• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of God

BillyJoe said:
Robin,

It seems we're even closer than I thought. :)




But what we do have a need for is a hypothesis about origins and, if the best we can do is some sort of multi-dimensional circular spacetime continuum, have we really done much better than a god hypothesis?

regards,
BillyJoe
Click to expand...
But a god is not a hypothesis about origins, it is simply moving the problem back somewhat. A god implies intelligence with implies a dynamic mind which implies time (by your own claim), so we have your problem or origins all over again, just further up the street so to speak.

Add to that we have the question of how 'mind' can be a fundamental substance and yet capable of complex tasks. If mind is (as it necessarily is) a complex system in itself then that implies it is dependent on less complex parts, this god is dependent on something that is not god.

In other words it does not move us towards a solution, it moves us away.

And in any case it is not a hypothesis since it is not testable.

But for our own universe we have Hawking's hypothesis that is testable and if true would remove the need for any outside force to light the fuse on the big bang. And it is not quite circular time, but it is finite time with no boundaries, which is not so far away. Hawking even uses the analogy of the spherical earth to desribe the concept.
 
The endless BS in this thread shows how people love to talk about something that probably can never be understood.
This thread is like a Church.
 
Belz... said:
How about "We can safely assume that there is no god until evidence to the contrary is presented" ?
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly (I have passed my father-in-law's copy onto my sister-in-law), Richard Dawkins put it like this:
Category 6: "God almost certainly does not exist, and I live my life as if there is no God"?

Belz... said:
The fact remains that "There is no god" is a concise way of putting it.
Click to expand...


It sounds more like Dawkin's category 7:
"I know there is no God"
 
BillyJoe said:
If I remember correctly (I have passed my father-in-law's copy onto my sister-in-law), Richard Dawkins put it like this:
Category 6: "God almost certainly does not exist, and I live my life as if there is no God"?

It sounds more like Dawkin's category 7:
"I know there is no God"
Click to expand...

I'm not in a category.

Nice two-part dodge, by the way.
 
Saying, “GOD DID IT” is not much different than telling a child who asks why something is the way it is, by giving the non-answer “BECAUSE I SAY SO”, there is no proof and/or thought behind both of them.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
BillyJoe said:
He has said more in 1 short post than you have said in 100. ;)
Click to expand...

You may want to pick your friends with more care. Rando22 seems to be a big fan of the ET Corn Dogs translation code too. In fact, I think Rando22 may smell a bit like sweaty feet.
 

Attachments

  • 200px-Carlb-sockpuppet-01.jpg
    200px-Carlb-sockpuppet-01.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 51
Robin,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
It is a refreshing change. :)


Robin said:
But a god is not a hypothesis about origins, it is simply moving the problem back somewhat. A god implies intelligence with implies a dynamic mind which implies time (by your own claim), so we have your problem or origins all over again, just further up the street so to speak.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am aware of this problem.
In his book, Dawkins called it the real Boeing 747 problem.
Yes, if there is a god, then we will have the really big problem of god's nature and origins to solve.
But this still does not preclude him from existing.
If god exists, maybe we will figure him out, or....

Add to that we have the question of how 'mind' can be a fundamental substance and yet capable of complex tasks. If mind is (as it necessarily is) a complex system in itself then that implies it is dependent on less complex parts, this god is dependent on something that is not god.
Click to expand...


...maybe he will prove too hard a nut to crack.
(and I'm not really being facetious here)

In other words it does not move us towards a solution, it moves us away.
Click to expand...


I know what you mean but, if there is a god and we find him, we will surely be closer to a solution, not further away. But, yeah, the distance we will have come to find him, may be as nothing compared with how far we will still have to go to solve him.
Bummer hey?

But what we do have a need for is a hypothesis about origins and, if the best we can do is some sort of multi-dimensional circular spacetime continuum, have we really done much better than a god hypothesis?
Click to expand...
And in any case it is not a hypothesis since it is not testable.
Click to expand...


If you read carefully, you will see that I wasn't actually saying that god is a hypothesis. I was simply making a comparison to the so called multi-dimensional circular (or curved) spacetime continuum hypothesis, which is also not really an hypothesis, though you think otherwise....

But for our own universe we have Hawking's hypothesis that is testable and if true would remove the need for any outside force to light the fuse on the big bang. And it is not quite circular time, but it is finite time with no boundaries, which is not so far away. Hawking even uses the analogy of the spherical earth to desribe the concept.
Click to expand...


Okay, perhaps I've missed something here.
Is Hawking's hypothesis any more of an hypothesis than the god hypothesis? Is it really testable? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, I really want to know, because I had always thought that it was mere conjecture on Hawking's part, a way of seeing a little more clearly how the problem could possibly be solved. The initial grasping attempts towards a possible way to a solution as it were. Not an actual solution to the problem.
Am I wrong about this?
 
Belz... said:
Do you ever do anything without insulting people ?...You must be a hoot at parties.
Click to expand...


Alas, I do not do well at parties. :(

But that is not because I insult people.
(They already know I am really a harmless little joker :) )
It's just that I hate the friggin' small talk. ;)


regards,
BillyJoe
 
Foster Zygote said:
You may want to pick your friends with more care. Rando22 seems to be a big fan of the ET Corn Dogs translation code too. In fact, I think Rando22 may smell a bit like sweaty feet.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't know, I was thinking more pawn than sockpuppet. :)
 
Hardenberg seems to be unwilling to address the issue of why the Ten Commandments are relevant to modern law.
 
Belz... said:
No kidding.
Click to expand...


Actually, I was kidding.

Belz... said:
It's not small talk you hate, but short talk.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...talk...ta
No, it's definitely small talk.


Belz... said:
You must prefer long-winded philosophical nonsense.
Click to expand...


Oh, no, you have me confused with my dog, Ralph.
I often catch him sitting on the back porch looking up at the sky.
He glances at me over his shoulder, entreating me to join him in his searching enquiry.
He talks a lot of nonsense that boy.

:)
 
thaiboxerken said:
He knows it does not, so he'll evade the question.
Click to expand...

She...

avatar3134_1.gif

.Hardenbergh

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom