FabSwingers.com forum: Who created the universe part 3

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Its interesting to hear everyones thoughts, continue here as part 2 got too big

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Last message from other thread:

"What if we are all correct. What if every conceivable option or belief whether past, present or future is valid and correct because it is believed. (Including a belief in the Greek God's).

A crash course in quantum mechanics should help us all to realise we are in the absolute infancy of our knowledge. The impossible is possible.

How much of knowing is believing?"

May I suggest you're refering to multiverse theory rather than qm although , we can agree it's a branch from qm it's actually more linked to 13 dimensional string theory than qm which is truly only illustrated at sub atomic levels

Also qm or string theory do NOT make the impossible possible

Impossible will always mean beyond possibility

However it may change what we perceive as impossible into its true light as possible

It may indeed be possible (It's currently theorised not to be possible ) to reason that none of the creator concepts ever devised by humans can in any possible universe be plausible

I don't believe string theory xx

For me I have very little interest in speculation or what was occurring in our universe beyond 13 billion years

I have a small brain and using a telescope I have billions of real things to understand , way before I start believing stuff I know know one knows or know are guessing , on top of that I have over a 100 million current species to understand and millions of extinctio ones , over 2 billion years worth of rock formations and the data each millimetre contains

Age 9 I reasoned the cosmos must be infinite and this keeps my mind at peace by 14 I reasoned that none of the human invented god concepts I had read and understood , had any supporting data to cause me to enter into a state of belief

If you feel better with belief then that's cool x if you declare that on a forum I'll ask why , to date no one has ever given a reason that could suggest I should start believing , most beliefs I have discovered are a proportion of meme indoctrination and a proportion of personal adjustment. Thus until an individual specifically describes precisely their specific thoughts , it's usually futile to engage as one cannot second guess their mind

What do I belive

Well I don't know as a fact yet but I belive the bbc website that a frog has been discovered that gives birth to tadpoles , I do love understanding the facts of evolution x

I will clearly note there is zero evidence that anything that any human has defined as creator exists (logically that does NOT say a creator does not exist , it does say if it does there is zero data to validate that conclusion )

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No it's not! But then again I did pop up out of nowhere without being observed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The whole thing was invented by Tesco, just so that they could squeeze a profit out of any part of it that might even try to become developed.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

what is interesting, is when we discover a new reality, which changes the fundamentals.

eg - copernicus idea about the sun being the centre of our universe,not earth.

or dna.

the really big one would be if we could discover, in any form,how to get more energy out-than we put in.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Posted by man 4 you

"Quantum science says that something only becomes what it is when it is observed. So who, or what, was there to observe anything before humans came. A God perhaps"

If I remember rightly, one of the basic ideas of quantum science is about how if you attempt to observe something you change its state. It doesn't claim that things don't become what they are until they are observed, though I can see how you'd make that link. Also, the effects it describes are on the very small scale, so unless your God is an electron, photon or similar, that 'perhaps' has to be very tongue in cheek.

I do agree , qm is complex , and only slightly misunderstanding it can distort any logical use you may have for it , it's also full of metaphors to assist with its understanding but sadly the metaphors become intertwined

Thus confusing distortion

Same of course with religion where good metaphor is often a substitution for alleged truth

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"what is interesting, is when we discover a new reality, which changes the fundamentals.

eg - copernicus idea about the sun being the centre of our universe,not earth.

or dna.

the really big one would be if we could discover, in any form,how to get more energy out-than we put in.

Ooooo I have a belief

I belive it is impossible to have a system that emits more energy than was ever within the system to begin with

I believe

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only converted to another form

I don't believe however the theory of entropy , all though I'm sure a cosmic big freeze is plausible , I don't believe it is inevitable

Of course really that would depend upon whether the stuff within a infinite space was infinite or finite , finite leading to a conclusion that entropy only ever reduces

I don't like speculation xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I told you all in thread 1 and 2. It wasn't me.

I didn't do it.

You can't blame me because I wasnt there!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"what is interesting, is when we discover a new reality, which changes the fundamentals.

eg - copernicus idea about the sun being the centre of our universe,not earth.

or dna.

the really big one would be if we could discover, in any form,how to get more energy out-than we put in.

Ooooo I have a belief

I belive it is impossible to have a system that emits more energy than was ever within the system to begin with

I believe

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only converted to another form

I don't believe however the theory of entropy , all though I'm sure a cosmic big freeze is plausible , I don't believe it is inevitable

Of course really that would depend upon whether the stuff within a infinite space was infinite or finite , finite leading to a conclusion that entropy only ever reduces

I don't like speculation xx"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"what is interesting, is when we discover a new reality, which changes the fundamentals.

eg - copernicus idea about the sun being the centre of our universe,not earth.

or dna.

the really big one would be if we could discover, in any form,how to get more energy out-than we put in.

Ooooo I have a belief

I belive it is impossible to have a system that emits more energy than was ever within the system to begin with

I believe

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only converted to another form

I don't believe however the theory of entropy , all though I'm sure a cosmic big freeze is plausible , I don't believe it is inevitable

Of course really that would depend upon whether the stuff within a infinite space was infinite or finite , finite leading to a conclusion that entropy only ever reduces

I don't like speculation xx"

Big freeze?..surely the Heat death.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"what is interesting, is when we discover a new reality, which changes the fundamentals.

eg - copernicus idea about the sun being the centre of our universe,not earth.

or dna.

the really big one would be if we could discover, in any form,how to get more energy out-than we put in.

Ooooo I have a belief

I belive it is impossible to have a system that emits more energy than was ever within the system to begin with

I believe

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only converted to another form

I don't believe however the theory of entropy , all though I'm sure a cosmic big freeze is plausible , I don't believe it is inevitable

Of course really that would depend upon whether the stuff within a infinite space was infinite or finite , finite leading to a conclusion that entropy only ever reduces

I don't like speculation xx

Big freeze?..surely the Heat death."

Potato potatto xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh good God.. are you guys still flogging this one lol

I did want to add that any positive claim, whether God exists, or whether God does not exist, is a positive claim that needs proof in order to find it credible.

If Bertrand Russell states that, for all he knows there might be a teapot floating in space... but that he personally maintains a disbelief about it's presence... this is atheism. However, if he positively claims that, throughout the entirety of space and time there is not a single example of a teapot floating in space... this is an active positive belief... this is Atheism.

Considering the neutral position should be one of skepticism and the acknowledgement that, at this current point in our history, we simply don't know, any positive claims in either direction require proof so that we can dispose of the opposite positive claim as a possibility.

If, as he claims, Taoist does not have such a positive belief that God does not exist... then perhaps now is time for him to simply post the following couple of lines...

"Upon reflection, I must admit that I don't know whether God exists or not, but I have chosen to assume that God does not exist"

If he truly is an atheist (small a) that should stem the flow for a while... otherwise if he's an Atheist he should be required to provide proof, just as any other positive claim or belief would need to

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you "believe" in something - whether it is a god or a teapot - then it does not exist. "Belief" is a thought in your head, and thought is only an image - it can never be the real thing. "Belief" can never be reality, only false.

You can only know if something exists, you cannot know if it does not exist. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Now - give me more chocolate, 'cos my brain hurts....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Oh good God.. are you guys still flogging this one lol

I did want to add that any positive claim, whether God exists, or whether God does not exist, is a positive claim that needs proof in order to find it credible.

If, as he claims, Taoist does not have such a positive belief that God does not exist... then perhaps now is time for him to simply post the following couple of lines...

"Upon reflection, I must admit that I don't know whether God exists or not, but I have chosen to assume that God does not exist"

I haven't chosen to assume a creator does not exist . The only concepts of creators , are those postulated by other humans I don't have one , none of those concepts have data for me to reason a position of belief

Thus no belief , positive or negative . None

Now , you may wish me to articulate my statement that there is not enough data to form a position of belief in regards to creator concepts

I would then orchestrate an experiment , where every human with a state of belief in creator would need to articulate beyond doubt their creator concept is valid

If myself or some people after this experiment cannot be aabsolutely certain that a concept holds truth , then my declaration of insufficient data would be proven

We may find this is an ongoing experiment and thus far may find the statistics are in my favour

In short your double talk about my none belief is nonsense

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

[Removed by poster at 11/01/15 20:40:42]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

I may add that to compound the conclusion that there is insufficient data to form a rational honest objective position of belief in regard to human invented creator concepts , that when many creator concepts are examined there is indeed conclusive factual and logical data which will discredit the validity of the concept postulated

This does not state that maybe one day a human will theorise a creator concept which can be validated , but one of those has not been illustrated yet to my knowledge

Thus of all the millions of human invented creator concepts that exist , none have credible data that have caused me to reason a state of belief xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *afadaoMan
over a year ago

Staines

This thread has been running for as long as the universe has existed.

Come and talk to me for more clarity as I know the answer - they told me at church

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"This thread has been running for as long as the universe has existed.

Come and talk to me for more clarity as I know the answer - they told me at church

I heard that the church was certainly keen upon orbiting Uranus ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Probably best described as agnostic I simply do not know and have never come close to being convinced. Maybe we do not yet have the capacity to know because our thinking has evolved and developed in the 'wrong' way to understand even if the answer is otherwise obvious.

I do however respect that for some people, their beliefs become their reality.

Nobody has to try and convince me unless they intend to impose their version of reality on me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Probably best described as agnostic I simply do not know and have never come close to being convinced. Maybe we do not yet have the capacity to know because our thinking has evolved and developed in the 'wrong' way to understand even if the answer is otherwise obvious.

I do however respect that for some people, their beliefs become their reality.

Nobody has to try and convince me unless they intend to impose their version of reality on me."

I am curious why one might have a open "respect"for all beliefs which manifest into a personal reality

I could mention David koresh , there are a multitude of beliefs and cults which cause humans to harm themselves and others , due to completely unsubstantiated belief concepts

I'm not sure carte blanche respect is a humane position ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Would like to say , nothing personal to you blackspice ,

I respect your agnostic position and think your motive was to promote good will to all

I wanted to address the respect point from a different perspective ,as the respect all is mentioned innocently by many , when I may propose that it's not unreasonable to assess case by case , rather than generalise x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So does anyone think alien life exists ?

From primitive single cells all the way to intelligent life forms ?

I certainly do, somewhere out there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"So does anyone think alien life exists ?

From primitive single cells all the way to intelligent life forms ?

I certainly do, somewhere out there. "

There is no evidence to believe

The plausibility of the concept id say has a high probability

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So does anyone think alien life exists ?

From primitive single cells all the way to intelligent life forms ?

I certainly do, somewhere out there. "

Nope. I don't even think we're real.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"So does anyone think alien life exists ?

From primitive single cells all the way to intelligent life forms ?

I certainly do, somewhere out there. "
Yes I think there might be, the roswell landing in 1945, wonder what info area 51 is holding from us.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So does anyone think alien life exists ?

From primitive single cells all the way to intelligent life forms ?

I certainly do, somewhere out there. "
..erm yeah I think there's a small chance that aliens have visited, do visit, there's certainly a substantial amount of evidence to substantiate visitation.

The solar system is a big place let alone other galaxies, we've come from wood and cloth bi planes to space travel using advanced metallurgy, powerful computers, splitting of atoms, super sonic planes and holographic TV's and all in a hundred years. Where could we be in another 100 or 1000 or 10,000 or a billion years!.

The drake equation and further equations estimate there could be 60 billion planets in the habitable zone in our milky way alone, humans like to think we're special but it turns out we might not be as special as we think!.

We are not alone could be our salvation

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We are not alone could be our salvation"

We can't even be peaceful among our own species, what's are the odds visiting intelligent life would be.

Your bang on about how far we have advanced in 100 years. Imagine if a planet has intelligent life that's been around a few thousand years longer than us. technologically wise is what in getting at.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We are not alone could be our salvation

We can't even be peaceful among our own species, what's are the odds visiting intelligent life would be.

Your bang on about how far we have advanced in 100 years. Imagine if a planet has intelligent life that's been around a few thousand years longer than us. technologically wise is what in getting at.

"
.

Computers are way beyond our evolution rate and are starting to create themselves! How fast will there evolution exponentially grow when they get going in another 20 years!.

Im not a big believer in the violent alien, you would have to imagine to get to that point of technology they would have had to have found a peaceful route to get to that point or there'd have destroyed their selves.

I think we'd be interested in looking at microbes on Mars really curious at looking at small rodents on Saturn's moons,imagine watching a life form pass through the atom splitting and traveling out into space..... I think there'd be very interested

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes we've evolved fast,but nothing like as fast previously- as we have since end of ww2. Or as shag alludes, rosewell.

Believe in area 51 stuff or not, we've come on a sh1t load in last 50 years.

space. Where did we suddenly get that capacity?

not to mention technology generally, jet engine,computers,keyhole surgery, 4g wireless etc etc

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To what sexy bum said about computers, isn't it moores law that's to do with microchips etc?

Size halving, power doubling every X amount of years, or something along those lines. I can't be arsed trawling Google

Be interesting to see how computers evolve over the next 25 years

There's always the theory that AI will become too intelligent

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do however respect that for some people, their beliefs become their reality.

Nobody has to try and convince me unless they intend to impose their version of reality on me.

I am curious why one might have a open "respect"for all beliefs which manifest into a personal reality

I could mention David koresh , there are a multitude of beliefs and cults which cause humans to harm themselves and others , due to completely unsubstantiated belief concepts

I'm not sure carte blanche respect is a humane position ?"

Taoist 74, you're intelligent enough not to have to misquote me. I therefore give the benefit of doubt and assume you just have not understood my post.

I did not say that I have an 'open respect' for all beliefs. I was specific with my choice words.

I said that I respect that for some people their beliefs become THEIR reality. I did not say that I personally respect their perceived reality as having merit from my perspective.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Would like to say , nothing personal to you blackspice ,

I respect your agnostic position and think your motive was to promote good will to all

Of course there is nothing personal.

You've missed my point. A case by case assessment is for the sceptical or the undesided.

The believer who has already made up their mind is living in their reality and getting on with their life. I respect that even though I might believe it to be a crock!

It doesn't mean I respect their belief has merit in my reality.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bbandflowCouple
over a year ago

South Devon

"what is interesting, is when we discover a new reality, which changes the fundamentals.

eg - copernicus idea about the sun being the centre of our universe,not earth.

or dna.

the really big one would be if we could discover, in any form,how to get more energy out-than we put in.

Ooooo I have a belief

I belive it is impossible to have a system that emits more energy than was ever within the system to begin with

I believe

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only converted to another form

I don't believe however the theory of entropy , all though I'm sure a cosmic big freeze is plausible , I don't believe it is inevitable

Of course really that would depend upon whether the stuff within a infinite space was infinite or finite , finite leading to a conclusion that entropy only ever reduces

I don't like speculation xx

Big freeze?..surely the Heat death.

Potato potatto xx"

Taoist, Maoist xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes we've evolved fast,but nothing like as fast previously- as we have since end of ww2. Or as shag alludes, rosewell.

Believe in area 51 stuff or not, we've come on a sh1t load in last 50 years.

space. Where did we suddenly get that capacity?

not to mention technology generally, jet engine,computers,keyhole surgery, 4g wireless etc etc

Just thinking in general, and being observant is how we got to this stage. The more we are able to observe, the more we can understand. And since communication got easier those ideas and thoughts are able to be shared and more things can be understood.

For example, when a doctor saw that patients were dying from infections he couldn't observe what the cause was but he reasoned that there must be something you cannot see that was causing these infections (germs), many other doctors laughed at him and nobody took him seriously because they didn't believe in invisible things. Now we can observe germs, via microscope, we know they exist. And the more we have observed them over time the more we know about how they work and how to counter them. The doctor who believed in germs washed his hands before operations and less of his patients died from infections. Can't remember the doctors name sadly, but he just reasoned and figured stuff out without definite proof.

Same for other things your average person might not understand, someone figured out how something worked and tested it, not that hard really but you have to be able to observe and reason to be able to do that. Being passionate about something also helps, you will want to figure things out when you have a high interest in them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can't tell you who or what created it.

But I can tell you who didn't.

God

Or maybe he or she did and I have it all wrong.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes we've evolved fast,but nothing like as fast previously- as we have since end of ww2. Or as shag alludes, rosewell.

Believe in area 51 stuff or not, we've come on a sh1t load in last 50 years.

space. Where did we suddenly get that capacity?

"
.

Werner von Braun who was the head Nazi for the German rocket programme in ww2 was in charge of the moon landings.

The development from the military aspect from ww2 pushed lots of technologies along, as it still does today, sat navs used the us satellites put there for rocket guidance

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ATHEISM !!!

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turn into dinosaurs .

Makes perfect sense.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"ATHEISM !!!

Makes perfect sense.

So we are to believe a magical wizard was bored one day and created everything.

But who created the wizard/god....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All I know if god created the earth he did a rushed job of it ,doing it in six days than having a day off ,what was he thinking it should have taken at least twelve days, than we would all have decent weather, summer all the year round just rains through the night no nasty things to eat bite or sting you and we all live for ever and deffently no religion

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"ATHEISM !!!

Makes perfect sense.

So we are to believe a magical wizard was bored one day and created everything.

But who created the wizard/god...."

Numbers within the universe are infinite , therefore the probability is that there is as much chance there being a creator as there is not , mathematically speaking .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"ATHEISM !!!

Makes perfect sense.

"
.

You could make start by reading the theoretical physicist and cosmologists, Laurence krauss, s book the universe from nothing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Should tune in to radio 4 right now they are discussing this very subject

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Should tune in to radio 4 right now they are discussing this very subject "
...oooo have they! I've got radio 5 on I'll have a tune over!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes we've evolved fast,but nothing like as fast previously- as we have since end of ww2. Or as shag alludes, rosewell.

Believe in area 51 stuff or not, we've come on a sh1t load in last 50 years.

space. Where did we suddenly get that capacity?

Werner von Braun who was the head Nazi for the German rocket programme in ww2 was in charge of the moon landings.

The development from the military aspect from ww2 pushed lots of technologies along, as it still does today, sat navs used the us satellites put there for rocket guidance"

yes, good point.

I guess the biggest challenge was to exit + re-enter the atmosphere- whilst keeping a stable environment inside the rocket. am i right in thinking they sent animals up first?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Cant see any or little chance that any man derived God option exists or could have been close to anything but a collective story made by frightened people who wanted more life or power.

Have more sex, you'll enjoy it more. Forget life after this one.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes we've evolved fast,but nothing like as fast previously- as we have since end of ww2. Or as shag alludes, rosewell.

Believe in area 51 stuff or not, we've come on a sh1t load in last 50 years.

space. Where did we suddenly get that capacity?

Werner von Braun who was the head Nazi for the German rocket programme in ww2 was in charge of the moon landings.

The development from the military aspect from ww2 pushed lots of technologies along, as it still does today, sat navs used the us satellites put there for rocket guidance

yes, good point.

I guess the biggest challenge was to exit + re-enter the atmosphere- whilst keeping a stable environment inside the rocket. am i right in thinking they sent animals up first?

"
.Yeah,not sure they were trained to use the controls though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Abiogenesis is an interesting theory, one I'm currently leaning towards.

For the record, I'm a teapot/toothfairy agnostic. For practical purposes an atheist but if science proves God, fine, I'm open to evidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *onytbone74Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford Essex

I can totally solve this argument...

Science says big bang

Religion states God

Everyone knows God has a sense of humour - look at the platypus, the faces we make during sex etc..

So one night God and the Devil were playing a game of truth or dare - when the Devil dared God to fart, the Lord strained slightly then let one go - at this point the Devil lit a match, igniting they fart and there we have it... The Big Bang...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The whole thing was invented by Tesco, just so that they could squeeze a profit out of any part of it that might even try to become developed.....

"
I am torn to say every little helps! but I cant be asked !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The difficulty about a debate like this is that most of us are only going on the best data we have.

For the atheists, they clearly have not experienced god's presence, so to them the whole thing is fairy tales and the idea of experiencing such a presence, having not had such an experience themselves, feels like some kind of hallucination.

For those who are religious, and have therefore felt god's presence, one thing is certainly clear... god must exist... so it therefore follows that we're forced to come up with all sorts of hypotheses about how that can be so. One of those is the hallucination hypothesis but that's really easy to dispose with because the experience of feeling god's presence is so clearly not a delusion as with other experiences.

