Egor's Proof of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2012, 12:39 AM
RE: Egor's Proof of God
(02-01-2012 09:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  
(02-01-2012 08:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  The world looks exactly as it would if there were no God.

That's ridiculous. An omnipotent God could create the world exactly as it is right now.

Chas's point is that as knowledge has advanced, at no point have we *needed* a God to explain things - all attempts to do so have turned out to result from poor understanding of the physical process which operates without any deity's noodly appendage. As such, it seems superfluous to add a God. Yes omnipotent God could create the world to look like he wasn't there. Why would he? Seems a bit daft? And if he did, it's still not *rational* to conclude that God is there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
03-01-2012, 07:41 AM
RE: Egor's Proof of God
(02-01-2012 09:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  
(02-01-2012 08:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  The world looks exactly as it would if there were no God.

That's ridiculous. An omnipotent God could create the world exactly as it is right now.

Of course he could. But the way the world looks is completely consistent with there being no gods at all; the result of natural processes, no gods required.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2012 11:04 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Egor's Proof of God
I can't observe god, therefore he does not exist.
And if I can't observe him, he has no meaning.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
05-01-2012, 06:15 AM
RE: Egor's Proof of God
First of all, I can't believe you let this post die, almost. Smile

Second, TheBeardedDude you are absolutely right, the answer to the first and only "proof" is so easy to use in our advantage. Good job.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
05-01-2012, 11:24 AM
RE: Egor's Proof of God
Thank you Filox. Why go through the trouble of a long elaborate post when such a simple answer negates the posters entire argument? I realized after the fact that others had also pointed this out, although not in as few words.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2012, 08:51 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2012 10:55 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Egor's Proof of God
"Time is an illusion. There is no time. There is only a present moment."

What was that "a moment ago" ? If there is no past in your world, then there is also no (past) sin, no need for salvation, and no salvific act, (also in the past). You also are not married, either.

First you say existence requires obseravtion, then you say "well not really, , more like a 'focus' ". So which is it. If it's a "focus" anything I can imagine, is real, if I focus on it. If you actually meant what you started out the thread saying, (then backed off later), is that observation is required for existence, then

1. nothing is real for the blind man,

2. back a few pages, I asked about how you define "observation"....hoping you would address the matter of of particle detectors, and microscopes, etc. That was kind of a miss. The wave length of light is larger than subatomic particles. Thus quarks and almost all subatomic particles will never be "observed", only "detected". Maybe you better change it to "existence requires detection".

"the future hasn’t happened yet".

Brilliant, simply brilliant.

"Although I have four serious incidents of precognition in my life, that was only knowledge of the future, like a memory in reverse, but the future, even then had never ever happened before. It isn’t lying out there some place."

Say what ? Could you explain to us the neuro-physiology of 'memory in reverse' ?

"And even though I don’t know the dynamics, yet. There is a curious condition at work. In the spirit, there is no distance, so there is no requirement for time—not for anything. And have you ever noticed this is exactly the case when you think about things? When an idea comes to you, it seems to come all at once in its entirety, and it’s just there in your mind. Even if you spend months thinking about it, translating it into words, writing it down, whatever, the idea was complete and came to you in an instant."

What is an "instant" ? I can find a more accurate stop watch than you.

"The one thing we can say about the spiritual realm or the fifth dimension or whatever, is that it is not constrained by the dynamics at play in the physical four dimensions."

How do you know that, exactly ?

"And is this a cop out? Well then, so is our notion of gravity and electromagnetism. We see them, but we have no concept of how they come to be."

Serious logic fail. gravity and EM can be demonsrtaed, experimentally. You can't do anything with that crap.

"They simply are. The mind is the same way. We know how all the synapses and neurons work, and yet none of that explains mind, yet mind is real."

Fail agin. There are a number of theories of consciousness. I thought you had a degree in something scientific ? Hmm. Maybe not.

"Jesus said of those born of the spirit: It’s like the wind, you feel it, but you don’t know where it came from or where it is going."

Wrong. We know where wind arises from.

"The fact is, if there is a God, we have to (I repeat: Have to) accept that He exists eternally and that He is the first cause of things. Otherwise, as you have pointed out, He is not God, and some other God must be postulated ad infinitum. Now, maybe on those grounds we can then say that God doesn’t exist, but then you are left with a universe that has the same problems as the God that doesn’t exist. If you get rid of God via the failure of the cosmological argument for His existence, then you are lumbered with the same problem, a universe that is its own cause—and that is absurd, because the universe and everything in it is apparently contingent."

Completely false. Even if YOU don't understand how a universe could have come into existence, does not justify the HUGE illogical jump to "the ONLY cause possible is MY god".

"We may not understand how a god exists without a cause, but apparently He does"

Wrong. Apparently she doesn't.

Your assumtion that there is a need for a "first cause" may be in question. If gravity can have a negative energy, and the observable matter in the universe is a tiny fraction of reality, (Dark Energy and Dark Matter), then 1 + (-1) = 0, and there is "nothing" to require your cause.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2012, 12:24 AM
RE: Egor's Proof of God
Oh come on, I thought this thread was dead. Anyway I'm guessing that Egor's response will be this:

[Image: a8f612a5-3387-44c4-a99e-b78c8bbb4f6d.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
31-01-2012, 01:00 AM
RE: Egor's Proof of God
[Notices 30 page worthless thread brought back from the dead]


[Image: 103360_o.gif]

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Buddy Christ's post
31-01-2012, 05:56 AM
RE: Egor's Proof of God
WHO DID THIS!!!? Who Restored this!!!? NO! This thread will stay dead! End of posts! No more AT ALL! Let this be the last post that ever has the unfortunate luck to be on this failure of a thread.

NEW AND IMPROVED!
Twice the anger, Half the space!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hamata k's post
31-01-2012, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2012 10:50 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Egor's Proof of God
(31-01-2012 05:56 AM)Hamata k Wrote:  WHO DID THIS!!!? Who Restored this!!!? NO! This thread will stay dead! End of posts! No more AT ALL! Let this be the last post that ever has the unfortunate luck to be on this failure of a thread.

Sorry kids. It IS my fault. Was discussing the "un-observability", yet "detectabilty" of particles smaller than the wavelength of light, in another context, and I couldn't resist. Just thought I'd shove that out there and see what happened. I promise.....no more...well, .... maybe one more Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: