ISIS

The E wrote:

DDHv wrote:The existence of things that cannot be explained from inside the box. Such as free will, the laws of thermodynamics and other information in physics, human creativity, miracles, unselfish love, even the existence of playfulness in humans and many animals. I've read about how much otters enjoy play. So do I.

Why do you believe that none of this is explainable without invoking something not contained within the physical universe?

If you are going to use the Bible's definition, please use it correctly. For example, do a search for the places where God says, "IF you XXX, then YYY." The God of the Bible believes in free will, with consequences.

No. The authors of the bible did.

As I've explained in my previous post, I do not believe free will (as an ultimately acausal force) actually exists. Everything we do arises from interactions of ever-increasing complexity which ultimately derive from the basic interactions between the fundamental particles of the universe.

Your POV is understood. You insist on a closed universe. Where, in the box, is a reason for the beginning of that universe? You do not live your life without making choices, and I hope you don't live it without at least some creativity, unselfish love, and play. Have you considered that in a totally deterministic universe no thought can be relied on to fit that, rather than be a random chemical result?

You apparently have difficulty understanding my point of view. Of course we make choices and have thoughts and all that. But the question is: Is there an acausal element to this? By which I mean, is there a single action we can do that does not, can not, have a cause explainable by the mechanisms that are at work within us?

IF there is no entry from outside, THEN no miracle is possible. Point to a proof of error that is based on facts, not current theories, please. The statement that there is error is commonly made, but so far, no one has been able to show me exactly where and back it up with fact.

Do you have archeological evidence to support the idea that the miracles as mentioned in the bible happened? Do you have archeological evidence showing that the biblical flood happened as described? Tenshinai already posted a few instances where archeology utterly failed to support the bible.

I can't see the days = epochs idea either. There are too many facts against it. At least two theories, consistent with present physics, exist that would allow a literal seven days, if outside intervention is not ruled out.

Name one. I seriously do wish to know how you can get from the Big Bang to a universe inhabitable by humans in a mere seven days without completely violating several laws of physics.

I present for outside intervention, in addition to the existence of the universe as is,

You're using the existence of the universe as proof that god is real?

Why am I taking you seriously again?

the finding of chariot parts like those of Mosiac Egypt in the Gulf of Aquaba tongue of the Red Sea;

To quote the article: "Are chariot wheels found on the floor of the red sea that date back to 1400 BCE enough to prove that the red sea actually split and the Israelites and the Egyptians actually passed through on dry land as the bible relates?"

The answer, as with any rhetorical question like that, is "No".

the discovery of cooler pieces of crust below subduction zones;

Which book of the bible mentioned this?

the fact that humans dominate the earth and its life;

what

the existence of a society that travels much and has rapidly increasing knowledge;

what

Hang on, do you claim that this is somehow proof of supernatural intervention on our behalf now.

the fact that you think it wrong, not just a chance result, that we should believe in a God who did not make us robots.

Please walk me through the line of proof that goes from "The E is a skeptic and believes in a completely physical universe" to "god is real".

I think God often rates our importance above what we do, except for those who puff themselves up. I wonder, do they really believe themselves?

Have you considered the possibility that God wants us to actually make real choices with real results, even when it means He needs to step in at a great personal cost so He can forgive and still be totally honest

What great personal cost is that again? To whom is this god of yours accountable in order for some, any, action of his to carry a cost?


Here's something I would like you to do. Track down Peter Watts' novel "Blindsight". It's available for free off of his website. Please read it, and pay special attention to its ruminations on the existence and value of free will. I would like to hear your thoughts.

smr wrote:Allright...if your truly serious about this subject lets test your theory. Ask God to prove himself to you! Sit down and ask God to prove himself. Be sure to say this out loud. Next, document your everyday life for a year. This test is not to prove a particular religion but to prove that their is a divine creator (power or force).

The E, I would never do this because I have had a near death experience. This experience was so extremely scary but so wonderful at the same time. This experience is so hard for me to put into words what happened.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:Allright...if your truly serious about this subject lets test your theory. Ask God to prove himself to you! Sit down and ask God to prove himself. Be sure to say this out loud. Next, document your everyday life for a year. This test is not to prove a particular religion but to prove that their is a divine creator (power or force).