For both of these communities, the quest is on to try and square the data with their own experience of life.

The only odd ones out are the superstitious people, who have never felt god's presence in any personal way whatsoever, and so are entirely basing their belief of god upon a set of dogmas or rationalisations. As they have no knowledge of god (via experience), they are free to float free and believe whatever the most popular faith in their neighborhood tells them.

To this community I would say, faith without proof is the breeding ground of fraud. If you can't find personal proof for yourself, via a personal experience of god's presence, then you're really best off adopting the more cynical point of view of an atheist, as at least they're point of view opens up a line of questioning which does not block you from moving forward, unlike some of the faiths.

I appreciate that Taoist has something of a fan club who like to think of him as the king of reason. But much of his reasoning appears to be circular to me, and I believe I can show that to be the case. I did enjoy his response to my previous post that basically put sweet puppy eyes on him and said "who me? making a positive claim? no sir" It's therefore nice to see he has joined the more reasonable crowd who accept that there might be a God

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"The difficulty about a debate like this is that most of us are only going on the best data we have.

For both of these communities, the quest is on to try and square the data with their own experience of life.

Lol @ circular logic from he who writes

"For those who are religious, and have therefore felt god's presence, one thing is certainly clear... god must exist..."

I'd suggest it can be illustrated people who are not religous have experienced the same sensations ,emotions , cerebral electrical impulses , chemical/hormonal secretions as the religous , it's the concepts and memes of god concepts that are then overlayed

Thus the imaginings of humans illustrate nothing other than humans can and do have a capacity for imagination

Having an emotion and attributing it to an imagined concept of god is NO different to seeing a star and doing the same

If you think you can illustrate my reasoning to be circular don't claim to do so

For an example of circular logic though see your above claim that religous people have religious emotions thus god exists

"It's therefore nice to see he has joined the more reasonable crowd who accept that there might be a God "

Woh there

For a start you will note I rarely use the word god as it is pretty much meaningless

You will note I use the word creator and creator concepts

I don't like the word might I'd suggest it would be false dichotomy

Suggesting I feel it equally plausible a creator exists vs one not existing

Is it possible a creator exists

I thus far do not have the knowledge or reasoning power to say all creator concepts are impossible

I do however have plenty of data to articulate why creator concepts are low in plausibility

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So many religions had numerous gods

E.g Egyptian gods

Judaism is one of the older monotheistic religions

Then Christianity comes along claiming one God. Samuel 7:22 — Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

Islam which came along a few years later also claims one God

I'm of the opinion that religion was created to control the masses.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So many religions had numerous gods

E.g Egyptian gods

Judaism is one of the older monotheistic religions

Islam which came along a few years later also claims one God

I'm of the opinion that religion was created to control the masses.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Science is based on observation and speculation.

Religion is based on observation and speculation.

The common ground here is mankind.

Scriptures are the word of the creator, as written by man.

Laws of science are the understanding of the universe, as written by man.

We interpret what we want how we want...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So many religions had numerous gods

E.g Egyptian gods

Judaism is one of the older monotheistic religions

Islam which came along a few years later also claims one God

I'm of the opinion that religion was created to control the masses. "
.Well you've got the Torah that declares the "chosen ones". Practically discriminating against everyone who isn't and Worse than that the Qur'an states at the end that this is the final word, there can be no other gods.

But as I'm told it's the atheists that are intolerant!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *amie0151Man
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Its interesting to hear everyones thoughts, continue here as part 2 got too big

IKEA

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Lol @ circular logic from he who writes

"For those who are religious, and have therefore felt god's presence, one thing is certainly clear... god must exist...""

My statement here qualifies itself by stating that it only applies to "those who are religious". Then it goes on to state that they have an experience of God, and finally it asserts their truth; that God must exist. I did not write it as an argument for the existence of God, just a description of how different people's viewpoints are intrinsically based upon the experiences they have had. To transform it into the nonsense logic of "because some people believe in God, therefore God exists" is just an act of deliberate misreading... which is a bit intellectually dishonest of you Taoist.

When it comes to your claim of not being in some middle ground where God "might" exist, it would appear that every single statement you made after this qualified yourself as occupying very much that middle ground. Dare I suggest that your mind is a bit confused on this issue. You seem to claim that, on a graph of choices between yes and no, with maybe or dunno being representative of a middle point, that your own position is not on that graph. If, by this, you mean that you don't even have an opinion on it, why on earth are you even discussing the subject? If you truly don't understand a word we're talking about, wouldn't it be more appropriate to buy a phrase book rather than stubbornly insist that our language is nonsense?

I put it to you that you do understand what is being proposed, that you do, therefore, have a position on it, a position which is clearly not neutral, and that all your hyperbole about religious people not making sense is yet another form of intellectual dishonesty.

Of course, it's not Taoist's fault

, he's probably a nice enough guy. It's just that he's relying upon atheist arguments against God, most of which are either based upon circular logic or intellectual dishonesty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Lol @ circular logic from he who writes

"For those who are religious, and have therefore felt god's presence, one thing is certainly clear... god must exist..."

Of course, it's not Taoist's fault

, he's probably a nice enough guy. It's just that he's relying upon atheist arguments against God, most of which are either based upon circular logic or intellectual dishonesty

"
.

What's the possibility that there just a little bit nuts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I just suddenly realised that maybe the only reason why people are still conned by Atheism is because no-one told them the news that logical positivism is dead. Here's a clip from wikipedia...

Logical positivists' verifiability principle — that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful — cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful. The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism. Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions — verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap — were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.

You can chew on that one for a while

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another wikipedia quote...

"In a 1979 interview, A J Ayer, who had introduced logical positivism to the Anglosphere in the 1930s, was asked what he saw as its main defects, and answered that 'nearly all of it was false'"

So, my suggestion to Taoist is....

To cling to a philosophical viewpoint whose sole criterion is that one must "follow logic wherever it goes" despite the fact that philosophers and scientists now broadly consider that philosophy to have been so poorly thought out that "nearly all of it was false"... surely clinging to such a philosophy after such refutation is not a logical stance... it's a belief, it's a leap of faith

I just love it when I finally find the achilles heel of an argument

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Another wikipedia quote...

"In a 1979 interview, A J Ayer, who had introduced logical positivism to the Anglosphere in the 1930s, was asked what he saw as its main defects, and answered that 'nearly all of it was false'"

So, my suggestion to Taoist is....

I just love it when I finally find the achilles heel of an argument

Good job I don't follow logical positivism then isn't it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Lol @ cling

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Me ..... coz I AM BATMAN.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Was it Microsoft?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *olden_Road_to_SamarkandMan
over a year ago

North Wessex Downs

"The difficulty about a debate like this is that most of us are only going on the best data we have.

For both of these communities, the quest is on to try and square the data with their own experience of life.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *olden_Road_to_SamarkandMan
over a year ago

North Wessex Downs

"Another wikipedia quote...

"In a 1979 interview, A J Ayer, who had introduced logical positivism to the Anglosphere in the 1930s, was asked what he saw as its main defects, and answered that 'nearly all of it was false'"

So, my suggestion to Taoist is....

I just love it when I finally find the achilles heel of an argument

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Was it Microsoft?"

If that were true there'd be no evolution, just endless updates.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"For those who are religious, and have therefore felt god's presence, one thing is certainly clear... god must exist... so it therefore follows that we're forced to come up with all sorts of hypotheses about how that can be so. One of those is the hallucination hypothesis but that's really easy to dispose with because the experience of feeling god's presence is so clearly not a delusion as with other experiences."

Ok we all make mistakes me more often than most , as I like to explore and learn from them xx

So let me get this Absolutely clear mpassion

You do not think that when a person experiences what they would term "gods presence" that the experience can be illustrated to be evidence for any possible ddefinition of a god ?

As , no disrespect , after a number of your posts have certainly implied that may be your opinion ? If it's not , in not really sure what we are debating tbh,

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So let me get this Absolutely clear mpassion

You do not think that when a person experiences what they would term "gods presence" that the experience can be illustrated to be evidence for any possible ddefinition of a god ?"

It is evidence "for them". To label it as not being evidence is to suggest a negative claim as being a neutral stance, or to infer a logical positivist stance that, for something to have meaning it must first be shown to exist through the use of science or reason, which as you are now well aware has been itself falsified.

Instead the neutral stance is to accept each person's truth as being true "for them". The question then becomes... which perception of the experience is right? Was it God or not?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Good job I don't follow logical positivism then isn't it "

Ooo you slippery Eel

You know that's exactly what you've been proposing all this time

Logical positivism states that you cannot have a meaningful conversation about something that can't be shown to exist via either science or reason. If you read back through Taoists posts you should be able to see this defines his point of view

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So let me get this Absolutely clear mpassion

You do not think that when a person experiences what they would term "gods presence" that the experience can be illustrated to be evidence for any possible ddefinition of a god ?

Instead the neutral stance is to accept each person's truth as being true "for them". The question then becomes... which perception of the experience is right? Was it God or not?"
.

There's a lot of layers there... Skip through it

Are they a little bit nuts or not!.

If feeling a sense of God is allowed, why do we treat schizophrenics who hear voices in their head.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Good job I don't follow logical positivism then isn't it

Ooo you slippery Eel

You know that's exactly what you've been proposing all this time

I'll ignore that xx

I'm poorly educated and even less well read . I had no idea positive bla bla exists , I've read some it and I disagree with some of it

Debate my points exactly not what you think I may be copying xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"So let me get this Absolutely clear mpassion

You do not think that when a person experiences what they would term "gods presence" that the experience can be illustrated to be evidence for any possible ddefinition of a god ?

And you call me slippery lol

That was just nonsense sorry

Instead the neutral stance is to accept each person's truth as being true "for them". The question then becomes... which perception of the experience is right? Was it God or not?"

And you call me slippery lol

That was just nonsense sorry

I asked clearly if you thought , not what others think x

Then you twist it and I'm off on a pointless positive bla bla bla misdirection

My earlier question was clear and direct . I will assume you will not clearly answer

So let me get this Absolutely clear mpassion

You do not think that when a person experiences what they would term "gods presence" that the experience can be illustrated to be evidence for any possible ddefinition of a god ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I dont think logical positivism offers much on this subject. existence of a creator is more of a metaphysical question. LP is for science/logic/maths.

you could say that the existence of a creator/god transcends formal reasoning.

If it could be proved, either way- there wouldnt really be any spiritual experience would there?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"I dont think logical positivism offers much on this subject. existence of a creator is more of a metaphysical question. LP is for science/logic/maths.

you could say that the existence of a creator/god transcends formal reasoning.

If it could be proved, either way- there wouldnt really be any spiritual experience would there?"

"you could say that the existence of a creator/god transcends formal reasoning."

Not only could it be said it certainly seems to be the main if not only argument put forward by many who wish to claim an atheistic position is irrational

I have however yet to hear anyone articulate any justification to validate the in it's truest sense the " non sense" claim

Transcends formal reasoning , means does not make sense

I feel it can certainly be illustrated that many of the human invented god concepts have contradictions that mean they do not make sense , and this not making sense can illustrate the plausibility of said concept to be low to zero

I however think it could be reasoned that any creator that might exist would indeed be sense and not have unresolvable contradictions

Here's two examples that transcend reasoning

A benevolent creator of parasites

What happened before infinity was horrific yet what will happen after will be worse

Just because we can place words into sentences does NOT mean they make sense

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Get a room you two

You seem to miss anyone elses contribution to this clash of the titans epic.

I bow out having no valid contribution...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Science is based on observation and speculation.

Religion is based on observation and speculation.

The common ground here is mankind.

Scriptures are the word of the creator, as written by man.

Laws of science are the understanding of the universe, as written by man.

We interpret what we want how we want..."

Sorry I did not agree with all you wrote nor did I disagree with all you wrote nor with your sentiment

I felt being pedantic with your reasonable comment would have been unnecessary x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Science is based on observation and speculation.

Religion is based on observation and speculation.

The common ground here is mankind.

Scriptures are the word of the creator, as written by man.

Laws of science are the understanding of the universe, as written by man.

We interpret what we want how we want...

Sorry I did not agree with all you wrote nor did I disagree with all you wrote nor with your sentiment

I felt being pedantic with your reasonable comment would have been unnecessary x

Fair call

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread