If everything in the universe adds to zero, why do we need a God?

[morgsboi]

Then your "god" is not a god.

 

I don't have a god. If you had read the comments you would have seen that I am an atheist. But that isn't what I'm basing it around. And to be fair, you haven't even contributed to this forum yet so have you got anything to say?

[A Tripolation]

I don't have a god. If you had read the comments you would have seen that I am an atheist. But that isn't what I'm basing it around. And to be fair, you haven't even contributed to this forum yet so have you got anything to say?

 

1. I never said you believed in a god. But you are basing your "disproval" of god based on an entity that doesn't fit what we view as a "god". That's intellectually dishonest.

 

2.I've been on this forum a lot longer than you and have contributed to many threads.

 

3. I did say something. My original point was that your basic premise is flawed. So everything you say afterwards as a result of that premise is wrong.

[morgsboi]

1. I never said you believed in a god. But you are basing your "disproval" of god based on an entity that doesn't fit what we view as a "god". That's intellectually dishonest.

 

2.I've been on this forum a lot longer than you and have contributed to many threads.

 

3. I did say something. My original point was that your basic premise is flawed. So everything you say afterwards as a result of that premise is wrong.

 

Always someone difficult. Read this: http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

[imatfaal]

Always someone difficult. Read this: http://www.astrosoci...02/nothing.html

 

Morgs - when you move from science to religion you need to take on board new views and standards. many religious people who are also scientists have a great understanding of science, the method, standards of proof etc. but they claim that God is beyond those constraints. God, if she exists, is supernatural, she is beyond any possibility of human understanding, beyond any testability and empirical investigation, beyond rational thought. God requires faith.

 

If you maintain that God is definable, empirically testable, a corporeal being - then you are are setting up a straw man. that is to say that you have defined God in such a way that you can show his non-existence or the fallacy of believing in his existence; but as most modern believers do not have faith in that form of God you are, in effect, proving nothing, all that has been done is that a straw man was erected and then knocked down.

 

I do not believe in the existence of God or any Gods - but unfortunately I also realise that there is no way that can ever be proven. The entire concept of God is beyond, outwith, not included, and unconnected to science. I can ask Trip and other for proof of God, and test it in my particular ways; I can get data together that suggests to me that a faith in God does not affect life outcomes; but a supernatural God is not testable, is not definable, and cannot be proven nor disproven through science.

[A Tripolation]

Always someone difficult. Read this: http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

 

Yes. I'm studying physics. I am aware of the facts presented in this link.

 

If you maintain that God is definable, empirically testable, a corporeal being - then you are are setting up a straw man. that is to say that you have defined God in such a way that you can show his non-existence or the fallacy of believing in his existence; but as most modern believers do not have faith in that form of God you are, in effect, proving nothing, all that has been done is that a straw man was erected and then knocked down.

 

Thank you for that eloquent articulation of my sentiments, imatfaal.

 

 

I can ask Trip and other for proof of God, and test it in my particular ways; I can get data together that suggests to me that a faith in God does not affect life outcomes; but a supernatural God is not testable, is not definable, and cannot be proven nor disproven through science.

 

Any any honest theist will tell you we have no proof and it is all faith.

 

You cannot mix science and religion. They are two different truths with two different knowledge sets.

[qijino1236]

Dude , how am I conscious? I see my hand and know what it is. I think of god and I think I know what it might be. Dude, how can I not be conscious?

[Appolinaria]

If a god (as he's commonly defined) exists, he created negative and positive.... or the hallucination that they make sense.

 

He doesn't have to conform to his own logic. How do we know there aren't universes where pi is 3.15

 

[morgsboi]

Okay, basically beyond our imagination is what he/she/it is defined to be.

[Appolinaria]

Yep

[morgsboi]

Yep

 

Is there any quotes in he bible at all explaining? It does say god made man in his image.

[A Tripolation]

Is there any quotes in he bible at all explaining? It does say god made man in his image.

 

If I make a crude wooden carving that resembles myself, does that carving have anywhere near the intricacy that I possess as a human? My DNA, my thoughts, etc? No.

[morgsboi]

If I make a crude wooden carving that resembles myself, does that carving have anywhere near the intricacy that I possess as a human? My DNA, my thoughts, etc? No.

I understand that but it's not what I asked. I was trying to gather information of quotes from the bible or history of how god is described to give myself a better understanding.

 

Morgs - when you move from science to religion you need to take on board new views and standards. many religious people who are also scientists have a great understanding of science, the method, standards of proof etc. but they claim that God is beyond those constraints. God, if she exists, is supernatural, she is beyond any possibility of human understanding, beyond any testability and empirical investigation, beyond rational thought. God requires faith.

 

If you maintain that God is definable, empirically testable, a corporeal being - then you are are setting up a straw man. that is to say that you have defined God in such a way that you can show his non-existence or the fallacy of believing in his existence; but as most modern believers do not have faith in that form of God you are, in effect, proving nothing, all that has been done is that a straw man was erected and then knocked down.

 

I do not believe in the existence of God or any Gods - but unfortunately I also realise that there is no way that can ever be proven. The entire concept of God is beyond, outwith, not included, and unconnected to science. I can ask Trip and other for proof of God, and test it in my particular ways; I can get data together that suggests to me that a faith in God does not affect life outcomes; but a supernatural God is not testable, is not definable, and cannot be proven nor disproven through science.

 

Okay, thanks. I understand that. Please could I re post this in a science topic to see the difference in views?

[A Tripolation]

I understand that but it's not what I asked. I was trying to gather information of quotes from the bible or history of how god is described to give myself a better understanding.

 

The Bible spends most of the time talking about how all-powerful and infinite God is. He is completely unknowable to us in the terms you seek.

 

Okay, thanks. I understand that. Please could I re post this in a science topic to see the difference in views?

 

I'm not trying to be mean, but his whole point was that a supernatural God is not the realm of science. It is magic. It is fantastical. It is faith. It doesn't matter what board you post it to.

[Jaden]

the laws of physics don't agree. Did you take in the "digging a hole" part?

 

Negative energy is one of Stephen Hawking's theories. It is his attempt to provide a rational explanation for the existence of energy and matter that does not require a God to create it. Could you please explain which part of my previous comment the laws of physics disagree with?

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by asking if I took in the digging a hole part.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Jaden

[Appolinaria]

I understand that but it's not what I asked. I was trying to gather information of quotes from the bible or history of how god is described to give myself a better understanding.

 

 

 

Okay, thanks. I understand that. Please could I re post this in a science topic to see the difference in views?

 

Well, humans are unlike other living things. We understand the complexity and intricacy behind things- or try to, at least.That's how I interpret being made in God's image, because we get the laws he's created. If there is a God, he's a pretty solid mathematician...

 

Being humans, we are flawed. We want symmetry, we strive for perfection, there are qualities of ourselves that bring shame. We try to be more perfect than we are. This longing to be something greater could also be how we are made in his image- we strive to be something more than human... there's a part of us that is unsatisfied with this corporeal form.

 

But, Morgsboi, it's how you want to interpret it, I guess. You're asking some good questions & I'm no Bible expert.

[Ben Banana]

Oh.. Now this topic is really ugly.

[Appolinaria]

Oh.. Now this topic is really ugly.

 

Cool story!

 

 

Another dime-a-dozen pretentious response. Doesn't make you look any smarter.

 

 

 

 

I see enough of your kind when I visit friends in Brooklyn. Fucking boring.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's keep it civil, people, and stay on-topic

[morgsboi]

Could you please explain which part of my previous comment the laws of physics disagree with?

It's just in my eyes, the laws of physics cannot support any "god". But it is said "god" is something that exists outside of the laws of physics. God made man in his image? So atoms? Molecules? The thing is with this is that for every answer (for or against) has a counter answer. A discussion on this will be a loop.

 

**quote (not sure how to get them on separate lines)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by asking if I took in the digging a hole part.

**quote

 

Well do you understand what it represents?

[Jaden]

It's just in my eyes, the laws of physics cannot support any "god". But it is said "god" is something that exists outside of the laws of physics. God made man in his image? So atoms? Molecules? The thing is with this is that for every answer (for or against) has a counter answer. A discussion on this will be a loop.

 

**quote (not sure how to get them on separate lines)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by asking if I took in the digging a hole part.

**quote

 

Well do you understand what it represents?

 

I agree that any scientific discussion on the topic would result in a "loop."

 

And yes I do understand the concept of your "digging a hole" metaphor.

[morgsboi]

I agree that any scientific discussion on the topic would result in a "loop."

 

And yes I do understand the concept of your "digging a hole" metaphor.

 

Okay, thats great

For anyone else reading this

What I mean by loop is the discussion will just go round in a circle. Basically the arguments will just keep going round until we are back at the start.

[Sorcerer]

Didn't read anything cept the fist post.

 

First u need the potential to create something, nothing doesn't have potential.

 

I think ur confusing the place holder on a number line (0) with nothing.

 

I don't know about God, but there was something there and always was.

 

Dude , how am I conscious? I see my hand and know what it is. I think of god and I think I know what it might be. Dude, how can I not be conscious?

 

DUDE! My hands talking to me and it IS GOD! oh wait that's just LSD.

[njaohnt]

The air in the hole is not negative. It is 0.

 

It's just in my eyes, the laws of physics cannot support any "god". But it is said "god" is something that exists outside of the laws of physics. God made man in his image? So atoms? Molecules? The thing is with this is that for every answer (for or against) has a counter answer. A discussion on this will be a loop.

 

**quote (not sure how to get them on separate lines)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by asking if I took in the digging a hole part.

**quote

 

Well do you understand what it represents?

Physics? Who said that the things out side what we see have physics?

[morgsboi]

The air in the hole is not negative. It is 0.

 

 

Physics? Who said that the things out side what we see have physics?

 

But there is no air in a vacuum.

 

Are you referring to a place outside the space-time continuum? Because that isn't what we are discussing.

[njaohnt]

But there is no air in a vacuum.

 

Are you referring to a place outside the space-time continuum? Because that isn't what we are discussing.

No air in the vacuum? Still, it's zero, not negative. Nothing is nothing, not negative. If I'm not making sense, I'm probably thinking of something completely different.