. Theory in science, is something that has gone thru the conjecture and hypothesis stage, with collection of enough evidence and sets of logical, falsifiable predictions, surviving all assaults of those that disagree, that based on the evidence it is considered a theory.
You are trying to jump past that. God Iacchus, read up on this crap before throwing it out here. You obviously know virtually nothing of evolution, except for popular notions - read! study! learn! The mountains of evidence to support it are staggering. Are there points that will be overturned - yes, is the basic idea incorrect, hardly. The theory of evolution battled uphill for over a century. It's earned being a theory - you can't just jump past the hard part.
There is only one stage (for want of a better word) closer to certainty in science - that of a law. Most complex ideas cannot be a law because there is no way to become more certain. There are gas laws and the laws of gravity and ohms law - simple conditions that are obvious and so highly repeatable as to be virtually impossible to deny. Almost all other 'ideas' in science can only progress to the stage of theory.
Now if you can produce even one hundredth the evidence that supports evolution, then we will call your conjecture a theory. Otherwise please present the evidence.
That you have enough to convince yourself is good, there is no argument here, however your prior statement, that illicited my response, stated that it should be investigated seriously by science. As such, your personal convictions and beliefs bear no weight of evidence, thus irrelavent to your question/debate.
I repeat my request for you to provide unambiguous evidence to support your request that this subject be investigated by science.
But you haven't established anything with us. Certainly nothing that would support your request that this subject be treated scientifically.
I hate to point out the obvious, but unless I'm mistaken, you've never produced evidence to support the conjecture, in a scientific investigation, that god exists. So whatever you consider established is solely within the confines of your own skull. Until it's presented, fully, to the light of this inquiry, it remains true only to you. Until presented, this puts it squarely outside the domain science.
We await your evidence.
Let me put it this way, so perhaps you can get off your high horse and find something useful to do.
How do you know that the sun shines? How do you know that the sky is blue? How do you know that a rose is beautiful?
Indeed, if you can't answer the question of God within the same context, as being "intrinsic," then chances are you'll never get it. And yes hey, it means you've at least identified this much, and that this should become your starting point. In which case you may begin to find evidence to support the "intrinsic event."
Do you believe that knowledge is intrinsic? Or, at least our ability to acknowledge it? And what's the difference between animal instinct and intrinsic knowledge? Enough to say that they aren't altogether dissimilar? Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?
These are the kinds of things that I've posted time and time again throughout my 1,500 or so posts on Physics Forums (including PF 2.0), and if you don't think any of it can be construed as evidence, or even conjecture (I recommend you do your own search), then I'll tell you of a neat little place where the sun don't shine ...
P.S. One final thing. I do have an opinion and I do have a right to voice my concerns. Comprender?
Does this mean that I should expect god to come over for dinner?
Or should I set out an extra plate anyway, just for the idea of God?
Speaking for myself I would say no. But hey you never know, things do have a way of happening when you least expect it.
Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?
But the main thing I suppose, is that you remember Santa Claus likes milk with his cookies.
The sun shines because of gaseous interactions which perpetually keep the sun burning. The sky is blue because of atmospheric conditions whereby the sunlight bounces off the troposphere(I may be off on this). And saying a rose is beautiful is a subjective statement, we are examining the objective evidence of god.
And you're right, you do have a right to voice your opinion.
Separate names with a comma.