...WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?!You've just contradicted yourself THREE TIMES. First you say "Evolution isn't real", then you say "Evolution made the eye", and then you say "I agreed with him" after you just said you didn't. If you're going to post here, make some sense.Your "view" is something we don't give a damn about as well. Actually, it's called SPAM unless it has valid argumentation behind it; and that's what you neglected to give us. You just come here and say "GOD IS REAL" with no f***ing argumentation, being all smug, knowingly breaking forum rules?So? I don't really care about what you believe in... im just pointing my view that God is REAL.. it doesn't mean i don't accept that the EYE did evole... I just agreed with 1ron_Lung... cuz It makes sense to me... if you don't like that, so be it... i don't really give a damn.. laugh.gif
God real or not?
Started by
Guest_stubblehamster
, Feb 15 2005 12:22 AM
6399 replies to this topic
#6201
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 19 November 2008 - 08:48 AM
#6202
38542788
-
- Member
-
- 366 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 2
Neutral
Posted 19 November 2008 - 06:06 PM
What are you replying to here?What exactly would you call the creation of an entirely new species? (wheat)What would you say if you knew that every single living being was descended from one organism? (common descent as proven by mitochondrial analysis)As for the spiritual plane, please tell me why we would need a place for hypothetical souls to dwell if the faithful are also assured of physical resurrection. Please also explain why physical ascension is necessary if the spiritual plane is non-corporeal. (Please note that I am not making the argument, "this Forgive me, please. I have a small vocabulary. =( doesn't make any sense", I'm saying, "if this was true, why does this other account, assume it is also true, contradict it").It's adequate evidence for adaptation, not for macro-evolution as far as the evolutionary theory is concerned.The spiritual plane isn't separate from the physical one. The two coexist, although beings of the physical plane generally can't see, hear, touch, etc. things of the spiritual plane. The ascension of the living would have been a divine act, and physical resurrection a miracle.
The human eye is full of flaws, for example, we have a blind spot where our optical nerve is based, and the retina is misplaced so that it does not function as well as could. Why would god give us something with so many design flaws?Besides, even flatworms have rudimentary eyes, it's not hard to see where the advantage from that can come from.i agree with you 100%.. our Eyes are something sophisticated you know?? and sumthing as sophisticated like that is something that even Evolution can make... There must be something that created it.... and i believe it's God!!
#6203
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 20 November 2008 - 01:40 AM
...WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?!Welcome to real-life conversations...
#6204
Guest_caylenne
Guest_caylenne
-
- Guest
Posted 20 November 2008 - 11:12 AM
I don't... not believe in god. But I don't have a religion either. I just don't think that if there was a god who gave us life and blahblahblah, would he want us to spend most of it kissing his feet and telling him how wonderful he is?
#6205
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2008 - 02:29 AM
Nice to know you like to take out your aggression on small children. Of course the scientific field has no distinction between "macro-" and "micro-" evolution, that would make the theory less credible. Why would they want to do that?Your idea of reality makes me laugh. There's no way to objectively and independently confirm that time exists, and yet I wouldn't doubt that you accept that it does. Time is only an illusion. If it were tangible, it could be altered.Your pop about "macro-evolution" makes me want to punch a small child. In the scientific field, there is no distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution. Those are terms made up by Kent Hovind and his pulpit.As for the spiritual plane coexisting with ours, but we can't see, hear, touch, etc. it, I'm gonna go ahead and say that if there is no way to objectively and independently confirm that it exists, it doesn't exist.
#6206
Guest_الِش
Guest_الِش
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2008 - 02:36 AM
Nice to know you like to take out your aggression on small children.As opposed to taking it out on baby seals?Time is only an illusion.No, its a very real thing imposed upon the minds of half the world's population.
#6207
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2008 - 02:41 AM
Sub-species. Not an entirely new species, an entirely new sub-species. It's not like domesticated wheat "evolved" from corn, or some other obscure food bearing plant. It adapted from a different strain of wheat. Wheat changing into different wheat isn't proof that everything evolved from a one-celled organism.It's not proven, it's hypothesized.Physical resurrection isn't assured until the day of judgement. Where exactly are these souls supposed to be until then (assuming that people actually have souls). And I never said physical ascension was necessary. I don't really think it is necessary.What exactly would you call the creation of an entirely new species? (wheat)What would you say if you knew that every single living being was descended from one organism? (common descent as proven by mitochondrial analysis)As for the spiritual plane, please tell me why we would need a place for hypothetical souls to dwell if the faithful are also assured of physical resurrection. Please also explain why physical ascension is necessary if the spiritual plane is non-corporeal. (Please note that I am not making the argument, "this Forgive me, please. I have a small vocabulary. =( doesn't make any sense", I'm saying, "if this was true, why does this other account, assume it is also true, contradict it").
Either one would be grotesque.Ok, you go ahead and drop a ball on the ground, and then go back in time and catch that ball before it hits the ground. Time is only an illusion.Nice to know you like to take out your aggression on small children.As opposed to taking it out on baby seals?Time is only an illusion.No, its a very real thing imposed upon the minds of half the world's population.
#6208
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2008 - 03:01 AM
No, they don't separate the two because so called "macro-evolution" is merely the sum of a lot of "micro-evolutionary" adaptations. You know, Trace, some times I think you're a troll.Also, take the evolution debate to the evolution thread. Also, disproving evolution, even if that were possible, does not prove creationist beliefs.Nice to know you like to take out your aggression on small children. Of course the scientific field has no distinction between "macro-" and "micro-" evolution, that would make the theory less credible. Why would they want to do that?
Of course time exists, we can observe its flow. Or at least, time as defined by man. Yes, it's a man-made construct. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Have fun without your clothes, home, computer and everything else that's man made, 'cause if time doesn't exist, neither does your stuff.Oh, and if you kept up with modern hypothesis and such, you'd know that many scientists hold that, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, time alteration is possible. In fact, we've observed that it is. Two synchronized clocks, one stationary on Earth and the other sent in the space shuttle. The space shuttle one was seen to, while retaining the same rhythm of seconds and minutes as the other clock, it was running behind. This is because the space shuttle was much closer to the speed of light than the Earth clock.Your idea of reality makes me laugh. There's no way to objectively and independently confirm that time exists, and yet I wouldn't doubt that you accept that it does. Time is only an illusion. If it were tangible, it could be altered.
We haven't figured out time travel, so time itself is fake. Kay.Also, crossing in to a personal time line to change something as insignificant as that would probably cause a time paradox, unless we accept the idea of a multiverse, which again, is the mainstream idea in science.Ok, you go ahead and drop a ball on the ground, and then go back in time and catch that ball before it hits the ground. Time is only an illusion.
Edited by darkknight014, 21 November 2008 - 03:04 AM.
#6209
Guest_Hellion2
Guest_Hellion2
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2008 - 03:04 AM
I think that there is a god because when our univerese was made, so many chain reactions had to go off at a perfect time and place that it would be almost impossible for this process to happen (Big Bang theorem). One of these reactions, for example, is the one that created our Earth, and it is said that after many collisions of planets after the bang, the dust particles from the crashes created dust that formed our planet and in this process, certain molecules had to bond at a proper time, and the chances of this process having sucess are slim, so I think there is some outer influence that helped us out. God didn't make the Earth because if he did, then were in the bible does it talk about the dinosaurs or other creatures that are far older than what the bible claims to be the age of Earth. So there leaves many flaws in these statements on our planets creation,but we are not perfect! That is my view.
Edited by Hellion2, 21 November 2008 - 03:06 AM.
#6210
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 21 November 2008 - 09:44 AM
It's like saying an equation doesn't exist, or that a measure of a ruler doesn't exist. Downright silly. It's an expression of something we have yet to understand fully. Also; it's believed that mass bends space-time, which in turn speeds it up, if I'm not mistaken (and since satellites aren't as close to the bend, they will be ticking away faster).Of course time exists, we can observe its flow. Or at least, time as defined by man. Yes, it's a man-made construct. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Have fun without your clothes, home, computer and everything else that's man made, 'cause if time doesn't exist, neither does your stuff.Oh, and if you kept up with modern hypothesis and such, you'd know that many scientists hold that, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, time alteration is possible. In fact, we've observed that it is. Two synchronized clocks, one stationary on Earth and the other sent in the space shuttle. The space shuttle one was seen to, while retaining the same rhythm of seconds and minutes as the other clock, it was running behind. This is because the space shuttle was much closer to the speed of light than the Earth clock.
