The creation of everything... How?

@BillRM,

David wrote:

Just out of curiosity, Bill, if I may:
do u consider the matter in obama's body to be conscious ?

BillRM wrote:

Hmm consider the brain dead members of the GOP far right
that is an interesting question.

Gee, thanx; nice of u to say so, but
do u consider the matter in obama's body to be conscious ?

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Show one proven time that consciousness is not connected to matter!!!!!

Can you prove that god does not exist?

You can't, because proving a negative just isn't possible with the scientific method. You can try to prove that god exists, and you likely will not succeed because of the lack of data. But that does not mean that you can conclude god doesn't exist.

But I have never sought to disprove that consciousness is connected to matter. It is the nature of this connection I seek to explore. And if you shed your impression of me as being full of religious preconceptions, it may become simpler to appreciate my perspective (if you care to do so, which is up to you).
I am not a religious nut, but I am very interested in challenging my preconceptions.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

For what reason
do u fail to Capitalize the name of God, a proper noun??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I will let those who believe in a specific entity capitalize their word. For myself, "god" deserves no different grammatical treatment than "car".
But it's not a particularly well thought out practice, I hasten to add.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I will let those who believe in a specific entity capitalize their word.
For myself, "god" deserves no different grammatical treatment than "car".

The GRAMMATICAL PRACTICE is to capitalize all proper nouns.

U employ a different grammatical treatment.

People who write of Thor, Zeus, Mars or Robin Hood
shoud not use capital letters for initials of proper nouns ?

"Car" is not a proper noun.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I am agreed with Cyracuz, god is not a proper noun. Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, Thor, are proper nouns. By not capitalizing god, one shows deference toward the multitude of religions in the world. IMO.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

But if we did speak of Thor and Zeus and Mars, we would refer to them collectively as gods, not Gods.

Those who say God refer to the biblical entity who is allegedly responsible for the creation of the world. It is the name of a specific deity, and I am not talking about that specific deity, but rather a classification of beings (real or not) that belongs to its category.

I am also pretty conscistent about referring to god as "it" rather than "him", for the same reason.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

I am agreed with Cyracuz, god is not a proper noun. Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, Thor, are proper nouns.

Many millions of people use God as a proper noun.

If someone calls out to a lawyer in court: "Hay, Counsellor !"
that is a proper noun and is capitalized.

If he had been speaking of many gods,
then that woud not be a proper noun; this is very simple grammar.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

When u call out to an specific counselor it is a proper noun, denoting a specific. Refering to god is deferencial to all religion, reference to God refers to a specific god.
When I write about god, meaning any god, I believe it is respectful and inclusive to all.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

But if we did speak of Thor and Zeus and Mars, we would refer to them collectively as gods, not Gods.

Agreed.

Cyracuz wrote:

Those who say God refer to the biblical entity who is allegedly
responsible for the creation of the world.

Right.

Cyracuz wrote:

It is the name of a specific deity,

YES. Thus, the name is a proper noun and shoud be capitalized.

Cyracuz wrote:

and I am not talking about that specific deity,
but rather a classification of beings (real or not) that belongs to its category.

That is not what u did.
If u had done that, then I 'd not have brought up the subject.

Cyracuz wrote:

I am also pretty conscistent about referring to god as "it"
rather than "him", for the same reason.

Then if u write of Paul Bunyan, u will say "it" in reference to him?
or u will say "it" referring to Capt. James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

You can try to prove that god exists, and you likely will not succeed because of the lack of data. But that does not mean that you can conclude god doesn't exist

.

First a demand that you prove something exist or at least have some evidence pointing to it existing is not the same as a demand to disprove a thing exist.

It is not a negative statement to demand you offer proof of a god existing and if a god exist it should be provable in some manner.

Now as far as coming to the conclusion that something does not exist you can do so at least for everyday purposes, in the same way and for the same reasons you can conclude that the tooth fairy does not exist.

For everyday purposes the idea of the tooth fairy is silly and the odds of the tooth fairy existing approach zero and in the same ways the odds for a Christian god existing also approach zero.

Just because you can not absolutely prove a negative does not mean that the tooth fairy or the Christian god can not be dismissed from the real world as so unlikely as to be not worth considering.

With the condition, that if some evidences does come forward for the tooth fairy or the Christian god then the subject will need to be review once more.

To sum up science does not require you to waste time on silliness or treat all ideas as being of equal worth.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Yes...its called good reason to believe or pursue some belief...concerning the Christian personalized God we have no good reason...on that much we agree...

0 Replies

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

When u call out to an specific counselor it is a proper noun, denoting a specific.

We agree.

wayne wrote:

Refering to god is deferencial to all religion,

No; grammar does not work that way.
Indeed, the reference seems more like a backhanded slap in the face,
presumably from militant, emotional atheism.

wayne wrote:

reference to God refers to a specific god.

YES.
Do u choose to imply a militant anti-monotheistic statement by your choice of capitalization ?

For instance,
when I write of the commies or the nazis, I hold them in such abhorrence and loathing
as not to honor them with a capital letter.

wayne wrote:

When I write about god, meaning any god, I believe it is respectful and inclusive to all.

U deny that all religions worship the same God, by different names from different languages ?

Do u wish to imply a passionately anti-monotheistic point of vu,
by your choice of capitalization (or absence thereof) ?

Even the HIndus (who believe in thousands of gods), still refer to God, in the singular.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

No; grammar does not work that way.
Indeed, the reference seems more like a backhanded slap in the face,
presumably from militant, emotional atheism.

Not at all. Just a more humble form of belief. In my opinion, God doesn't need a name or title, but that's my god.

Quote:

YES.
Do u choose to imply a militant anti-monotheistic statement by your choice of capitalization ?

For instance,
when I write of the commies or the nazis, I hold them in such abhorrence and loathing
as not to honor them with a capital letter.

I choose to defer to the fact that others may not be mono-theist. This is, after all, a multi-cultural venue.

Quote:

U deny that all religions worship the same God, by different names from different languages ?

Do u wish to imply a passionately anti-monotheistic point of vu,
by your choice of capitalization (or absence thereof) ?

Even the HIndus (who believe in thousands of gods), still refer to God, in the singular

I don't wish to assume that all religions worship the same god.
That would be presumptuous.
I may believe in a god I choose to call Tim, but a statement that Tim is God, would be offensive.

1 Reply

@wayne,

David wrote:

No; grammar does not work that way.
Indeed, the reference seems more like a backhanded slap in the face,
presumably from militant, emotional atheism.

wayne wrote:

Not at all. Just a more humble form of belief. In my opinion, God doesn't need a name or title, but that's my god.

U have your own, private One ?

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

First a demand that you prove something exist or at least have some evidence pointing to it existing is not the same as a demand to disprove a thing exist.

True. But you requested proof for matter and consciousness not being related. You did not ask for proof that they are related, which would be different. I think it is clear that they are related, but it is not clear precicely how.

It is not a negative statement to demand you offer proof of a god existing and if a god exist it should be provable in some manner.

Can you prove that love exists?

Quote:

For everyday purposes the idea of the tooth fairy is silly and the odds of the tooth fairy existing approach zero and in the same ways the odds for a Christian god existing also approach zero.

My 5 year old nephew would likely disagree with you when he starts shedding his baby teeth. The idea of a tooth fairy can turn the experience of losing a tooth into something exciting for a child. When the child grows up and learns that there is no tooth fairy, that does not discredit the everyday purpose of the tooth fairy.

Quote:

Just because you can not absolutely prove a negative does not mean that the tooth fairy or the Christian god can not be dismissed from the real world as so unlikely as to be not worth considering.

Are you aware that it is possible to understand the biblical genesis in such a way that it doesn't contradict any facts or scientific theories? An example could be the event of God creating Adam and from his body Eve. Sounds preposterous, right?
But that is only because you are taking it literally. If we understand Adam as the first living organism, it's splitting in two would be the creation of Eve. Cytogenesis, it's called in science.
On this point atheists are as foolish as theists, in that they both take the bible's meanings literally.

Quote:

To sum up science does not require you to waste time on silliness or treat all ideas as being of equal worth.

And appreciating religious or philosophical ideas is alot easier if you use your scientific knowledge and understanding as an asset rather than a defense. I understand what science is about. And I understand that there are some things that science cannot touch even though they are relevant to our existence.

In my opinion, reason at the expence of faith is just as restrictive to the emotional and intellectual growth of a human being as faith at the expense of reason.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David

I stand corrected. I will try to be more conscistent.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Can you prove that love exists?

Come on how silly can you get and yes I can prove that emotional bondings call love exist between parents and children, between friends, betweens mated couples....

Hell I can prove that love exist between myself and my cat for that matter and on both sides.

Such emotional bonding are reflected by behaviors that is not seen in beings who are not in an emotional bond call love.

Quote:

My 5 year old nephew would likely disagree with you when he starts shedding his baby teeth. The idea of a tooth fairy can turn the experience of losing a tooth into something exciting for a child. When the child grows up and learns that there is no tooth fairy, that does not discredit the everyday purpose of the tooth fairy.

I story that meet some emotional needs in a person does not indicate that the being in the story have a connection to the real world.

Not one and the same.

Such stories in fact does have a downside as it tend to decrease the trust children have in parents and other adults when they find out the true.

Quote:

On this point atheists are as foolish as theists, in that they both take the bible's meanings literally.

You bring me a theory that a personal god exist and in this theory he had communicate by writings in a book call the bible then you need to examine the claims in the content it was given to you.

You are free to do what Thomas Jefferson did and edit all the supernatural nonsense out of the bible but then it is not the bible most of us refer to and such a book need to be look at by itself.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Come on how silly can you get and yes I can prove that emotional bondings call love exist between parents and children, between friends, betweens mated couples....

Hell I can prove that love exist between myself and my cat for that matter and on both sides.

Such emotional bonding are reflected by behaviors that is not seen in beings who are not in an emotional bond call love.

Here now... I could perhaps say to you that "love does not exist", because science is able to explain the entire process in terms of chemical reactions in our brains and genetical conditioning. Love is merely an illusion, a high you get, and there is a completely natural explanation.

And this is the whole point. Just because we can explain a concept scientifically doesnt mean that its abstract is wrong or false.

Just because we can describe "love" in terms of chemical and biological processed does not make the very unscientific concept of love irrelevant.

And if you had the slightest idea of what religion is about you would understand that it is the same thing that is happening when you reject belief in a god. In the end, we can not know either way. Why are you so afraid to believe in something? We cannot live without faith. And dont assume I am talking about a god when I say faith. Your faith in science is what makes you defend it so adamantly, and your faith in your understanding of it is what prevents you from seeing that this defense is not needed at all.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Here now... I could perhaps say to you that "love does not exist", because science is able to explain the entire process in terms of chemical reactions in our brains and genetical conditioning. Love is merely an illusion, a high you get, and there is a completely natural explanation.

If science can explain love by chemical reactions how in the hell would that turn love into an illusion??????

Love would still be love and not an illusion no matters what it inner workings turn out to be.

So a condition is real or not real only if we happen not to understand it completely?

Oh and of course love is not some magical state of being and have completely natural explanations.

Your logic is very strange indeed.

Quote:

Why are you so afraid to believe in something?

Once more your logic is strange and of course I had faith but to the best of my abilities the things I had faith in have some evidences for being a part of the damn real universe.

1 Reply

The creation of everything... How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know