On the argument against God.

[AmontilladoClock]

I'm sure you Christians and other religious people will agree that God (or whatever deity you support) is an omnipresent entity who created the universe and all that inhabit it, and has been alive since the beginning of time.

I am also fairly certain that those who would much rather support the path of science would agree that the universe evolved from an amount of energy, from which evolved life as we know it.

So on the science side we are dealing with an amount of energy (this energy could, quite simply, be described as an omnipresent entity), that has been here since the beginning of time, spawned the universe and eventually all life that exists today.

So, if I'm not mistaken, aren't both sides arguing for the same thing?

[Sekhem]

BLASPHEMOUS I SAY!

[Penboy]

Well yeah I guess so. God is the reason for the big bang, and to make such an explosion you're gonna need a tremendous amount of energy, which is what God supplied.

The people who blatantly say "God isn't real becasue I can't see him" need to do some research before they open their trap.

[Jaketheclonetrooper]

At 5/25/07 06:30 AM, Penboy wrote:

The people who blatantly say "God isn't real becasue I can't see him" need to do some research before they open their trap.

That arguement is the stupidest one. Many gasses are invisible, so they don't exist. Electricity is invisible so it does't exist!!

[OXIII-Axel]

No.
The debate between science and religion (or should is say atheism and religion for there are religious scientists) is abut whether or not there is an conciseness directing the universe, or those the universe work by a chain of reasons and results.

[AmontilladoClock]

At 5/25/07 07:04 AM, OXIII-Axel wrote: No.
The debate between science and religion (or should is say atheism and religion for there are religious scientists) is abut whether or not there is an conciseness directing the universe, or those the universe work by a chain of reasons and results.

Really? I was fairly sure that all the 13 year olds here were arguing about how god didn't create the universe but Darwin did!

[Sekhem]

At 5/25/07 07:04 AM, OXIII-Axel wrote: No.
The debate between science and religion (or should is say atheism and religion for there are religious scientists) is abut whether or not there is an conciseness directing the universe, or those the universe work by a chain of reasons and results.

Great job at knowing nothing whatsoever about Theology!

[Drakim]

The whole deal lies in that most theist belive that this "energy" has a will, and we must do some stuff to please that "energy". If we don't do this stuff, then the "energy" will send us to hell.

[EndGameOmega]

At 5/25/07 05:50 AM, AmontilladoClock wrote: I'm sure you Christians and other religious people will agree that God (or whatever deity you support) is an omnipresent entity who created the universe and all that inhabit it, and has been alive since the beginning of time.

I am also fairly certain that those who would much rather support the path of science would agree that the universe evolved from an amount of energy, from which evolved life as we know it.

So on the science side we are dealing with an amount of energy (this energy could, quite simply, be described as an omnipresent entity), that has been here since the beginning of time, spawned the universe and eventually all life that exists today.

You can't describe it as ether omnipresent or as a [sentient] entity. While energy dose encompass the whole universe it isn't truly inter connected, it takes time for some modulation that occurs on one side of the galaxy (or even our own planet) to transverse any distance. As such the energy isn't a single object nor is it capable of acting like a single object so it doesn't meet the standers for being omnipresent.

So, if I'm not mistaken, aren't both sides arguing for the same thing?

No, there not. Atheist (not necessarily scientist) disbelieve in a god because we see no evidence for it, we have no reason to believe in it. our trying to say we believe in the same thing, that energy is god some how, but you never explain how. This isn't to say our morel standers aren't the same, or at lest similar, just that the underlieing notion of a deity isn't, and energy isn't god.

At 5/25/07 06:30 AM, Penboy wrote: Well yeah I guess so. God is the reason for the big bang, and to make such an explosion you're gonna need a tremendous amount of energy, which is what God supplied.

Sure your free to believe that, but many don't.

The people who blatantly say "God isn't real becasue I can't see him" need to do some research before they open their trap.

First when people say they can't see god, they don't mean just with there eyes but in general. They can't see the effects of a god, they can't see a reason for a god, and they can't see evidence for a god. Damn near all atheist (at lest the ones I've meet and talked with) don't become atheist on a whim one day, its usually after they've done the research and had an epiphany of sorts.

If you see evidence for god, please point it out.

At 5/25/07 06:51 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote:

That arguement is the stupidest one. Many gasses are invisible, so they don't exist. Electricity is invisible so it does't exist!!

No, because they're not completely invisible. We can see the effects that different gases have, we can observe them in a different spectrum out side the visible. Electricity is the same, we can observe its effects, we can watch things heat up as we pass it through filaments, we can even see the light is produces in various interactions, like lightning. Unlike god, we can see and measure these objects.

[AmishGangster]

What I hate is scientists (and most everyone you will talk to) who think that the story of Adam and Eve is what Jews/Christians believe is the creation of the world and that's it. No.

First off, if you actually READ the STORY, you'd notice that it never states that Adam and Eve were the only two beings. You can't read the Bible as if it were devised by an author. It just sets the stage for the rest of the Old Testament in a simplified way. It teaches a lesson about the impurities of man.

Thank you to the people who don't ignore this post.

[Sybot]

At 5/25/07 03:59 PM, AmishGangster wrote: What I hate is scientists (and most everyone you will talk to) who think that the story of Adam and Eve is what Jews/Christians believe is the creation of the world and that's it. No.

First off, if you actually READ the STORY, you'd notice that it never states that Adam and Eve were the only two beings. You can't read the Bible as if it were devised by an author. It just sets the stage for the rest of the Old Testament in a simplified way. It teaches a lesson about the impurities of man.

Except many fundamentalists take the story literally, which is what scientists are mostly arguing against.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

Still, there are scientists that work on the paranormal. And many paranormal activities have occured. ANd how do you explain exorcisms?

[fli]

At 5/25/07 06:30 AM, Penboy wrote: Well yeah I guess so. God is the reason for the big bang, and to make such an explosion you're gonna need a tremendous amount of energy, which is what God supplied.

The people who blatantly say "God isn't real becasue I can't see him" need to do some research before they open their trap.

But Biblical scripture doesn't say that God created a Big Bang. It says that God created the world in 7 days.

Elaborating on it... reading between the lines... is therefore your interpretation, which isn't really an interprutation rather than a way to make the world fit in your view of life.

[Drakim]

At 5/25/07 04:06 PM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: Still, there are scientists that work on the paranormal.

Scientist that work on the paranormal is a perfect valid thing. You seem to think that just because scientist research on a subject proves that it exist? Scientist study ETs too, does that prove there are aliens in space? My guess, since we aren't hearing much about it at all, is that all such research concludes that there is no such thing as paranormal stuff.

And many paranormal activities have occured.

No they haven't. Point me to any study that claims this.

ANd how do you explain exorcisms?

That they don't exist? That people with mental issues are believed to be full of demons? How do you explain telekinetic? Simply asking a question like that makes no sense, especialy when the common opinion is that it doesn't exist. You need to provide with studies or examples.

[PuffTheMagicPanda]

They're only arguing the same thing if think god and the universe are synonimous, you're leaving out the afterlife, judgement of sins, redemtion of sins, miracles, scriptures (taken literally or not), people without human fathers who were nailed to bits of trees for saying "wouldn't it be cool if we were all nice to each other for a change" and then came back to life etc.

[SteveGuzzi]

Science tries to look at the gears of reality to determine how the whole machine of existence works. Religion/spirituality/philosophy tries to determine what the actual purpose of the whole machine is, if any.

For example... it's one thing to describe how a computer operates, and it's another thing altogether to describe why one even needs a computer at all. As far as life and existence is concerned, science focuses on the 'how' and ignores the 'why'.

[SirLebowski]

No, the energy can't be described as an omnipotent entity. Sorry.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/25/07 04:54 PM, Drakim wrote:

And many paranormal activities have occured.

No they haven't. Point me to any study that claims this.

People experience 'paranormal' stuff all the time. You don't need a formalized study to prove that all sorts of wierd shit occurs on a regular basis that scientists are simply unable to explain.

[Bolo]

At 5/25/07 05:50 AM, AmontilladoClock wrote: So on the science side we are dealing with an amount of energy (this energy could, quite simply, be described as an omnipresent entity), that has been here since the beginning of time, spawned the universe and eventually all life that exists today.

The one problem with your statement is that energy is NOT alive, and to call it as such, is to ignore the fact that energy is remarkably random, and displays no characteristics of intelligence—let alone sentience.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/25/07 05:45 PM, Bolo wrote: The one problem with your statement is that energy is NOT alive, and to call it as such, is to ignore the fact that energy is remarkably random, and displays no characteristics of intelligence—let alone sentience.

How is energy 'random' at all?

[Drakim]

At 5/25/07 05:36 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: People experience 'paranormal' stuff all the time. You don't need a formalized study to prove that all sorts of wierd shit occurs on a regular basis that scientists are simply unable to explain.

Yes, all sorts of weird shit occurs around the world, but that doesn't necessary make them paranormal. Science couldn't explain a lot of shit before, but it can explain those things today. Just like that, there are things we aren't able to explain today, but that doesn't automatically make them paranormal. Lighting, for example, could seem pretty full of magic if you didn't know the real reason behind it. Fireworks too. Heck, even airplanes if you are dumb enough.

Besides, just about all paranormal things go unexplained today because they seem to be afraid of scientific testing. No healer has been able to do his magic under the test. No psychic can do anything supernatural when it is being recorded. Nobody can raise the dead on TV.

Just think about it. If paranormal stuff was such an everyman thing as you claim, then why can't for life it be proven? Why are we even talking about this?

It seems you are saying, "Paranormal things exist, everybody knows that".
I disagree. So, point me to something other than your word for it.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/25/07 06:08 PM, Drakim wrote: Besides, just about all paranormal things go unexplained today because they seem to be afraid of scientific testing. No healer has been able to do his magic under the test. No psychic can do anything supernatural when it is being recorded. Nobody can raise the dead on TV.

No pyschic can do anything supernatural when recorded? What, is that supposed to mean just TV? Edgar Cayce gave over 14,000 readings while in a trance state, most all of which were stenographically recorded. While there was not a 100% success rate, there was indeed a vast number of predictions, insights, and methods that proved to be both true and helpful to people even for long past after his death.

So, since you never heard about this man or looked at what he said in-depth... that means it never happened?

Just think about it. If paranormal stuff was such an everyman thing as you claim, then why can't for life it be proven? Why are we even talking about this?

We're talking about this for the following reason:

point me to something other than your word for it.

"Other than my word for it." What, my word isn't good here? Why? Are you saying I would lie just to win an argument or be right? What would be the point in that? So... is what I say completely unbelievable unless it's backed-up by some chart or statistic from someone else? Why?

'Paranormal' stuff IS an everyman thing... but as you demonstrate, people for some reason don't want to believe or take the experiences of others seriously. Have you ever thought of someone you haven't spoken to in a realllly long time, and then suddenly at that moment the person calls you up? That happens more often than you'd think, but most shrug it off as a coincedence. But wait, just because we have no way yet to physically show they are directly connected events, does that REALLY mean they aren't related? Nahh, it simply means we can't demonstrate the 'how' of it just yet... it doesn't necessarily mean they are actually unconnected.

A scientist looking into 'paranormal' things doesn't mean they automatically exist, but then again, if these things clearly didn't exist then why look into them in the first place? Point being, it isn't NEARLY as clear as you assume it to be.

[Drakim]

At 5/25/07 06:59 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: No pyschic can do anything supernatural when recorded? What, is that supposed to mean just TV? Edgar Cayce gave over 14,000 readings while in a trance state, most all of which were stenographically recorded. While there was not a 100% success rate, there was indeed a vast number of predictions, insights, and methods that proved to be both true and helpful to people even for long past after his death.

Predictions and such is a very bad thing to use as an example in this case. Since, predictions, horoscopes and things like that is something that people relate to very easily. I could make a prediction, and I would guarantee you that if you really tried, you'd find something in your life that this matched to in the next week.

All scientific studies where you have something that isn't manipulated by the human mind like this, for example dice tossing, coin flipping, or cards, has shown no indication of any kinds of prediction powers.

What you are talking about, are things that happen outside, in an uncontrolled environment. There are so many unknown factors there, that you can't use it to conclude anything.

So, since you never heard about this man or looked at what he said in-depth... that means it never happened?

No need to get snappy. I'll look into him. My main point is that science doesn't have some kind of agenda or anything. It is simply a tool for finding out stuff. Why would something like this constantly be overlooked? Why would science be able to travel to space, create nuclear explosions, but yet, not even verify that a man, which by your claims, is able to predict the future to a very high degree, is telling the truth? It would seem like a small thing to do really, especially when you think about how important a thing like this would be.

"Other than my word for it." What, my word isn't good here? Why? Are you saying I would lie just to win an argument or be right? What would be the point in that? So... is what I say completely unbelievable unless it's backed-up by some chart or statistic from someone else? Why?

Nonono, you got it all wrong. I'm not saying that I won't take your word for anything. I'll take your word for your age, name, interest. Heck, even minor subjects. I don't hold a general distrust, and I don't think you are untrustworthy.

But, when you go ahead and claim something that goes against years and years of scientific research, then things turn diffrent. Would you take my word for that the moon is made out of electricity?

'Paranormal' stuff IS an everyman thing... but as you demonstrate, people for some reason don't want to believe or take the experiences of others seriously.

This is because experiences isn't the same as proof. People can imagen things, be drugged, or just outright lie. I myself find it more likely that people just WANT to belive in the supernatural and mysterious. It makes life more exiting with those stuff around. I mean, you can find the simplest things, and yet have people give long complicated supernatural explanations for it.

Have you ever thought of someone you haven't spoken to in a realllly long time, and then suddenly at that moment the person calls you up? That happens more often than you'd think, but most shrug it off as a coincedence.

No, It is the other way around. You do think a LOT about a LOT of stuff, ALWAYS.

Your memories are very connected with each other, so even seeing some everyday object can trigger the memory of somebody. It happens a lot, but we don't think about it. It gets forgotten some time later, and lost forever. But, should this person call you, you would be surprised to find yourself having thought about the person from before he/she rang, as you describe. But, it isn't really as mysterious when you know how often we think about random shit. It is a trick of the mind.

Why is it that things like these, feeling that somebody is about to call you, can never be replicated? People feel that it happens, but whatever a study is done, without the interference factor which could trick the person, nothing shows up?

The whole deal kinda reminds me on how prayer can only heal diseases that are known to suddenly disappear by themselves. People mistake natural happenings for something special.

But wait, just because we have no way yet to physically show they are directly connected events, does that REALLY mean they aren't related? Nahh, it simply means we can't demonstrate the 'how' of it just yet... it doesn't necessarily mean they are actually unconnected.

So, you are saying, even though we haven't proven it yet, we still know it is there? Sorry, but until something is proven, it is unproven. There are no studies showing positive results of these things you speak of, and they have been a heck of a lot of studies on it.

A scientist looking into 'paranormal' things doesn't mean they automatically exist, but then again, if these things clearly didn't exist then why look into them in the first place? Point being, it isn't NEARLY as clear as you assume it to be.

A lot of people thinks these things exist. That makes it a valid subject to study. It doesn't need to relate to how likely it sounds. It is the same as an atheist writing a book about God. It doesn't mean that he is really a believer, just that God is a subject that he finds big enough to talk about.

Look at your hand. Think about all the stuff we know about what you are looking at. Cells, how they uses certain stuff to produce energy. How the cells contain DNA, and repairs the DNA if it gets damaged. All those small things. Now, think about all such subjects, not just how cells works. Atoms. Molecules. Evolution. ect. All these subjects are about things you can't see directly. We still can't even see atoms. And we need powerful telescopes to see cells. Evolution isn't seeable at all, you have to theorise your way there.

Just think about these vauge subjects (when first discovered), and how we have figured out so much about them. You claim that Paranormal stuff happens to us all the time, and is easy to detect yet, we don't know anything for or against it at all. Heck, you wouldn't need advanced instruments to messure this. Just get some thousand people and some cards, and you could start trying. And yet, we have come up with nothing? We can blow up the world several times over, yet we can't prove or disprove something that happens to us every day?

(long post, and I'm dead tired. Sorry if something is hard to understand, or if I said something wrong. >>)

[Tancrisism]

At 5/25/07 05:36 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 5/25/07 04:54 PM, Drakim wrote:

And many paranormal activities have occured.

No they haven't. Point me to any study that claims this.

People experience 'paranormal' stuff all the time. You don't need a formalized study to prove that all sorts of wierd shit occurs on a regular basis that scientists are simply unable to explain.

The mind is an extremely powerful organ. If someone can trick their mind (by means of a placebo) to grow hair despite balding, do you think that they can't convince themselves that paranormal occurrences happen all the time? This goes for "speaking in tongues" and exorcisms and the like.

It's completely logical. A little learning in the theories of psychology are good.

[PandaMime]

I am fairly sure that time cannot exist without space, so God created himself while creating the universe.

[EndGameOmega]

At 5/25/07 06:59 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

No pyschic can do anything supernatural when recorded? What, is that supposed to mean just TV? Edgar Cayce gave over 14,000 readings while in a trance state, most all of which were stenographically recorded. While there was not a 100% success rate, there was indeed a vast number of predictions, insights, and methods that proved to be both true and helpful to people even for long past after his death.

So, since you never heard about this man or looked at what he said in-depth... that means it never happened?

Drakim may not have looked into this man, but I have (actually he comes up quite a bit in paranormal arguments). The ESP test that Cayce took showed no deviation from statistical chance. He was know for using qualifying words (i.e. Perhaps, probably, likely, maybe) and very rarely made positive declarations of meaning. He, like all modern day pyschic is a fraud (though not necessarily an intentional one), he could have believe he was actually speaking to the dead, but given hid record he most likely wasn't.

Virtually all of his predictions where ether flat out wrong (e.g. Claiming the USA would find Atlantis by 1958 and would find a huge death ray, or that 1933 would be a good year financially), or very off (e.g. Briton would win and recover from WWII, and would then seek to expand its empire to include Germany, France Russia, etc...)

We're talking about this for the following reason:

"Other than my word for it." What, my word isn't good here? Why? Are you saying I would lie just to win an argument or be right? What would be the point in that? So... is what I say completely unbelievable unless it's backed-up by some chart or statistic from someone else? Why?

What he's asking for is sources and information that didn't come directly from you. It has nothing to do with your word being good enough as he's looking for direct empirical evidence, as all skeptics and researchers do.

'Paranormal' stuff IS an everyman thing... but as you demonstrate, people for some reason don't want to believe or take the experiences of others seriously. Have you ever thought of someone you haven't spoken to in a realllly long time, and then suddenly at that moment the person calls you up? That happens more often than you'd think, but most shrug it off as a coincedence. But wait, just because we have no way yet to physically show they are directly connected events, does that REALLY mean they aren't related? Nahh, it simply means we can't demonstrate the 'how' of it just yet... it doesn't necessarily mean they are actually unconnected.

What your referring to is synchronicity. Unfortunately there has never proven to be a statistical deviation from chance when looked at in an empirical manner. Think of it this way, how many time have you thought of someone and not had them call, or even better how certain are you that you where thinking about them before they called.

A scientist looking into 'paranormal' things doesn't mean they automatically exist, but then again, if these things clearly didn't exist then why look into them in the first place? Point being, it isn't NEARLY as clear as you assume it to be.

A scientist looks into the paranormal to see what is happening, to see if maybe there is something there, but equally so, they look into it to find a reasonable and rational explanation for it. In all of the literally thousands of scientific test and endeavorers done, not one case of paranormal activity has been found, it is highly unlikely that one ever will (though I will admit not completely impossible, just very close to it). A final reason many scientist do research into the paranormal is to show the average man that there isn't anything paranormal.

[Alphabit]

At 5/25/07 06:30 AM, Penboy wrote: Well yeah I guess so. God is the reason for the big bang, and to make such an explosion you're gonna need a tremendous amount of energy, which is what God supplied.

No, you're getting this confused, Scientific minds believe that the energy ITSELF is God. And that energy has always been around.

Personally, I don't think that God would be a mind of its own. I mean, how BORING would it be to live for all eternity? Why should a single being hold so much power?
It's only fair that God does not have a conscience, that god is simply an energy... Like gravity, light and electricity.

[EndGameOmega]

At 5/25/07 09:47 PM, Alphabit wrote:

No, you're getting this confused, Scientific minds believe that the energy ITSELF is God. And that energy has always been around.

No... they don't.

[AmontilladoClock]

I would like to say that I am not talking about God in a literal sense, not in the way Muslims nor Christians nor any other religion present, but as an inexhaustible (hence omnipotent) body of energy (this body being an entity) and I in no way describe it as being a sentient being.

[AmontilladoClock]

At 5/25/07 02:41 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: but you never explain how.

I am saying that evolutionists and theists believe and argue that the universe originally spawned from a body of energy (in my description an omnipresent entity), whilst creationist believe that the universe spawned from an omnipresent entity (which you describe as a body of energy.)