Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
phreakstep

Your God is not real.

267 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

phreakstep

Now I will say it as fact that your god is not real. I am not saying God is not real but your definition or rather concept of God is not real and thats why.

If you say that god is transcended being outside of time and space etc... And that he created universe because universe has to obey certian rules and needs some sort of creator that it is equal to say

That your God needs a Creator and some sort of rules if you say he doesn't then what are you saying is special pleeding and you make a checklist of rules that universe must obey and then present arguments that doesn't have to obey the checklist and that is cheating.

My logic tells me that there is no god like I said even without minds logic would still exist.

The core principle of logic can be expressed A or not A or IS or ISN't they can't be both and if you say god transcends rules of logic that means you are saying God does or doesn't exist at the same time then you have 3 possibile anwsers God does exist, God does not exist and God does and doesnt exist and 2 of that 3 possibilety's god does not exist and when you state that something is beyond over understanding, logic and reason you are no longer on the grounds to make any claims.

So god must obey the rules of logic if I ask you can god create square circle?

No he can't he must obey some rules also.

And for all those attributes being outside time that does not mean he doesn't need a beginning that means that he never existed and could not make any actions.

And if you say he is omnipresent then that means he is everywhere in space so it should not be difficult to demostrete himself?

Many of you say God can't be proven or disproven and you think you are somehow right and thats a fact?

Your God does not exist because there is no proof for it and by using simple logic.

You have 2 things He exist or not exist if I say there is no proof that he does exist and my understanding and logic tells me he doesn't then he doesn't because they are only 2 possible anwsers.

Tell me why do you think God exist but Flying Spaghetti monster does not?

Both of them "can't" be proven or disproven.

If you say because you believe you are using false term you should say faith because in order to believe in claim you have to be presented with some sort of proof or working theory (theory is not the same as hypothesis) I believe that this criminal is innocent based on presented evidence when you know for certian you would say I know he is innocent but with faith you would say

LALALALA HE is guilty and nothing will change my mind.

So for people who don't use critical thinking for all things and situation like religious people please don't become a Judge or Jury.

Edited by phreakstep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

God is what he is. Your construct, or forming, or idealised notion, of god is irrelevant to his true form and nature.. As with any other physical entity, the only half way accurate way to understand god is to observe him, his actions, and his inter relationship with the rest of the universe. Then one can, using logic and other forms of intelligence, make a reasonable effort to understand god's nature (and even his motivations) through logic and extrapolation etc.

God's natural form and function, along with his "technology, " is the only thing which will determine any limits to his abilities/powers, not your "logic" or belief about his nature/natural limitations

(There is no evidence god is male, it is just a cultural image i use for convenience. Personally i comprend god as an entity of matter and energy (an it) rather than a sexual being. Given that he is certainly not human, his sexuality, if it exists at all, may be of a form we dont even know about or comprehend.)

Thus, my god is absolutely real. I may not comprehend him as well as i would like to, but i cant deny the incontrovertible physical existence of his existence.

My god(and yes im only guessing) probably evolved as a being during, or shortly after, the big bang, but he may well have existed in a similar or very different for prior to the big bang. Thats just one of the variables we dont have the scientific knowledge to investigate as yet.

His sentience, and thus his nature, like any sapient being's, probably also evolved in response to both external environment and the internal requirements of sapience.

I am not trying to change your mind, i just dont like to see you make a fool of yourself in believing something for which you have not the slightest evidence. Your logic is flawed, being based on false premises and largely circular, or at best disconnected, in form. You are entitled to believe as you please, but you cant use belief to create, or alter, reality.

God is what he is, no matter what you, me, or anyone else, chooses to believe. (or disbelieve)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

Since "my god" already is a Schroedingeresque paradox, potentially existing and not existing at the same time, I would be neither surprised nor devastated if there was some objective way that proved the unreality, but too I wouldn't do the eyes-bug-out-hair-stands-up-on-end thing if it were proven real either - the existence of something doesn't mean you UNDERSTAND it or know its nature, besides what has been ascribed to it and assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GIDEON MAGE

Since no scientist has gotten off his atheistic *** and objectively tried to detect whether God exists, we just don't know. If God exists, there has to be some detectable trace or energy, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine
LALALALA HE is guilty and nothing will change my mind.

Since you're such an expert on God and religion at the age of what, 12?? I really don't think anyone cares about your opinion in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mbyte
So god must obey the rules of logic if I ask you can god create square circle?

He can't obey the rules of logic because what is logic if there is no consciousness to form the logic(there was no life). There is no square or circle.

And if you say he is omnipresent then that means he is everywhere in space so it should not be difficult to demostrete himself?

Technically the omnipresent is demonstrating itself continueously.

Tell me why do you think God exists but Flying Spaghetti monster does not?

God is linked to our health, happiness and morality while a spegetti monster is not linked to any of those so then the spaghetti monster must be proven because it is seperate to us. the fact we are conscious means there is god. Why use a spaghetti monster??? What makes us any diffrent to a rock? Science views both as materialistic properties and nothing more. If consciousness and experience means something then this automatically means God is present. We are all gods essence. There is no actualy God entity. When you pray it's your power that makes what ever change. All you have to do is learn how use your minds power effectively.

Edited by Mbyte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peter Venkman
Since no scientist has gotten off his atheistic *** and objectively tried to detect whether God exists, we just don't know. If God exists, there has to be some detectable trace or energy, period.

What evidence would such a scientist have to test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W Kein
The core principle of logic can be expressed A or not A or IS or ISN't they can't be both and if you say god transcends rules of logic that means you are saying God does or doesn't exist at the same time then you have 3 possibile anwsers God does exist, God does not exist and God does and doesnt exist and 2 of that 3 possibilety's god does not exist and when you state that something is beyond over understanding, logic and reason you are no longer on the grounds to make any claims.

Um, I don't know who taught you logic, but they didn't know what they were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine
What evidence would such a scientist have to test?

Apparently quantum mechanics/physics is showing some interesting things, I've heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
Since no scientist has gotten off his atheistic *** and objectively tried to detect whether God exists, we just don't know.

Are you kidding me? You think people who have dedicated their careers, or even their lives, to the pursuit of knowledge would not be interested in learning of an all powerful sentient force that created the universe? Of course they would be. But the fact remains that god exists only in the realm of philosophy.

If you think you know better, why don't you go and track down the empirical evidence?

If God exists, there has to be some detectable trace or energy, period.

Detectable by who?

Just because something exists doesn't mean it must necessarily leave a trace; and even if it does that does not mean the trace must necessarily be apparent to us, it could be outside of our realm of existence.

Apparently quantum mechanics/physics is showing some interesting things, I've heard.

In the same way that the ancients considered fire, lightning and floods to be the work of various gods, lots of people today consider quantum physics to be the work of god/spirituality.

The common factor here is the unknown; people will always try to rationalize the unknown with supernatural explanations before the natural explanations are found and become common knowledge. Try not to get sucked in by the new age nonsense you often hear related to quantum physics; in a thousand years children in their history lessons will be laughing at you.

Edited by Raptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phreakstep
He can't obey the rules of logic because what is logic if there is no consciousness to form the logic(there was no life). There is no square or circle.

Technically the omnipresent is demonstrating itself continueously.

God is linked to our health, happiness and morality while a spegetti monster is not linked to any of those so then the spaghetti monster must be proven because it is seperate to us. the fact we are conscious means there is god. Why use a spaghetti monster??? What makes us any diffrent to a rock? Science views both as materialistic properties and nothing more. If consciousness and experience means something then this automatically means God is present. We are all gods essence. There is no actualy God entity. When you pray it's your power that makes what ever change. All you have to do is learn how use your minds power effectively.

1.) Like I said god also must be bound to rules of magic so again because even if there was nothing only He he still would be a God and not something else.

2.)I have not see any of demostration that there is one.

3.)God is not linked to our happiness or health and morality.

If you feel that you are happier more then not religious man then thats like saying drunk man is happier then sober man.

If he is linked with our health then he is a very cruel murder since all people die because of different health problems.

Morality does not come from god but from us I can pretty claim that Idea that some Creator or God can judge people on what they do and so on is moraly repulsive.

And being conscious is not proof for god the same reason why death is not proof that he isn't.

You make a logical fallacy.

Ok pick up a pen in one hand and in other nothing but pretend that in your other hand you have trascendant pen not made from energy or matter.

As you can see your "imaginary" pen can't be proven or disproven but will that make it real?

Edited by phreakstep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Now I will say it as fact that your god is not real.

Two choices: God is real; God is not real.

Intellectual honesty requires that both options might be possible.

Now consider the evidence:

God is not real: Total lack of evidence.

This is a negative. It is extremely difficult to impossible to prove a negative.

For that reason, this does not appear to be a promising line of investigation.

God is real: Total lack of evidence, BUT:

Humankind has been searching for tangible evidence of God for around 30,000 years

(Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, indicating a belief in an afterlife.).

To date, that tangible evidence has not been discovered.

Obviously, if 30,000 years of searching can't produce unequivocable tangible evidence,

then this is not a very promising line of endeavor, either.

Doctrine: In the absence of any tangible evidence, the most-resonable assumption is that

there is no God.

Believe what you want, but "an electrical fire between the ears" is not evidence of

anything outisde of the believer's head.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GIDEON MAGE
Are you kidding me? You think people who have dedicated their careers, or even their lives, to the pursuit of knowledge would not be interested in learning of an all powerful sentient force that created the universe? Of course they would be. But the fact remains that god exists only in the realm of philosophy.

If you think you know better, why don't you go and track down the empirical evidence?

Detectable by who?

Just because something exists doesn't mean it must necessarily leave a trace; and even if it does that does not mean the trace must necessarily be apparent to us, it could be outside of our realm of existence.

So gravity and xrays should not have been investigated and discovered, since they can't be seen or felt? What about cosmic rays or nuclear radiation? You have proven my point. The atheists are just as prejudiced as christians. Of course anything real leaves a trace. This is why scientists don't accept phlogiston; it was displaced by better theories. please learn to have an open mind. If God is real, there simply must be some trace. If God is not real, then there is nothing to be found. What are scientists afraid of?

Two choices: God is real; God is not real.

Intellectual honesty requires that both options might be possible.

Now consider the evidence:

God is not real: Total lack of evidence.

This is a negative. It is extremely difficult to impossible to prove a negative.

For that reason, this does not appear to be a promising line of investigation.

God is real: Total lack of evidence, BUT:

Humankind has been searching for tangible evidence of God for around 30,000 years

(Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, indicating a belief in an afterlife.).

To date, that tangible evidence has not been discovered.

Obviously, if 30,000 years of searching can't produce unequivocable tangible evidence,

then this is not a very promising line of endeavor, either.

Doug, what research are you referring to?? Quote your sources. Which scientists have been looking for God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W Kein
Humankind has been searching for tangible evidence of God for around 30,000 years

(Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, indicating a belief in an afterlife.).

To date, that tangible evidence has not been discovered.

Obviously, if 30,000 years of searching can't produce unequivocable tangible evidence,

then this is not a very promising line of endeavor, either.

Doctrine: In the absence of any tangible evidence, the most-resonable assumption is that

there is no God.

How do you know there isn't any evidence?

And what does 30,000 years of searching for evidence mean? No one has been searching for any evidence at all.

What would such evidence even look like? If you can't even theoretically tell me what evidence would look like, you certainly can't say we haven't found any, because how would you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peter Venkman

Evidence for God or something or other.... I dunno, just go with it here.

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

Or not. Whatever ya wanna think. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Since no scientist has gotten off his atheistic *** and objectively tried to detect whether God exists, we just don't know. If God exists, there has to be some detectable trace or energy, period.

The only way this could be accomplished is by a test: propose a trial whereby one result demonstrates God and another result demonstrates the lack of God. Can you think of a way to do this?

Science deals with the physical and unless God is producing a physical effect, He is undetectable. Of course, unless God is completely irrelevant, He must produce a physical effect. If there is a God, then somewhere there will be a theorem that won't work without God to finish it, or a disconnect in physical reality that requires God to join the pieces.

Another thought: the only reason to run a test is that one genuinely does not know the answer. It seems that you have already decided what the answer is, so why do you want someone to devise and run such a test? Also, there is no reason whatever that you can't be the one to do it. Get off your *** and quit whining because somebody else hasn't done it.

There have been some attempts to investigate God based on probability. One that comes to mind is a test by doctors at Integris Baptist Hospital in Oklahoma City. They divided a group of patients into two groups and organized true believers to pray for members of one group. They then compared recovery times and improvement rates. Conclusion: there was no difference between the groups.

Whether this was a test of the existence of God, or of the efficacy of prayer can be debated, but the outcome is consistent with the lack of a supernatural entity that cares one way or the other about humankind.

Personally, I would repeat the test, dividing the list of patients into four groups:

1. Pray for the members; tell them they have a prayer group praying for them.

2. Pray for the members, but don't tell them they have a prayer group praying for them.

3. Don't pray for the members, but tell them they have a prayer group praying for them.

4. Don't pray for the members and don't tell them anybody is praying for them.

The results are likely to say more about people's expectations than about God. The placebo effect could well be stronger than the Almighty.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W Kein

Hmmm... Hendrix, Guinness, Hot Girls, Football....

:scratches chin:

OUR GOD IS A GREAT AND MAGNIFICENT GOD! BEHOLD HIS BOUNTIES!

Wait, I thought Clapton was God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peter Venkman
Hmmm... Hendrix, Guinness, Hot Girls, Football....

:scratches chin:

OUR GOD IS A GREAT AND MAGNIFICENT GOD! BEHOLD HIS BOUNTIES!

Wait, I thought Clapton was God?

Says the writing on the wall eh.. Touche.

Edited by Dr. Peter Venkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W Kein
There have been some attempts to investigate God based on probability. One that comes to mind is a test by doctors at Integris Baptist Hospital in Oklahoma City. They divided a group of patients into two groups and organized true believers to pray for members of one group. They then compared recovery times and improvement rates. Conclusion: there was no difference between the groups.

Whether this was a test of the existence of God, or of the efficacy of prayer can be debated, but the outcome is consistent with the lack of a supernatural entity that cares one way or the other about humankind.

That test was kind of nonsense, since there is no way of knowing who was or wasn't praying for the other group. Would they even be so unethical as to ask family members not to pray for their sick loved ones because there was some sort of pseudo-scientific test going on? And what about those people that pray for everyone who is sick.

Prayer is not a test for god, nor was that study even close to actual science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Doug, what research are you referring to?? Quote your sources. Which scientists have been looking for God?

Humankind in general. I know you are well aware of theological discussions of God because I have seen your posts. Just googul "God" and see what you get. All are attempts by somebody to understand the phenomenon of "God."

Science is only a way of thinking, a search for objective truth. Science didn't spring full-blown from the head of Zeus. It was developed slowly over millenia by people trying to decide what was true.

For a specific example, see the Integris Baptist experiment described above.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
That test was kind of nonsense, since there is no way of knowing who was or wasn't praying for the other group. Would they even be so unethical as to ask family members not to pray for their sick loved ones because there was some sort of pseudo-scientific test going on? And what about those people that pray for everyone who is sick.

Prayer is not a test for god, nor was that study even close to actual science.

By not involving relatives or close friends in the prayer groups, one could cancel out the effects of relativesa and friends, as there should be about-equal numbers praying for each patient. It is not the absolute numbers of recoveries in each group that we are looking for, but the differences between them.

Doug

P.S.: I am inclined to think that test was nonsense, too. It left too many variables uncontrolled.

So, how about it? How would YOU devise a test for God?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Evidence for God or something or other.... I dunno, just go with it here.

linked-image

Evidence of spirits.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peter Venkman
Evidence of spirits.

Doug

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
So gravity and xrays should not have been investigated and discovered, since they can't be seen or felt? What about cosmic rays or nuclear radiation? You have proven my point. The atheists are just as prejudiced as christians. Of course anything real leaves a trace. This is why scientists don't accept phlogiston; it was displaced by better theories. please learn to have an open mind. If God is real, there simply must be some trace. If God is not real, then there is nothing to be found. What are scientists afraid of?

Doug, what research are you referring to?? Quote your sources. Which scientists have been looking for God?

Okay, where do I begin?

I'm an agnostic atheist, I never said that a god could not exist.

I'm prejudiced because you are unable to understand my point? Great logic.

Gravity and X-Rays can be seen and felt. Drop a rock, hold up a phosphor plate - their effects can clearly be seen whether they can be directly observed by our five senses or not.

You can't use examples of things we know to exist to back up your argument that everything must have a trace; everything we know to exist, we know because it has a trace that we can detect, observe, study and rationalize. There may very well be a limitless number of facets of reality that we simply have no comprehension of because they bear no influence on us, we are unable to observe them.

Who said scientists are scared of anything? I didn't say anything of the sort. I also didn't say that anything should not be investigated. My point is this; where do you want scientists to start looking?

Edited by Raptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W Kein
By not involving relatives or close friends in the prayer groups, one could cancel out the effects of relativesa and friends, as there should be about-equal numbers praying for each patient. It is not the absolute numbers of recoveries in each group that we are looking for, but the differences between them.

Doug

P.S.: I am inclined to think that test was nonsense, too. It left too many variables uncontrolled.

So, how about it? How would YOU devise a test for God?

Doug

You can't. It's not within the bounds of science. Science is the study of the natural world, and most people would define god as, at the very least, supernatural.

God isn't a question that can be asked by science. That's why I'm opposed to Atheism. Atheists who use science to justify their position are operating on many logical fallacies.

And i think no matter how far science was to advance, there would never be any room to even ask the god question. Ever.

However, the closest i can think of, in terms of what might broaden our understanding to such an extent that we may be able to think about these things more coherently, would be if we fully understood Bell's Theorem, Quantum Entanglement, etc. When we figure out how the hell that stuff works, then we might be in the ballpark.

I don't think we will be able to ask for evidence of god, but we might have a better understanding of why we can't ask.

Edited by W Kein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.