The whole "multiverse" hypotheses seems strange; though. You would not be travelling back in time, you would be travelling to another universe. An universe that always had you popping up at that precise moment.Also, crossing in to a personal time line to change something as insignificant as that would probably cause a time paradox, unless we accept the idea of a multiverse, which again, is the mainstream idea in science.
Sometimes, I wish I could flame people - just for a second. But it passes. There is no evidence that there was "perfect timing" to the Big Bang, and there is absolutely no evidence that ANYTHING in the universe is perfect. Rather the opposite. Perfection is a human term that can only be used in comparison to the purpose of something. If the purpose of the universe was to provide grounds for life, or specifically for OUR life, then it would look vastly different, and would likely have more unicorns and or purple walruses.Also, stop spamming up the debate section. Read the goddamned rules. This is not a "post your opinion" section. We don't care about your opinion, we care about new arguments.I think that there is a god because when our univerese was made, so many chain reactions had to go off at a perfect time and place that it would be almost impossible for this process to happen (Big Bang theorem). One of these reactions, for example, is the one that created our Earth, and it is said that after many collisions of planets after the bang, the dust particles from the crashes created dust that formed our planet and in this process, certain molecules had to bond at a proper time, and the chances of this process having sucess are slim, so I think there is some outer influence that helped us out. God didn't make the Earth because if he did, then were in the bible does it talk about the dinosaurs or other creatures that are far older than what the bible claims to be the age of Earth. So there leaves many flaws in these statements on our planets creation,but we are not perfect! That is my view.
#6211
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 22 November 2008 - 06:29 AM
Evolution was brought up by someone else. And the theory is that a ton of "micro-evolutions" would add into a "macro-evolution". It still hasn't actually been proven. Hypothetically possible though.We can observe what we perceive as times flow. And I find it interesting that nothing but a time shift could have possibly caused that clock to run behind. Out of the vast number of possible variables, it had to be a time shift. Right.Oh, I'm not saying that the fact that we can't travel through time makes time fake. I'm saying that it's logically impossible. One could not travel backward in time without upsetting what has come to be known as the time/space continuum. The only possible way one could is if one's future self had done so initially. Then it would be possible. Highly unlikely though.and to Nazer's bit: Equations and measurements don't actually exist. They're concepts that have absolutely no independent purpose, and are only useful when applied to something tactile.No, they don't separate the two because so called "macro-evolution" is merely the sum of a lot of "micro-evolutionary" adaptations. You know, Trace, some times I think you're a troll.Also, take the evolution debate to the evolution thread. Also, disproving evolution, even if that were possible, does not prove creationist beliefs.Of course time exists, we can observe its flow. Or at least, time as defined by man. Yes, it's a man-made construct. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Have fun without your clothes, home, computer and everything else that's man made, 'cause if time doesn't exist, neither does your stuff.Oh, and if you kept up with modern hypothesis and such, you'd know that many scientists hold that, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, time alteration is possible. In fact, we've observed that it is. Two synchronized clocks, one stationary on Earth and the other sent in the space shuttle. The space shuttle one was seen to, while retaining the same rhythm of seconds and minutes as the other clock, it was running behind. This is because the space shuttle was much closer to the speed of light than the Earth clock.We haven't figured out time travel, so time itself is fake. Kay.Also, crossing in to a personal time line to change something as insignificant as that would probably cause a time paradox, unless we accept the idea of a multiverse, which again, is the mainstream idea in science.
#6212
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 22 November 2008 - 07:45 PM
Ignoring the comment about evolution since this is not the evolution thread, the two clocks were identically made, synchronized to be operating from the same exact time and second-rhythm, this was a controlled experiment done by people who know what they're doing; They've ruled out the possibility that it was some x-factor, they've done the test more than once and independently verified that it happened, and they were basing the idea off of an already-in-use theory called Enstein's Theory of Relativity.Again, upsetting the space-time continuum is practically impossible if we accept the idea of a multiverse. Every time someone travels through time, they are also creating a new universe at that very instant, with people knowing the past as it happened in the "primary" universe. The difference being? This one always had you popping into it.Now, to explain that is a little tricky; time travel is not an easy thing to do. The flow of time is both fixed and in flux, to take a phrase from the Doctor. It's fixed in that we can never change what will happen, but it's in flux in that we may essentially be able to "time travel" into a new universe. In the new universe, you're not changing anything. They always had you popping in at that moment. They always had you, the traveler, doing something that was never meant to be done.Equations and measurements don't exist unless we give them a purpose? What kind of faulty logic is that? Equations and measurements exist because we, as a society, agreed that we need to be able to measure stuff and express things in numerical form, and we all decided that the metric system (Yeah, America's retarded...) is the best one to use. To say that this means they don't exist, because without that purpose they're meaningless numbers is outright foolish as well.Even then, though, if they don't tangibly exist, neither do numbers, and without numbers, what are we to use to identify how many apples Johny has?Evolution was brought up by someone else. And the theory is that a ton of "micro-evolutions" would add into a "macro-evolution". It still hasn't actually been proven. Hypothetically possible though.We can observe what we perceive as times flow. And I find it interesting that nothing but a time shift could have possibly caused that clock to run behind. Out of the vast number of possible variables, it had to be a time shift. Right.Oh, I'm not saying that the fact that we can't travel through time makes time fake. I'm saying that it's logically impossible. One could not travel backward in time without upsetting what has come to be known as the time/space continuum. The only possible way one could is if one's future self had done so initially. Then it would be possible. Highly unlikely though.and to Nazer's bit: Equations and measurements don't actually exist. They're concepts that have absolutely no independent purpose, and are only useful when applied to something tactile.
Edited by darkknight014, 22 November 2008 - 07:47 PM.
#6213
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 22 November 2008 - 09:07 PM
Disciples obviously. Because they were real. One Jesus equals to a bunch of fish, water and bread, that can be infinitely replicated through magic. Disciples are fractions (also known as miracles since they're not NUMERICAL fractions {they don't exist, just like measurements don't exist}) of Jesus.On a more serious note; what were we actually talking about before something derailed us? Getting really tired of these newbies just popping in and posting their opinions. Their posts stay, which only aid the confusion as far as I see.Arguments for the Christian God's existence:1. The Bible says "He" exists. Since the Bible is thousands of years old, obviously it must be true.Arguments for the Jewish God's existence:1. The Torah says "He" exists. Since the Torah is thousands of years old, obviously it must be true.Arguments for the Islamic God's existence:1. The Qur'an says "He" exists. Since the Qur'an is over a thousand years old, obviously it must be true.Arguments for the Mormon God's existence:1. Some book they found in North America a few hundred years ago says "He" exists, obviously it must be true.---I'm way too tired to read up on Hinduism right now, but maybe later. I suspect it may be along the lines seen above though...So, let's get to all those arguments... Oh wait. There's only one argument. That argument is that you have an old book or a collection of texts that claim something to be true, correct? You might call this a straw-man, but keep in mind this is the only argument for a specific god, not just "an entity that created the universe", and are therefore perfectly valid. This IS what every religion says. Everything else is pretty much variations of ethics and opinions.There is not a shred of evidence but your precious texts that claim you to be right; and so far I've written down four different religions that all use the same goddamned argument for their religion to be right. Tell me; how can one religion be more right than another when that religion is using the exact same argument?!My point here is that the argument in itself is ridiculous and incredibly silly. I need you religious folk to understand how ridiculous the argument is. I'm not sure if there is any way to convince you that this argument is the dumbest argument ever invented; but I'll try, and hopefully some people who share my opinion will join in.Pick a book/series of text, what have you. I'll refer to it as a book because most religious texts are gathered in the form of a book as far as I know at this particular time. I want you to think about these things:1. Is the book coherent? Does it very simply and without confusing you tell you what it is about? If not, and there are a gajillion ways of interpreting it, you might want to reconsider that particular book.2. Does the book speak of magical things that go against the laws of physics (For the Modern Theist on the Go who has no time for looking up terms and so forth the rest of us have - a law: pretty much as "proven" as anything can be outside of a mathematical construct) that cannot be replicated (again; I feel I have to explain: If someone lights on fire when I point at them, and it just won't happen again, I can't really say I lit them on fire - coincidence is a more likely event). If these "magical things" are written down; and there is no proof but that they've been written down, you really might want to reconsider, seeing as "magical things" can be written down by anyone. Also - coincidences happen. Deal with it.3. Does the book comply with Occam's razor (Occam's razor; simple version: If you have various hypotheses {For the Modern Theist on the Go - a hypothesis: Ex: A ball falls down because God has attached invisible rubber-bands to it and the centre of the Earth. It is important to note that a hypothesis, unlike a theory, does not have to be supported by a larger magnitudes of evidence to suggest its truthfulness.} that have the same amount of evidence, pick the one that makes the least assumptions)? If not, you might want to reconsider, as jumping to conclusions is, as you know if you have common sense, very silly (If your hat is gone, it is unlikely that alien baseball-players from Jupiter have stolen it to pay their rent).4. Does the book constantly contradict itself? Example: "Thou shalt not kill." "And then the bears mauled the 42 children," - unless you're into hypocrisy, this isn't a book for you.5. Does the book make outrageous statements about certain minorities, ethnic or otherwise, that would have them discriminated if doctrine was followed? This one should be a no-brainer.6. Does the Holy Walrus of Greenland say the book is okay? If so, ignore the last 5 "rules" of finding a good, non-ridiculous religious book, because we all know the Holy Walrus of Greenland is always right. We know he's right because the book some people wrote says so, and who are we to contradict dead people whose intentions we know nothing of?Even then, though, if they don't tangibly exist, neither do numbers, and without numbers, what are we to use to identify how many apples Johny has?
#6214
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 22 November 2008 - 09:35 PM
Oddly enough, I haven't found anything on this experiment you mentioned. Might you have a link giving more accurate details?Of course time travel isn't easy. It's impossible. Sorry; highly improbable. Even if the experiment you stated occurred, the theory is that time moves at a slower rate in higher gravitational fields.Faulty logic? I didn't say they don't exist unless we give them a purpose. I said that they don't exist. They're ideas. They aren't tangible. They're ideas that are applicable to real life situations, just like morals, ethics, etc. Please, if you're going to argue that my logic is faulty, don't claim that I said something that I didn't say.Ignoring the comment about evolution since this is not the evolution thread, the two clocks were identically made, synchronized to be operating from the same exact time and second-rhythm, this was a controlled experiment done by people who know what they're doing; They've ruled out the possibility that it was some x-factor, they've done the test more than once and independently verified that it happened, and they were basing the idea off of an already-in-use theory called Enstein's Theory of Relativity.Again, upsetting the space-time continuum is practically impossible if we accept the idea of a multiverse. Every time someone travels through time, they are also creating a new universe at that very instant, with people knowing the past as it happened in the "primary" universe. The difference being? This one always had you popping into it.Now, to explain that is a little tricky; time travel is not an easy thing to do. The flow of time is both fixed and in flux, to take a phrase from the Doctor. It's fixed in that we can never change what will happen, but it's in flux in that we may essentially be able to "time travel" into a new universe. In the new universe, you're not changing anything. They always had you popping in at that moment. They always had you, the traveler, doing something that was never meant to be done.Equations and measurements don't exist unless we give them a purpose? What kind of faulty logic is that? Equations and measurements exist because we, as a society, agreed that we need to be able to measure stuff and express things in numerical form, and we all decided that the metric system (Yeah, America's retarded...) is the best one to use. To say that this means they don't exist, because without that purpose they're meaningless numbers is outright foolish as well.Even then, though, if they don't tangibly exist, neither do numbers, and without numbers, what are we to use to identify how many apples Johny has?
#6215
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:09 PM
For the experiment mentioned, http://en.wikipedia....i/Time_dilation has some information on it. The only reason I brought up the experiment in the first place is because you said that altering time was impossible. Also, I was wrong and got it reversed; The shuttle clock moved faster, not slower. Now, let's not speak of it anymore, if you'd like to talk more about time travel, let's go ahead and make a time travel debate topic.Again, I will restate that even if it is an idea, you can't say it doesn't exist. Ideas exist, we have ideas all the time. Hell, even your GOD IS AN IDEA. AND NOW YOU SAY IDEAS DON'T EXIST?! Well, you just messed up your own arguments in this thread.Speaking of which, back to the the original topic.Oddly enough, I haven't found anything on this experiment you mentioned. Might you have a link giving more accurate details?Of course time travel isn't easy. It's impossible. Sorry; highly improbable. Even if the experiment you stated occurred, the theory is that time moves at a slower rate in higher gravitational fields.Faulty logic? I didn't say they don't exist unless we give them a purpose. I said that they don't exist. They're ideas. They aren't tangible. They're ideas that are applicable to real life situations, just like morals, ethics, etc. Please, if you're going to argue that my logic is faulty, don't claim that I said something that I didn't say.
Edited by darkknight014, 22 November 2008 - 11:10 PM.
#6216
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 23 November 2008 - 06:15 AM
Logically, no, concepts don't exist. So are you saying that God does exist? Because yes, I do realize that at the very least, God is a construct by which to measure morals and ethics, just like inches are a construct by which to measure distance, height, width, and the like, and liters are a construct by which to measure volume. Despite that, it is believed (by those of faith) that God is more than just a construct.For the experiment mentioned, http://en.wikipedia....i/Time_dilation has some information on it. The only reason I brought up the experiment in the first place is because you said that altering time was impossible. Also, I was wrong and got it reversed; The shuttle clock moved faster, not slower. Now, let's not speak of it anymore, if you'd like to talk more about time travel, let's go ahead and make a time travel debate topic.Again, I will restate that even if it is an idea, you can't say it doesn't exist. Ideas exist, we have ideas all the time. Hell, even your GOD IS AN IDEA. AND NOW YOU SAY IDEAS DON'T EXIST?! Well, you just messed up your own arguments in this thread.Speaking of which, back to the the original topic.
#6217
Guest_Me 8P
Guest_Me 8P
-
- Guest
Posted 23 November 2008 - 07:15 AM
i personally believe he is real. i mean, the universe cant of created itself, right? just like a house cant build itself! and just because you cant see wind, will you just assume that its non-existant?
#6218
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 23 November 2008 - 07:45 AM
If the entirety of the description of God is "How one makes ethical decisions", then sure, that God exists. It's not worthy of worship, it's not sentient and it sure as hell doesn't alter the way I live my life.The thing is, most of the time, God is defined as a sentient, all knowing all powerful benevolent creator. That God probably does not exist.Logically, no, concepts don't exist. So are you saying that God does exist? Because yes, I do realize that at the very least, God is a construct by which to measure morals and ethics, just like inches are a construct by which to measure distance, height, width, and the like, and liters are a construct by which to measure volume. Despite that, it is believed (by those of faith) that God is more than just a construct.
This is not post your opinion. This is DEBATES. Learn to.i personally believe he is real. i mean, the universe cant of created itself, right? just like a house cant build itself! and just because you cant see wind, will you just assume that its non-existant?
Edited by darkknight014, 23 November 2008 - 07:47 AM.
#6219
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 23 November 2008 - 08:17 PM
No, that God would not exist. It would be a concept, and concepts don't exist independently. They exist inasmuch as a person can imagine them. But if everything of imagination existed, then unicorns, pixies, elves, goblins and the like would also all exist.If the entirety of the description of God is "How one makes ethical decisions", then sure, that God exists. It's not worthy of worship, it's not sentient and it sure as hell doesn't alter the way I live my life.The thing is, most of the time, God is defined as a sentient, all knowing all powerful benevolent creator. That God probably does not exist.
#6220
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 24 November 2008 - 01:39 AM
As concepts, yes, they do exist. As real, tangible things as they are claimed to be, no, they don't. That's the point I was making about God.A concept exists AS A CONCEPT. Just as an idea exists as an idea. A can of soda exists as a tangible can of soda that we can independently verify exists. As concepts, anything exists. It's only when brought into real use that it matters. That's the point of this whole discussion, no?You're arguing in circles. Stop.No, that God would not exist. It would be a concept, and concepts don't exist independently. They exist inasmuch as a person can imagine them. But if everything of imagination existed, then unicorns, pixies, elves, goblins and the like would also all exist.
