Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2014, 01:19 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  God is kept vague for a good reason, the more specific the description the easier it is to falsify.

Just look at the ancient Greek and Roman pantheon. Their gods resided atop the highest peak of Mount Olympus, quite literally a mountain that really exists in Greece. The problem with saying that your gods live up there, is that eventually people were able to actually get up there; and no gods were to be found. Remember too that this applies to the Abrahamic god as well, for the same god that felt threatened enough by the encroachment into Heaven (which existed atop the firmament, the solid dome encompassing the world, prevalent in many ancient cosmologies) by the Tower of Babylon, said not a peep when we put men on the moon.

This is why you'll see more 'intellectual' takes on the god concept with ideas like Deism, Pantheism, and Panpsychism. This is why 'new age' and eastern religious ideas like 'the grounding of all being' (espoused by Brahma) get a lot of traction with some.

Of course, their one unifying similarity is this; they are all unfalsifiable. The Greek Pantheon was falsifiable, it was claimed they lived atop Mount Olympus, and when we scaled that mountain we found no such thing. The claim was shown to be false.


The definition of god is always kept vague or out of reach, lest science kill it.

EDIT: *FYI, I got my own username. Therefore my friend will no longer prefix what she says*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 01:21 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  God is kept vague for a good reason, the more specific the description the easier it is to falsify.

Just look at the ancient Greek and Roman pantheon. Their gods resided atop the highest peak of Mount Olympus, quite literally a mountain that really exists in Greece. The problem with saying that your gods live up there, is that eventually people were able to actually get up there; and no gods were to be found. Remember too that this applies to the Abrahamic god as well, for the same god that felt threatened enough by the encroachment into Heaven (which existed atop the firmament, the solid dome encompassing the world, prevalent in many ancient cosmologies) by the Tower of Babylon, said not a peep when we put men on the moon.

This is why you'll see more 'intellectual' takes on the god concept with ideas like Deism, Pantheism, and Panpsychism. This is why 'new age' and eastern religious ideas like 'the grounding of all being' (espoused by Brahma) get a lot of traction with some.

Of course, their one unifying similarity is this; they are all unfalsifiable. The Greek Pantheon was falsifiable, it was claimed they lived atop Mount Olympus, and when we scaled that mountain we found no such thing. The claim was shown to be false.


The definition of god is always kept vague or out of reach, lest science kill it.

I disagree. God is not vague; god is personal
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 01:23 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
Duplicate post, please delete.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 01:25 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(13-02-2014 05:50 PM)fmudd Wrote:  Christian Friend: "From another thread:"

(13-02-2014 04:49 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  And it still makes no practical difference to the blind person.

Christian Friend: "Breakthrough! Not being able to describe doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Now what would you consider evidence? God would know is weak, the same way a Blind person could say a seeing person would know how to describe RED to them."

Or instead of describing red by sight, do it by touch.
Ig: red~hot, blue~cold, yellow~feeling of warmth from the sun, etc...

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 01:26 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  God is kept vague for a good reason, the more specific the description the easier it is to falsify.

Just look at the ancient Greek and Roman pantheon. Their gods resided atop the highest peak of Mount Olympus, quite literally a mountain that really exists in Greece. The problem with saying that your gods live up there, is that eventually people were able to actually get up there; and no gods were to be found. Remember too that this applies to the Abrahamic god as well, for the same god that felt threatened enough by the encroachment into Heaven (which existed atop the firmament, the solid dome encompassing the world, prevalent in many ancient cosmologies) by the Tower of Babylon, said not a peep when we put men on the moon.

This is why you'll see more 'intellectual' takes on the god concept with ideas like Deism, Pantheism, and Panpsychism. This is why 'new age' and eastern religious ideas like 'the grounding of all being' (espoused by Brahma) get a lot of traction with some.

Of course, their one unifying similarity is this; they are all unfalsifiable. The Greek Pantheon was falsifiable, it was claimed they lived atop Mount Olympus, and when we scaled that mountain we found no such thing. The claim was shown to be false.


The definition of god is always kept vague or out of reach, lest science kill it.

And to add ....God is not only personal, but whenever a label or structure is applied, it tends to fail; you unintentionally does a good job of proving my point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 02:09 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 01:25 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Or instead of describing red by sight, do it by touch.
Ig: red~hot, blue~cold, yellow~feeling of warmth from the sun, etc...

Bad experiment. All that does is identify and distinguish.....not a description
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 01:21 AM)fmudd Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 12:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  God is kept vague for a good reason, the more specific the description the easier it is to falsify.

Just look at the ancient Greek and Roman pantheon. Their gods resided atop the highest peak of Mount Olympus, quite literally a mountain that really exists in Greece. The problem with saying that your gods live up there, is that eventually people were able to actually get up there; and no gods were to be found. Remember too that this applies to the Abrahamic god as well, for the same god that felt threatened enough by the encroachment into Heaven (which existed atop the firmament, the solid dome encompassing the world, prevalent in many ancient cosmologies) by the Tower of Babylon, said not a peep when we put men on the moon.

This is why you'll see more 'intellectual' takes on the god concept with ideas like Deism, Pantheism, and Panpsychism. This is why 'new age' and eastern religious ideas like 'the grounding of all being' (espoused by Brahma) get a lot of traction with some.

Of course, their one unifying similarity is this; they are all unfalsifiable. The Greek Pantheon was falsifiable, it was claimed they lived atop Mount Olympus, and when we scaled that mountain we found no such thing. The claim was shown to be false.


The definition of god is always kept vague or out of reach, lest science kill it.

I disagree. God is not vague; god is personal

What in the fuck does that even mean, outside of your experience of it being entirely subjective (which is a problem)? What you just said is vague as shit! It explains as much as saying 'god is non-physical'... Dodgy

Also, you misread my post; read it again. The definition of god is purposely kept vague. If your only description of your god is that it's 'personal', that is a very vague definition. So thanks for proving my point! Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 02:24 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2014 02:31 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 02:09 AM)fmudd Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 01:25 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Or instead of describing red by sight, do it by touch.
Ig: red~hot, blue~cold, yellow~feeling of warmth from the sun, etc...

Bad experiment. All that does is identify and distinguish.....not a description

Red is the description... Dodgy

Red is the label (a description) we give to a particular band of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. We can't see microwaves or radiation, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that we do not have evidence supporting their existence. That particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum does exist, and we can demonstrate that and have evidence for it, even if the person in question cannot themselves perceive the phenomena personally. It can still be objectively measured. Same as how we can measure the pressure at the bottom of the ocean without having to stick your hand outside the submarine and checking.

This is also why the questions "is your red the same as my red?" can be sidestepped by simply determining if both people are perceiving the same electromagnetic spectrum; if they are, then they are seeing the same 'color', regardless of however their brain interprets that data or however they choose to label it.

Try again.


(15-02-2014 01:26 AM)fmudd Wrote:  And to add ....God is not only personal, but whenever a label or structure is applied, it tends to fail; you unintentionally does a good job of proving my point.

What point is that? That the definition of god keeps changing due more the the encroachment of science rather than the continuous changing of an actual divine entity? It's just moving the goal posts, and belies the very human origins of the concept.

Try again.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 02:53 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 02:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 01:26 AM)fmudd Wrote:  And to add ....God is not only personal, but whenever a label or structure is applied, it tends to fail; you unintentionally does a good job of proving my point.

What point is that? That the definition of god keeps changing due more the the encroachment of science rather than the continuous changing of an actual divine entity? It's just moving the goal posts, and belies the very human origins of the concept.

Try again.

The point is that science demands a label.

I'm saying god is without a label.

Yet when I demand that science provide a criteria for what you say would constitute god you can't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 03:11 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 12:54 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 02:53 AM)fmudd Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 02:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What point is that? That the definition of god keeps changing due more the the encroachment of science rather than the continuous changing of an actual divine entity? It's just moving the goal posts, and belies the very human origins of the concept.

Try again.

The point is that science demands a label.

I'm saying god is without a label.

Yet when I demand that science provide a criteria for what you say would constitute god you can't.

Science demands evidence. What I'm saying is I too demand evidence for the things I believe in.

You say you can't specify what you believe in, and therefore are unable to provide any evidence because you don't have a fucking clue where to start if you haven't even defined what you'd like to defend. It's your claim, you need to fucking define it before you can even start to support it. I also have to add that starting with the conclusion (that god exists) is the exact opposite of what science does. Go get yourself an education, for fuck's sake...

Therefor I have no reason to buy into your shit, and it gets put up on the same shelf as Ouija Boards, the Loch Ness monster, astral projection, psychics, transubstantiation, Atlantis, the Kraken, every other god ever imagined, and everything else we do not have sufficient evidence to justify belief in.

Also, the name 'God' is a label (as is Yahweh, the tetragrammaton, Elohim, El Elyion, El Shaddai, Jehovah, etc); you make no sense even on your own terms. Dodgy

Q.E.D.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: