How will God prove himself?

[omni9]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You didn't answer my question.

I did .

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Mystic Crusader said:

You know nothing.

LOL What a fatuous statement.  Even jon snow knows something.  

Just because my knowledge contradicts your beliefs and opinions, and just because i have different vlaues and attitudes to life, to you, doesnt mean I know nothing.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, omni9 said:

I did .

Answer it better. 

[Mr Walker]

On 10/04/2017 at 4:13 AM, XenoFish said:

I don't really care about you or your achievements, but it's a distraction from a topic when all you do is talk about how great a person you are. No one cares. It's the same reason I hardly bring up any of my achievements. And who's to say that I don't take pride in what I've achieved? I just don't have a desire to talk about it. I can't write paragraphs about how "great" a person I am, because any "greatness" I might actually have is up to those whom I affect. If they consider me to be a great man, so be it. I'm just a guy who get's stuff done, a survivor.

A great man is not one who brags about himself, a great man is someone who is bragged about by others.

For all your supposed wisdom Walker, you have a short coming in humility. 

Correct. False humility is as wrong and misleading  as false pride. Be open, honest, and factual, about your abilities, achievements, failures etc.  Take pride in the successes you achieve through work and effort and learn from your failures for the next time you try.

 And of course you are also correct in this. I am not a great man.  I've never thought of myself as such. I  dont pretend to be. I  dont want to be.  I am whom i am.

 To explain and justify, what are always personal, values beliefs and opinions which drive our behaviours,  it is necessary to background our lives so that others can judge the worth and validity of our opinions etc.  

Edited April 11, 2017 by Mr Walker

[omni9]

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Answer it better. 

Encouragement given .

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Without the full spectrum of emotions are you really human? Do you even grow as a human being? Without anger would you know love or compassion? Without being hurt (emotionally) would you not know kindness? A gentle heart or a cruel one is forged in the fires of life.

A real human does not hurt or kill others because they cant control their emotions. A real human understands self and environment and acts rationally not emotionally  Emotions are learned human constructs, and so are not natural or inherent. Every culture shows different levels of emotional response to different events I am not saying do away with your emotions. i am saying reconstruct them to reinforce the beneficial ones and reduce the destructive ones 

And i guess  Bill never played golf with other players or competitively.

And of course  one can feel peace without anger, love without hate. WE CONSTRUCT and build those responses and so can shape each emotion separately   I used to be afraid and get angry when i was a chlld but a s i learned that i was responsible for the outcomes of anger fear envy greed etc I started to eliminate those responses  Fear went first and by the time i was about 13/14 I no longer had any emotional fear of anything   After that it was easier to manage and shape  other responses.   Grief awas one of the hardest because we need some level of grief  response but only enough to go through the stages of grieving    Now when a loved one dies i feel sorrow and loss but no grief. I give eulogies for many loved ones and often get teary while reading what i have written,  but my grief does not stop me functioning or thinking rationally. 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I only have a problem when someone suggest their subjective experience is the only valid one. 

Every experience is a combination of objective reality and subjective experience of that reality   But only an individual can ascertain the objective reality and subjectivity of their own experiences. 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Sherapy

Mmm... not so fast. If you look at the history of the currently disfavored "steady state hypothesis" (the physical Universe always was, more or less as it is now), once upon a time it was well-thought-of among atheists.

There is a mirror-symmetry here. If a theist asserts that any particular something always was (e,g, God), then the theist needs to explain why everything else couldn't always have been (and so, no need for an exceptional creator). If a steady-state atheist asserts that everything always was (i.e., the Universe), then the atheist cannot object to the theist proposing that some particular thing always was.

Infinite regress may be a symptom of modeling inaccuracy. For example, the implicit assumption that all causal chains must unfold 'through time' in one 'direction' seems especially vulnerable, being neither observable, nor its opposite being obviously contradictory, nor is it "inconceivable," since theists and atheists have both conceived of it.

Recall that there was a time when Euclid's parallel postulate enjoyed "just had to be so" status. Oops, not just abstractly, apparently the geometry of space-time isn't Euclidean. Causality might be trickier than we think, too.

ETA: An especially mind-expanding question was offered about 100 years ago by the great Polish logician Jan Lukasiewicz. If with the passage of time, all possible evidentiary traces bearing on the truth of a correct contingent hypothesis about some situation in the past are lost, is it "still" true now?

Intuitively yes, Aristotle-y yes, but "really" true? "God had a beginning earlier than anything else that now exists" is an admissible hypothesis about the past ... Conclude: God didn't have a beginning anymore. (And you thought Godel's Theorem was weird ).

Wowza, who would have thought. Great thought provoking add to for me. 

[Mr Guitar]

Maybe he could tell is where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?

 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

So which one of you is going to throw the quantum wrench into the gears?

Not me, I will leave the heavy thinking for 8ty as he teaches me. 

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, Mr Guitar said:

Maybe he could tell is where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?

 

poor old jimmy wasnt buried. He was fed to the pigs.

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Sherapy

Mmm... not so fast. If you look at the history of the currently disfavored "steady state hypothesis" (the physical Universe always was, more or less as it is now), once upon a time it was well-thought-of among atheists.

There is a mirror-symmetry here. If a theist asserts that any particular something always was (e,g, God), then the theist needs to explain why everything else couldn't always have been (and so, no need for an exceptional creator). If a steady-state atheist asserts that everything always was (i.e., the Universe), then the atheist cannot object to the theist proposing that some particular thing always was.

Until the theist comes along with "everything that exists needs a cause" or something similar.

[StarMountainKid]

Why hasn't God proven himself already? It seems to me either there is no God, God doesn't want or need to prove himself, God is waiting or some right moment, or God doesn't deem humans significant enough to prove anything to them.

Also, what would be God's motive to prove himself?

My opinion is, God doesn't deem humans significant enough to prove anything to them.

 

[eight bits]

Riyeh

Quote

Until the theist comes along with "everything that exists needs a cause" or something similar.

The rhetorical problem to keep in mind is that BOTH sides on the QoG controversy have, at one time or another, denied the "usual" conjecture about causality (everything that is now was once caused by something acting before the now-thing first was).

Xeno

It's overkill to drag in all of quantum mechanics. Lukasiewicz was a logician, and QM was very young at the time he made his conjecture.

If you do want to "QM-ize" the thing, then abstract out the take-home message of QM: sound physical descriptions cannot include any unobservable elements (e.g. the electron "must have" gone through only one slit in the famous experiment).

That's overkill, though, because Lukasiewicz' question has philosophical, rather than only experimental foundations. Good old American-as-apple-pie pragmatists (Charles S. Peirce, for example) had already argued against ever disputing over unobservables. QM takes that proposal to its physical extreme, JL took it to its formal logical extreme.

[XenoFish]

So you're thrown the quantum wrench huh 8-bit.

[godnodog]

On 10/04/2017 at 11:28 PM, XenoFish said:

Then you've falling into the infinite question. "Who made god and who made god's creator and who made the creator of god's creator?" this is a never ending question. It can not be answered. 

I answered on how God would prove himself, not on how God came to exist.

 

People keep stating philosophical reasoning, but keep forgetting one thing, our brain is limited therefor our mental resoaning is limited, there may be things there cannot be imagined, much less understood, due to that limitation. Our concept of God(s) may be exagerated or even much limited, for all we know the Universe is actually the body of God, or a virtual simulation, or something for wich we have no definition, hopefully physics will help shed some light on new possebilities. Sorry for errors in my engrish!

[XenoFish]

If god or a god like being does prove itself, then it is inevitable that we'll want to know where it came from. Which is where the infinite question comes from. This isn't a new discussion here. Just recycled from other threads. Asking for proof from god and we'll need an extreme level of proof, something so far beyond our scope that no one, not even atheist can deny it. It's like asking ghost/spirits through evp "Where is god?" that is one question I've never heard asked. Even though I am not a believer in EVP I'd willingly entertain the effort, hell I encourage the effort.

Edited April 12, 2017 by XenoFish

[back to earth]

On 4/11/2017 at 11:12 AM, XenoFish said:

So all I need is to add some life energy to a rock to get a turtle. Yeah, makes sense.

Your comment looks all to familiar. Wasn't there a thread where someone said the exact same thing? Something about evolution and bean sprouts. What thread was that????

yep ! ... the seed was supposed to be 'dead'  but water miraculously brought it 'to life' .

Well, one cant argue with that !  I mean ... one should NOT argue with that  .....   stupid me -  I  tried to       

[XenoFish]

Just now, back to earth said:

yep ! ... the seed was supposed to be 'dead'  but water miraculously brought it 'to life' .

Well, one cant argue with that !  I mean ... one should NOT argue with that  .....   stupid me -  I  tried to       

Glad I'm not the only one who remembers that discussion.

[back to earth]

On 4/11/2017 at 11:26 AM, XenoFish said:

You didn't answer my question.

 

          " MInerals . "

[back to earth]

On 4/11/2017 at 11:40 AM, Mr Walker said:

Correct. False humility is as wrong and misleading  as false pride. Be open, honest, and factual, about your abilities, achievements, failures etc.  Take pride in the successes you achieve through work and effort and learn from your failures for the next time you try.

 And of course you are also correct in this. I am not a great man.  I've never thought of myself as such. I  dont pretend to be. I  dont want to be.  I am whom i am.

 To explain and justify, what are always personal, values beliefs and opinions which drive our behaviours,  it is necessary to background our lives so that others can judge the worth and validity of our opinions etc.  

Well, the personal info you supply yourself has certainly allowed us to do that ! 

Thing is ....   peeps can 'read between the lines ' .     

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

          " MInerals . "

I love it when people want to make out that some mystical energy can turn none organic matter organic. Kind of makes me think.

Edited April 12, 2017 by XenoFish

[back to earth]

Hey Xeno ,    somehow  I have managed to " judge the worth and  validity of your opinions "   without having to hear your life stories of how amazing you are ! 

Fancy that !     

Edited April 12, 2017 by back to earth

[XenoFish]

9 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Hey Xeno ,    somehow  I have managed to " judge the worth and  validity of your opinions "   without having to hear your life stories of how amazing you are ! 

Fancy that !     

But didn't you miss the paragraphs I could've wrote. Just to say one sentence worth of info. All that exposition gone to waste.

Edited April 12, 2017 by XenoFish

[Mr Walker]

On 13/04/2017 at 7:57 AM, XenoFish said:

I love it when people want to make out that some mystical energy can turn none organic matter organic. Kind of makes me think.

How about a technology which breaks non organic matter down into basic constituent parts, then reassembles it, using a template of an organic product.   IF the basic building blocks exist in the non organic matter, could they not theoretically  and with sufficient technology, be reassembled into organic matter? 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Mr Walker