#6221
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 24 November 2008 - 06:59 AM
Arguing in circles? No, a circular argument would be something like:-Concepts exist-God is a concept-God existsWhat is your definition of real? In speaking of things existing, I'm arguing that in order for them to exist, they have to be independent. They can't rely on something else. Concepts rely on people to conceive them. A piece of wood would exist with or without people. An inch would not exist unless someone was able to define it. And even then, an inch isn't really definable as anything more than a unit of measurement. What does it look like? Can you touch it? Does it have a smell? Does it make sound? If God is real, He would exist despite anything else.As concepts, yes, they do exist. As real, tangible things as they are claimed to be, no, they don't. That's the point I was making about God.A concept exists AS A CONCEPT. Just as an idea exists as an idea. A can of soda exists as a tangible can of soda that we can independently verify exists. As concepts, anything exists. It's only when brought into real use that it matters. That's the point of this whole discussion, no?You're arguing in circles. Stop.
#6222
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:35 AM
No, that's logic. A equals B. B equals C. Therefore, A equals C. That's not a circle. That's a line. A circular argument is this:-Concepts exist. Here's why.-No they don't. They're made up.-Concepts exist. Here's more reasons why.-No they don't. They're made up.Concepts exist. Here's differently worded reasons why.My definition of real? What do you mean?Something can't exist if it relies on something else to exist? Parasites exist, yet they depend on a host. Humans exist, yet we rely on nature to nourish us, we rely on shelter to keep us from the wind and rain, we rely on a lot of things to function.An inch is a way of describing something, not something itself. What does a color taste like? Hm? Yeah. Same concept.I'll ignore your comment about God, because as we all know, when you talk about God, you have to throw out all logic.Arguing in circles? No, a circular argument would be something like:-Concepts exist-God is a concept-God existsWhat is your definition of real? In speaking of things existing, I'm arguing that in order for them to exist, they have to be independent. They can't rely on something else. Concepts rely on people to conceive them. A piece of wood would exist with or without people. An inch would not exist unless someone was able to define it. And even then, an inch isn't really definable as anything more than a unit of measurement. What does it look like? Can you touch it? Does it have a smell? Does it make sound? If God is real, He would exist despite anything else.
#6223
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 25 November 2008 - 04:10 PM
No, that's just an argument. A circular argument would be one where the initial proposition and the result are the same thing.That's basically the point I was trying to make. They rely on something else in terms of the fact that they describe other things. They don't exist independently of anything else. A human may need nature to survive, but a human could exist without anything else, even if only for a few moments. Parasites also can exist without a host, although they would eventually starve and die. Concepts such as measurements, colors, etc. cannot.No, that's logic. A equals B. B equals C. Therefore, A equals C. That's not a circle. That's a line. A circular argument is this:-Concepts exist. Here's why.-No they don't. They're made up.-Concepts exist. Here's more reasons why.-No they don't. They're made up.Concepts exist. Here's differently worded reasons why.My definition of real? What do you mean?Something can't exist if it relies on something else to exist? Parasites exist, yet they depend on a host. Humans exist, yet we rely on nature to nourish us, we rely on shelter to keep us from the wind and rain, we rely on a lot of things to function.An inch is a way of describing something, not something itself. What does a color taste like? Hm? Yeah. Same concept.I'll ignore your comment about God, because as we all know, when you talk about God, you have to throw out all logic.
#6224
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 25 November 2008 - 11:45 PM
It's a circular argument because all you do is keep restating the same thing, and so do I, and it's going in A CIRCLE. See how that works?!Concepts exist. Get over it. They exist as concepts. I'm not sure how better to explain it to you.No, that's just an argument. A circular argument would be one where the initial proposition and the result are the same thing.That's basically the point I was trying to make. They rely on something else in terms of the fact that they describe other things. They don't exist independently of anything else. A human may need nature to survive, but a human could exist without anything else, even if only for a few moments. Parasites also can exist without a host, although they would eventually starve and die. Concepts such as measurements, colors, etc. cannot.
#6225
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 26 November 2008 - 12:55 AM
Argument from personal incredulity? I thought this forum was past that. Just because you can't see it happening doesn't mean it doesn't.God is DEFINITELY real...even if you think about it from a scientific standpoint, the odds of us just twitching a finger are unlikely based on the complex chemical reactions and neural pathways required to do something even as small as that.heck, the probability of us doing ANYTHING without any sort of divine intervention is really low, pretty much impossible...this, in itself, proves God's existence.
