Re: If there is a God, then where the hell is he?
c_logic wrote:Well, there are a few assumptions I made as to what his intent might have been:
No ****.
Quote:1. It looks like god doesn't exist.
2. Why doesn't god interfere/help us?
3. What is the shape/context of god?
However, in fact, all the member asked is where god is. Of course, you're free to make assumptions, but they don't qualify as responses to the initial post. In fact, the initial post looks like bait--which is to say, it is phrased in a manner to be the source of an argument.
Quote:I simply decided to answer the first one... if that's ok with you Set, of course... you know I wouldn't purposely do anything to upset you.
Whether or not it's "OK" with me is irrelevant as well. I don't know the least thing about you, but i assume on the basis of my life's experience that people who are complete strangers to me cherish no particular desire to avoid upsetting me . . . so, at this point, i consider you a liar, and not a very clever one.
Quote:True, I never said otherwise. What I said is that the following argument is invalid from a logical perspective, which I'm sure you would agree:
"I can't see or perceive god, therefore god doesn't exist."
I am baffled at the assurance with which you assume things about me--but it appears that you are fond of assumptions. It does happen that the statement is not logically founded, but, then, that was not what this member wrote. Once again, this is a "bait thread," the author is intent on picking a fight. Your assumptions may well be valid, but bascially constitute a "pearls before swine" exercise. Relax, sit back and enjoy the free entertainment.
Quote:Quote:No reputable scientist claims to "have equations" that prove any such thing. Even if that were the case (and that is not how science works), what equations do you have to prove that there is a god? By the way, asking where god is is not a complex question--in fact, it's a very simple one.
That's not true.
Yes it is. Mathematics offers proofs--but science does not. Mathematical proofs are entirely self-referential to an intenally consistent, but artificial system. Mathematics don't exist in nature, but only in the minds of those who have created a means of partially describing the real world. Responsible science deals in probabilities and not proof.
Quote:So you're saying that equations like E=MC2 prove absolutely nothing?
Here we go again with the King of Assumptions. No, the equation proves nothing--it does, however, approximate a description of physical reality. At any event, you alleged, without substantiation, that equations exist which "prove" that there are more dimensions than the three spatial and the temporal dimensions. That was an irresponsibly simplistic statement of how scientific hypotheses are constructed and function. What scientist have speculated is that there are more than four dimensions--no reputable scientist has claimed to have proven that, and certainly not by having written a mathematical equation.
Quote:Of course, there are ways to study things by way of observation in science, but a lot is done with equations as well.
This constitutes another statement sufficiently vague and simplistic as to be meaningless.
Quote:The newest theory is that universe consists of at least 11 dimensions - they have some equations that show it's possible but they're not confirmed yet. The fact, however, is that there have to be more than four dimensions, otherwise nothing would make much sense in physics.
And again, a statement sufficiently vague and simplistic as to be meaningless. Note the word "theory"--look it up if you've forgotten the definition. At least, however, you have arrived at the point at which you acknowledge that this assertion is not proven. It may be highly probable. Probability is not, however, proof, and science deals in probabilities and not proofs.
Quote:Now, I'm not saying that one can prove or disprove the existence of god via equations. The point I was trying to make is the following:
If you went many years back and told people that there are, say, 6 dimensions in the universe, they would have told you you're an idiot because we can't see those "extra" dimensions.
We now know that there are more dimensions that we can perceive because there are equations to prove it, so saying that human perception is sufficient to prove things is wrong.
But now you're back-sliding--you're scientifically superstitious and an apostate. There is absolutely no proof that more than one dimension exists, no matter how great the probability may be reasonably asserted to be.
Get down to brass tacks here--this is a bait thread. It is an attempt to pick a fight. You're just spinning wool with this drivel--you're building castles in Spain.
It is, however, always valuable as free entertainment for the idle mind.
Quote:Ok, I assume you have a better articulated answer as to the nature of religion.
Please post, I'm eager to learn.
Once again, you indulge in assumption. Since you are fond of logic, note that denying a proposition does not constitute a claim to have an alternate, correct proposition. I was simply pointed out that you had badly done what Russell did quite elegantly.
Quote:Setanta wrote:Are you claiming to be 100% right about your perspective here? So what makes you so different from any other people that we should believe what you just wrote isn't dishonest, full of BS, or made up? Maybe your perspective here relies on pure hearsay and imagination and is nothing more than made up nonsense to satisfy your need for perceived "greatness". Hmmmm....
Not really, since my perspective relies on pure observation and no subjectivity.
Why don't you point out which part is subjective so I can clarify?
This is completely false, and you are a liar. You have attributed to me a quote from another member. I don't appreciate being lied about, and called upon to defend someone else's remarks.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace