How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?Originally posted by Eh
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.
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.Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?
And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?Originally posted by heusdens
What is consciousness, if we would not be consciouss?
But reality exists, independend of our consciousness.
There were no humans at the time the solar system formated.
Originally posted by vedder
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.
Sounds more like Q to me!Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No matter what he/she did, how would I know if it is God, or the Q?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?
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]From the thread, Think! ...
And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?
And yet without purpose and meaning we have no set of values which, I think is the main thing, above all else.Originally posted by Eh
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.
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?It all comes down to defining this "supreme being". Is he personal? What properties does he/she/it have?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.
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.Originally posted by radagast
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.
Well, I think it would be a nice start if he'd at least come over once for dinner.Originally posted by Dave
What would it take you to be convinced God existed?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.
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.
Let me put it this way, so perhaps you can get off your high horse and find something useful to do.Originally posted by radagast
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.
Speaking for myself I would say no. But hey you never know, things do have a way of happening when you least expect it.Originally posted by BoulderHead
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?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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? [/B]