The E, I would never do this because I have had a near death experience. This experience was so extremely scary but so wonderful at the same time. This experience is so hard for me to put into words what happened.

So what I am gathering from this is that god, or at least the god you believe in, is such a cthuloid entity that you would rather not know of him.

As incentives to believe go, that's pretty bad.

smr wrote:Do not challenge God because ignorance is bliss. He will prove himself to an individual when asked to. I would not want anyone to experience what I experienced during my time of tribulations not even my worst enemy. So I humbly beg of you not to accept my challenge because I speak from experience. Oh please spare me the comments about God. I asked for God to prove himself to me and all he did was remove my protection from evil.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:Do not challenge God because ignorance is bliss. He will prove himself to an individual when asked to. I would not want anyone to experience what I experienced during my time of tribulations not even my worst enemy. So I humbly beg of you not to accept my challenge because I speak from experience. Oh please spare me the comments about God. I asked for God to prove himself to me and all he did was remove my protection from evil.

My life has been plenty shit without me ever asking god for proof of his existence.

And, above all else: Any god that answers inquisitiveness with wrath isn't worthy of worship.

smr wrote:Your last qoute shows your ignorance. All God did was remove his protection from evil.

It was my choice or my self will that caused the problem.

Picture God as the ultimate Father/Mother who wants the best for his children (that means you The E). He will let you walk your own path good or evil. If you ask him to prove himself to you, he will tailor a message that you will understand.

If your afraid of God proving himself to you, why don't you ask God prove himself to you in a loving way.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:Your last qoute shows your ignorance. All God did was remove his protection from evil.

Tell me what the difference is between the two, because as far as I can work out, there isn't any.

It was my choice or my self will that caused the problem.

Did you choose to have a miserable time? All you said was that you asked your god to prove himself to you. Again: If asking for something tangible equates to asking to be made as miserable as possible in your god's thinking, then maybe your god isn't worthy of the respect you're showering on him.

Also, just as an aside, NOTHING of what you said makes me believe in god. So you were miserable for a time? Well, that fucking sucks, and you have my utmost sympathy, but what exactly makes you think that it was god "removing his protection" that put you into that situation? How can you be so sure? Because human cognition is a tricky thing; it's based around working out causality, but as we all know, it can go wrong at times. Basically, correlation != causation.

Picture God as the ultimate Father/Mother who wants the best for his children (that means you The E). He will let you walk your own path good or evil. If you ask him to prove himself to you, he will tailor a message that you will understand.

Will he come down from the heavens to move an immovable rock or something? Because if it's all about how well everything can run or how miserable existence can be, I do not need god to get to those points.

If your afraid of God proving himself to you, why don't you ask God prove himself to you in a loving way.

And how would I do that?

At the end of it all, nothing except direct, personal intervention by god that does not have any other possible explanation will make me believe. (And even if that happens, I will have pointed questions about how much of an utter, sociopathic shitbag he thinks he can be)


While we're at it: None of the popular depictions of god (including his behaviour in the bible) makes me think that he is worthy of worship. That we've been able to build an entire cosmology, an entire theoretical model of the universe with good predictive power, without factoring any gods into it tells me that god is nothing. He doesn't exist, has never existed, and unless we're really unlucky, will never exist.

smr wrote:Then you should have no fear accepting the challenge because God is not real. Either God is real or not! Or is it deep down in your soul that some shred of existance believes in a Divine Creator therefore The E is afraid of the challenge (rightfully so in that case). A man of pure science should not be scared of proving or disproving the existance of God.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:Then you should have no fear accepting the challenge because God is not real. Either God is real or not! Or is it deep down in your soul that some shred of existance believes in a Divine Creator therefore The E is afraid of the challenge (rightfully so in that case). A man of pure science should not be scared of proving or disproving the existance of God.

A man of pure science (and I admit to only aspiring to be one, not that I am one right now) knows that the existence of god cannot be proven. God is, very explicitly so, not provable; there is no experiment that can confirm his existence, nor is there an experiment capable of determining whether he is absent. All your little experiment would prove is whether or not that particular form of placebo effect or misplaced correlation works on me.

All I know is that nothing that happens in this world requires god to exist. And if he does, well, I'd rather not live in this world anymore.