Evidence for a God

I'm turning on email updates so I may come back to this. In the meantime, you may be interested in the discussion started here:
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2674006#2674006

0 Replies

Thanks for the link to the other thread.

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God
Diest TKO, I like how you pick and choose a few select sentences from my posting. It's often an effective way to give a distorted impression of what a person is saying.

Diest TKO wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:

We don't look for empirical evidence for emotions such as love, or thoughts, or mathematical truths.

Incorrect.

The last time you fell in love, did you look for empirical evidence to see if, in fact, you were really in love? Not likely. You knew it from your subjective state. (You may have looked for evidence to see if the other person loved you back, but that's not what I'm talking about.) Similarly, when you have thoughts, do you look for empirical evidence to confirm that you really had thoughts? When you learned a mathematical proof, did you look for some kind of empirical evidence to see if it really was true? Not likely.

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:

We realize God. We express the creative potential of God.

This makes god not supernatural but superreal.

Superreal? Did you just make that word up? I suppose that God is no more "superreal" than emotions or thoughts are "superreal". How about, God is subreal? God is antireal? Interreal? Postreal?

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:

God is not separable from humans anymore than love or happiness or sorrow or compassion or art or mathematics or music is separable from humans.

Incorrect AND poorly constructed.

How is that incorrect? Are you saying that God is separable from humans? That's interesting. Where might I find this independent God?

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:

That is not to say that humans created God any more than humans created love.

Humans may not have created what we call love but they certainly defined it. Just like we defined what a "dozen" is.

How is that relevant?

0 Replies

IFeelFree, I like how you completely ignore my response to your claims because you don't have a viable, rational response. I take this as an acceptance of my claim that speciation is in fact testable and supportable by evidence?

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God

IFeelFree wrote:

Diest TKO, I like how you pick and choose a few select sentences from my posting. It's often an effective way to give a distorted impression of what a person is saying.

I'm forced to pick and choose. It's not like your posts are concise enough to be addressed at large. No distortion, in fact emphasis on what you DID say.

IFeelFree wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:

We don't look for empirical evidence for emotions such as love, or thoughts, or mathematical truths.

Incorrect.

The last time you fell in love, did you look for empirical evidence to see if, in fact, you were really in love? Not likely. You knew it from your subjective state. (You may have looked for evidence to see if the other person loved you back, but that's not what I'm talking about.) Similarly, when you have thoughts, do you look for empirical evidence to confirm that you really had thoughts? When you learned a mathematical proof, did you look for some kind of empirical evidence to see if it really was true? Not likely.

Lol. Nice try. Last time I feel in love, I looked for symtoms. The symptoms I found were pretty congruent with those of individuals with love.

As for math. I'm an engineer. I've absolutly found both proofs and evidence for the math I've learned. You bit off more than you can chew in this debate.

IFeelFree wrote:

Quote:
IFeelFree wrote:

We realize God. We express the creative potential of God.

This makes god not supernatural but superreal.

Superreal? Did you just make that word up? I suppose that God is no more "superreal" than emotions or thoughts are "superreal". How about, God is subreal? God is antireal? Interreal? Postreal?

Yes, I made up the word. That's the point. God is outside of the domain of real, hence superreal.

IFeelFree wrote:

Quote:
IFeelFree wrote:

God is not separable from humans anymore than love or happiness or sorrow or compassion or art or mathematics or music is separable from humans.

Incorrect AND poorly constructed.

How is that incorrect? Are you saying that God is separable from humans? That's interesting. Where might I find this independent God?

I see humans without god everyday, I see one twice a day for that matter when I brush my teeth. Most of the experiances you describe as being God I have experianced, and it wasn't God.

IFeelFree wrote:

Quote:
IFeelFree wrote:

That is not to say that humans created God any more than humans created love.

Humans may not have created what we call love but they certainly defined it. Just like we defined what a "dozen" is.

How is that relevant?

It's relevant because you seem to romatisize what is intangable, and you give legitimacy to the supernatural. You seem like you're big into philosophy, but your arguements require pretty counter intuitive assuptions and you draw some pretty out of bounds conclusions.

T
K
O

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

IFeelFree, I like how you completely ignore my response to your claims because you don't have a viable, rational response. I take this as an acceptance of my claim that speciation is in fact testable and supportable by evidence?

Which post is that? It helps if you address me personally, or quote me so that I have some clue that you are talking to me.

0 Replies

OK, IFeelFree

Quote:

Quote:
Then you will have a similar problem with speciation.

Actually, I don't. The fossil record, basic anatomy, and genetic record all support speciation.

We do look for empirical evidence of love, thoughts, and mathematical truths. There is a great deal of psychological research devoted to both love and thought, trying to discover how and why both occur. As far as mathematical truths are concerned, we have evidence for those whenever something designed using them doesn't end in disaster. Is our understanding of these topics perfect? No. But to say we don't have evidence to their existence is to exaggerate a gap in knowledge to further a personal point.

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm forced to pick and choose. It's not like your posts are concise enough to be addressed at large.

Hmm. A dozen sentences. Is that too much for you?

Quote:

Lol. Nice try. Last time I feel in love, I looked for symtoms. The symptoms I found were pretty congruent with those of individuals with love.

Let me get this straight. You didn't know you were in love? You had to look for symptoms? WTF??? Are you that detached from your emotions? Wow.

Quote:

As for math. I'm an engineer. I've absolutly found both proofs and evidence for the math I've learned. You bit off more than you can chew in this debate.

I'm a physicist. I know math too. Probably more than you do. (I just published a paper on using non-linear regression to fit a 10-parameter current-voltage equation to semiconductor diode data.) The funny thing is I've never found empirical evidence for mathematics. Never. It was all based on thought and logic. Hmmm.

Quote:

Yes, I made up the word. That's the point. God is outside of the domain of real, hence superreal.

OK, here's a word: close-minded. I didn't even make it up. It's a real word. (well, maybe two words.) It can be used to refer to people who disbelieve anything that they haven't personally experienced themselves. For example, I've never eaten papaya, therefore, they don't exist! Isn't that silly!

Quote:

I see humans without god everyday, I see one twice a day for that matter when I brush my teeth.

Oh, I get it. You see humans without God, so God doesn't exist. Do you see anything wrong with that logic? (The irony is that I don't believe in the God of religion either, but the level of this conversation is such that we aren't able to get into serious points like that.)

Quote:

Most of the experiances you describe as being God I have experianced, and it wasn't God.

Please, do honor us with a description of your experiences. (This should be good...!)

Quote:

It's relevant because you seem to romatisize what is intangable, and you give legitimacy to the supernatural. You seem like you're big into philosophy, but your arguements require pretty counter intuitive assuptions and you draw some pretty out of bounds conclusions.

I'm sorry if you have trouble understanding. Don't worry. I have confidence that you can come up to speed if you really work at it.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

OK, IFeelFree

Quote:
Quote:
Then you will have a similar problem with speciation.

Actually, I don't. The fossil record, basic anatomy, and genetic record all support speciation.

Huh? I never said anything about speciation. That's not my field of expertise. I prefer not talk about subjects that I'm not informed about.

Quote:

We do look for empirical evidence of love, thoughts, and mathematical truths. There is a great deal of psychological research devoted to both love and thought, trying to discover how and why both occur.

I'm talking about your personal experience of love. Did you have to look it up the symptoms in a book and figure it out? NO! You knew you felt love. If you had never heard of love before, do you think you wouldn't have fallen love? NO! The personal experience of love has nothing to do with psychological research.

Quote:

As far as mathematical truths are concerned, we have evidence for those whenever something designed using them doesn't end in disaster. Is our understanding of these topics perfect? No. But to say we don't have evidence to their existence is to exaggerate a gap in knowledge to further a personal point.

That merely provides evidence that mathematics is a reasonable description of physical laws. It doesn't prove ANY mathematical truths. If I want to prove the Pythagorean Theorem, I don't start building triangles and measuring them. I work it out mentally and write down what I figured out in my mind!

0 Replies

Oops, sorry, that was Neologist. My apologies.

The following, however, is all you:

Quote:

I'm talking about your personal experience of love. Did you have to look it up the symptoms in a book and figure it out? NO! You knew you felt love. If you had never heard of love before, do you think you wouldn't have fallen love? NO! The personal experience of love has nothing to do with psychological research.

Umm... if people knew love when they felt it a) the divorce rate would be significantly lower, b) high school would be a much less traumatic experience for a lot of people, and c) we would have less angsty popular television.

Quote:

That merely provides evidence that mathematics is a reasonable description of physical laws. It doesn't prove ANY mathematical truths. If I want to prove the Pythagorean Theorem, I don't start building triangles and measuring them. I work it out mentally and write down what I figured out in my mind!

That may be true of you, but a math mathematician starts with some basic premises, proceeds logically until a conclusion is reached. By doing this, they ensure that as long as the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. And if one, just one, example to the contrary is found, the concept is reworked to account for the new evidence. I'd like to see the religion that can make that claim.

0 Replies

The level of debate on this site is REALLY disappointing. I'm outa here.

Let me give you all a boost before I leave:

You are right. I am wrong. I'm soooo stupid. You're soooo smart. I hang my head in shame. I have to run away because I'm so embarrassed. You have thoroughly humiliated me.

There. Do you feel better now?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

The level of debate on this site is REALLY disappointing. I'm outa here.

Let me give you all a boost before I leave:

You are right. I am wrong. I'm soooo stupid. You're soooo smart. I hang my head in shame. I have to run away because I'm so embarrassed. You have thoroughly humiliated me.

There. Do you feel better now?

Prove it.

T
K
O

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

The level of debate on this site is REALLY disappointing. I'm outa here.

You're leaving again?

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God

IFeelFree wrote:

Quote:
As for math. I'm an engineer. I've absolutly found both proofs and evidence for the math I've learned. You bit off more than you can chew in this debate.

I'm a physicist. I know math too. Probably more than you do. (I just published a paper on using non-linear regression to fit a 10-parameter current-voltage equation to semiconductor diode data.) The funny thing is I've never found empirical evidence for mathematics. Never. It was all based on thought and logic. Hmmm...

MATH FIGHT!!!! @ the swing set 3:15!!!

We'll math fight! You'll fight me with the statement that there is no evidence of math, and I'll use a simple expression such as 1+1=2 and provide evidence by counting pebbles before your eyes.

Glad you know your ego is intact. I'm more disappointed in your arguement knowing that you are a physicist. You should know better.

T
K
O

0 Replies

IFeelFree
I told you some weeks back you wouldn't like it here. You asked why? My reply was:
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2892656#2892656

some of the same people you are 'having issues' with here promptly told you I was WRONG! So what do YOU think of my reply now?

0 Replies

One reason I come to this forum is to sharpen my rhetorical skill. If I wanted only folks who agreed with me, I would write to the choir.

0 Replies

It makes me sad when people would rather flee then defend their beliefs or accept that their beliefs are unfounded...

Neologist, that last statement earned a lot of respect from me. Good job.

0 Replies

Re: Evidence for a God

fungotheclown wrote:

We've kind of touched on this subject in several other threads, but I thought it deserved it's open place. Considering the widespread belief in a god or gods, I would expect some kind of evidence to support this belief. Where is it?

Hi fungo:

This is always a fun subject that brings up many questions and thoughts.

You proclaim circumstantial and anecdotal evidence as not applicable, yet the testimony of 'reliable' witnesses is acceptable.

You say that "We do look for empirical evidence of love..." yet you do not say that we've 'found' empirical evidence of love.

You say: "if people knew love when they felt it a) the divorce rate would be significantly lower, b) high school would be a much less traumatic experience for a lot of people, and c) we would have less angsty popular television". I agree with your claims about love, however wouldn't they be considered as anecdotal and circumstantial evidence?

Are you sure that love can be proven to exist using the same criteria that you're asking for proof of God to exist?

0 Replies

Baddog1 - Divorce is not a measure of wheth or not a couple loved each other. It's a measure of functionality and commitment. Your conclusion is far stretched.

As for love, as I have posted before is imaterial, not supernatural. I've done some thinking since the last time this topic has came up.

Take the number 1 for instance. The number itself is imaterial, but by no means is it supernatural. If i poured water into a cup, and asked you how much water there is, I might get a responce

"There's one cup of water."

but to another person, I might get a responce of

"6.022 x 10^23 mol of water."

and another might say that

"There is an undetermined amount of water."

The point is that 1 is defined by the user, no answer was incorrect. One cup becomes the correct answer when the asker defines the domain and dimentions of the question.

As for love, it's an emotion. It's intangeable, and like the numbe one it is defined by the user.

You and i define love differently from each other, because we define it's domain and dimentions differently.

I see love as a part of the real natural world, you see it as outside of nature.

If I am experiancing an emotion, believe it or not, I'm limited in the number of emotions I could be having. There are in comparison an infinite number of feelings I could be having. Using my definition of love, and the evidence around me (my own behaivior, thoughts, etc) I can arrive at what emotion I am experiancing.

Did you know we only have four different tasts we can experience?

Sweet
Salty
Sour
Bitter

But flavor is actually a part of our sense of smell? It would seem that flavor is infinite in it's variety.

The point here being this.

You've made a case for god citing that it's immpossible to employ empirical standards to prove the immaterial or the supernatural. But here's the kicker, we don't all define god, and when we experiance something unknown, your definition guides you to god, while to ohers it guides them to science or chance or luck (whatever they believe in). Even amongst the group that defines the experiance as God, can't converge on the same god ro gods!

Your idea is non-convergent. You're seeking the validity of the imaterial for the supernatural, and for that matter the imaginary.

Your arguement by implication means you must also defend the possiblility of

Fairies
unicorns
leprechauns
ogres
etc

EQUALLY

with that of your proposed god. So until you're ready to go to bat for all the things incompassed with your theory, I'd retire this quesiton.

DIRECT QUESTION FOR BADDOG1 - "DO YOU BELIEVE IN UNICORNS?"
T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Baddog1 - Divorce is not a measure of wheth or not a couple loved each other. It's a measure of functionality and commitment. Your conclusion is far stretched.

Hi Deist: fungo actually made the statement about divorce - I agreed. And I stand by it. Not to threadjack, but for the record: Divorce IS a measure of whether or not a couple chooses to love each other enough to honor their commitment.

Diest TKO wrote:

As for love, as I have posted before is imaterial, not supernatural. I've done some thinking since the last time this topic has came up.

Take the number 1 for instance. The number itself is imaterial, but by no means is it supernatural. If i poured water into a cup, and asked you how much water there is, I might get a responce

"There's one cup of water."

but to another person, I might get a responce of

"6.022 x 10^23 mol of water."

and another might say that

"There is an undetermined amount of water."

The point is that 1 is defined by the user, no answer was incorrect. One cup becomes the correct answer when the asker defines the domain and dimentions of the question.

As for love, it's an emotion. It's intangeable, and like the numbe one it is defined by the user.

You and i define love differently from each other, because we define it's domain and dimentions differently.

I see love as a part of the real natural world, you see it as outside of nature.

If I am experiancing an emotion, believe it or not, I'm limited in the number of emotions I could be having. There are in comparison an infinite number of feelings I could be having. Using my definition of love, and the evidence around me (my own behaivior, thoughts, etc) I can arrive at what emotion I am experiancing.

Did you know we only have four different tasts we can experience?

Sweet
Salty
Sour
Bitter

But flavor is actually a part of our sense of smell? It would seem that flavor is infinite in it's variety.

The point here being this.

You've made a case for god citing that it's immpossible to employ empirical standards to prove the immaterial or the supernatural. But here's the kicker, we don't all define god, and when we experiance something unknown, your definition guides you to god, while to ohers it guides them to science or chance or luck (whatever they believe in). Even amongst the group that defines the experiance as God, can't converge on the same god ro gods!

Your idea is non-convergent. You're seeking the validity of the imaterial for the supernatural, and for that matter the imaginary.

Your arguement by implication means you must also defend the possiblility of

Fairies
unicorns
leprechauns
ogres
etc

EQUALLY

with that of your proposed god. So until you're ready to go to bat for all the things incompassed with your theory, I'd retire this quesiton.

DIRECT QUESTION FOR BADDOG1 - "DO YOU BELIEVE IN UNICORNS?"
T
K
O

Wow - that was quite a trip you took us on. I think I understand your basic message. Essentially you're agreeing with RL when he infers that it's tough to ask for natural evidence of the supernatural. Of course I agree and chose to include myself when fungo defined his position on what is and is not "evidence". My point remains clear and I hope that fungo replies.

As to your direct question: Of course I believe in unicorns - I have 2 daughters. Are you kidding??? :wink:

0 Replies

Evidence for a God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know