Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 15097 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6763
  • Darwins +904/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #725 on: July 20, 2014, 04:52:39 PM »
Random, rare, supernatural events, caused by invisible undetectable beings, by definition cannot be systematically studied.

Once you add godly whims to heal or not, according to some plan that humans are not privy to, it stops being science. Trying to do research on miracles performed by god would be like trying to do research on something created by Q from Star Trek. As soon as you think you have found out something definite, he just changes it into something different. You cannot do science that way. The thing you are studying has to at least stay the thing you are studying for long enough to study it.

Something else just occurred to me. Religious folks like to say, "The doctors said he would never walk again" or "The doctors had given up on her" or "We took the child to every doctor and nothing helped" as the baseline for deciding that a subsequent recovery was a miracle.

But wait a minute here. What doctors? How many? Where? Who exactly were these doctors who who had consulted on the case and pronounced it incurable or fatal?

Were they 50 cutting edge Nobel-prize winning researchers with access to the very latest treatments? (No.) Were they 50 world-reknowned medical experts in the field who had consulted on hundreds of similar cases? (No.) Or was it the two or three physicians who happened to be available at the local hospital in town, probably not even experts on the type of illness or condition? (Yes.)

So, why are the religious so willing to accept that the "doctors" knew what they were talking about when they said the condition was incurable? But not willing to accept that the "doctors" know what they are talking about when they say that 2% of these cases get better by themselves, or that the treatment took longer to work than usual, or that the original diagnosis was a mistake.

Especially with a rare condition where even an expert might not have seen very many cases, on what basis, and for what purpose are doctors making these kinds of statements?  I think someone already mentioned that doctors sometimes err on the side of preparing a family for bad news by giving a worst-case prognosis--"In 98% of these cases, the injury is permanent. I'm very sorry. You have to accept the possibility that he may never walk again".

What the family hears is, "I'm very sorry. He will never walk again," not "Be realistic, but there is some hope. There is a 2% chance that he will recover."  If the person does not get better, the family has had the bad news already. If the person does get better, the doctors are heroes and the family is overwhelmed with gratitude. Unless they prayed about it. Then eff the doctors and their stupid 2% chance. It was turtles, I mean god all the way down.

Finally, if god is the decider of who gets well and who doesn't and it is all a part of his perfect plan, why ever go to a doctor at all? Just pray for a miracle. If you get well, it was god's will. If you stay sick, it was god's will. If you die, it was god's will. Then you can  tell what god really wanted without the confounding variables of medical science.

Stop clogging up the health care system that the rest of us respect and rely on. Go to church instead.

 
« Last Edit: July 20, 2014, 04:59:39 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #726 on: July 21, 2014, 12:24:46 PM »
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2008/08/lourdes-and-healing.html

Quote
The point of investigating Lourdes miracles for the church is to give glory to Mary, not to establish a scientific law or a statistical incidence rate on miracles.
This is what I like to call a red flag, especially considering the other things I already mentioned.  The purpose of investigating these events has nothing to do with science; it is simply to get it on record that science can't explain them, at which point it's 'safe' to pass them off as God-given miracles in order to glorify Mary (and the church, of course).

Care to respond to this?
It's something else. Metacrock's opinion about Lourdes. Not what it really is.

Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist.
No branch of science whatsoever is based around the idea of studying things that might exist based on things that do exist.  Science is based on understanding things that have been demonstrated to exist.
I agree with you. The branch is not based on that.
Nevertheless, before finding the Higgs particle in the LHC, did this branch (in our case Particle Physics) study something that might exist (the Higgs Boson)? What were those study based on if it's not "things that do exist"?
I'll say it again
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #727 on: July 21, 2014, 12:42:19 PM »
What doctors? How many? Where? Who exactly were these doctors who who had consulted on the case and pronounced it incurable or fatal?
It depends on what miracle you are looking at. The answer is "enough" there was enough doctors. If you want to add one, go ahead and add one of your own. The files are not locked in a vault. They are available to every scpecialist who want to consult them. If you had read the book I suggested you to read, you would have known such things. You keep making assertions about miracle without enough knowledge. This does not help the discussion at all. All it does is confuses other readers, presenting them false/unbased ideas as real. I think there is a word for that...

Quote
was it the two or three physicians who happened to be available at the local hospital in town, probably not even experts on the type of illness or condition? (Yes.)
Again, it depends on what miracle you are looking at. I'm pretty sure you just invented these numbers.

Quote
So, why are the religious so willing to accept that the "doctors" knew what they were talking about when they said the condition was incurable? But not willing to accept that the "doctors" know what they are talking about when they say that 2% of these cases get better by themselves, or that the treatment took longer to work than usual, or that the original diagnosis was a mistake.
They are not willing? What article makes you believe that? You keep making claims like that without supporting them. Do you have an example of a Doctor that wrote to the Vatican about some miracle that shouldn't be considered as such and the Vatican said "we refuse your opinion"?

Quote
Especially with a rare condition where even an expert might not have seen very many cases, on what basis, and for what purpose are doctors making these kinds of statements?
You'll find the answers in the book that I suggested you to read.

Quote
Finally, if god is the decider of who gets well and who doesn't and it is all a part of his perfect plan, why ever go to a doctor at all?
We need doctors because miracles are not what you make them to be. They are not a cure!
Remember when I tried to explain to you :
Now what you are talking about is a clinical research on the use of miracle as a cure for disease.
IT IS NOT A SOLUTION. It has never been a solution to the disease, it will never be.
Miracles are acts from God. Not a "medicinal product"or a treatment.
What did you understand then?

Miracle are not medicine. They are not some kind of solution to a illness.
THEY ARE VISIBLE ACTIONS FROM GOD, proof of him existing outside our body.
You're worth more than my time

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #728 on: July 21, 2014, 12:44:07 PM »
I'll say it again
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?

Jumping in on the discussion, I agree with you that there's a very small chance that a "god" (not necessarily jesus) might exist.   If you'd assume that "a" god did exist, then you'd have to look at the universe to try to determine his characteristics.   If he did exist, would he resemble the god described in the Bible?

1 - The universe is seemingly infinite and very hostile to life, with very small numbers of planets even potentially able to support life, and those planets can be damaged through any number of cosmic catastrophes.

2 - Life on our planet appears to evolve through natural selection rather than a benevolent design.  We have body odor, cancer, parasites and diseases, children are born with severe retardations through no fault of their own, and there are animals that would surely eat us given the chance and opportunity.   If a deity created beautiful rainbows and puppy dogs they also created tapeworms, sulfurous springs, and vampire bats.

3 - If you assume that a loving, benevolent, caring god created us... why do things like set the price of a slave in the old testament?  Why do things like say it's ok to force young virgin women into marriage after killing their family?   Why insist that the only way to get to a magical place after we die is to believe in something of which there is zero proof?

4 - Why are so many things in the Bible absolutely untrue?   The earth is not 6000 years old.  A global flood never covered the planet or drained off through a magic drain in the grand canyon to nowhere.  Millions of species didn't fit on a boat and not eat each other for a full year.   8 people didn't repopulate 7,000,000,000 people of all ethnicities in 4,000 years.   There were civilizations on earth writing histories down while the "great flood" was going on.   No person has ever risen from the dead.  No one could survive in the belly of a whale for three days.  There's no outside writing or evidence of Jesus in spite of all his miracles.   Why are all Jesus's miracles the type that a stage magician can duplicate and the type that left no lasting proof?

5 - Why does the Bible promise in at least a dozen places that God will answer prayers and then God answers no prayers?    All seemingly answered prayers are coincidences that happen equally to believers and non-believers alike, and no impossible prayer is ever answered, no matter who agrees in prayer.   Why would god hide himself to scientific studies when he was happy to "prove" himself to Elijah to justify the murder of all the Baal Priests.


Theology is what makes atheists into atheists Lukvance.  We've all studied this stuff and it's not plausible or logical to believe in your description of God at all.

There's nothing wrong with studying the question, but the answer is that "God is Imaginary"
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #729 on: July 21, 2014, 12:53:06 PM »
Speaking of miracle cures... I saw them mention on this site about a girl who got rabies and was in the advanced stage.  No human had ever survived that.  She was the first.   Her family and church prayed like crazy for her.   This is represented as a miracle from god.

I read the story to find out what actually happened.

The girl contracted rabies by trying to save a small bat that'd fallen to the floor in her church, getting a tiny pin-prick bite.
The girl was a high school athlete with a strong body and immune system to start with.
Doctors contacted the CDC and found out everything there was to find out about rabies.
They discovered that, given enough time, human immune system could fight off rabies, but it was faster than the immune system and got too far into the brain before the body produced it's own resistance.
They discovered that the disease couldn't pass between cells that were "blocked" by something like the drugs that cause medicinal coma in patients.
For the very first time in history, doctors tried a new cocktail of forced coma + anti-viral drugs to cure the girl.
After many weeks, she woke up, and spent the next painful and frustrating year learning again how to walk and stand and talk.


It's infuriating and insulting to think that "god" cursed this kid with the most horrific situation possible in response to her trying to save one of his creatures, and then 100s of years of medical know how and viral study lead to a risky "first time ever" medical solution which was attempted with the idea in mind that it MIGHT WORK... and then it's called a miracle?

The ONLY thing in that whole equation that's not needed at all to get the same result is PRAYER and "god".

If that's your "god" he's a piece of crap who doesn't deserve worship.   You only make excuses for all the awful random things that happen because god does not exist, and awful, random things happen that would not happen if there was a loving god.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12383
  • Darwins +683/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #730 on: July 21, 2014, 12:59:11 PM »
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?

This is a highly disinegneuous statement.  The things that "might exist" in each case are quantifiably different. 

IN particle physics, new particles are theorized based on mathematical models.  That is, the current models - like e=mc2 - are incomplete and have some error to them.  That error is explained in variouse ways, like dark matter or new particles.  Then, based on the math, the new particle is defined.  That definition makes predictions.  And here is the crucial difference: then they go look for the particle.  They test the predictions and compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

In theology - which is a pretend field to begin with - they don't do that. They have no way to study their particular "something that might exist," except through what other people have written, sometimes thousands of years ago.  And, let's face it, what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit.  On top of that, they do not make predictions because even if they did, they have no way to verify, no way to compare observed reality to their hypothesis.




Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #731 on: July 21, 2014, 01:20:03 PM »
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?

This is a highly disinegneuous statement.  The things that "might exist" in each case are quantifiably different. 

IN particle physics, new particles are theorized based on mathematical models.  That is, the current models - like e=mc2 - are incomplete and have some error to them.  That error is explained in variouse ways, like dark matter or new particles.  Then, based on the math, the new particle is defined.  That definition makes predictions.  And here is the crucial difference: then they go look for the particle.  They test the predictions and compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

In theology - which is a pretend field to begin with - they don't do that. They have no way to study their particular "something that might exist," except through what other people have written, sometimes thousands of years ago.  And, let's face it, what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit.  On top of that, they do not make predictions because even if they did, they have no way to verify, no way to compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

And for all the basic reasons why theology is bullshit and the answer is "god is imaginary" I've outlined many of them above including a specific example of a "medical miracle!"  which was not the product of a miracle at all but simply trying a radical new approach based on science since past approaches had failed.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47465427.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47469357.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47473837.html

This is considered a miracle because the family believes it was... but if you read the article, the only people actually doing anything useful at all are the doctors.

The family could have been tossing salt over their shoulders onto horseshoes and gotten the exact same result.  Believers have to cling to scientific successes as "miracles" because "god" doesn't ever do ANYTHING.

What kind of being would take all the credit for everyone else's hard work, then blame them for their failings?  The Christian God!  Worst manager in the history of the universe.  Lol.



« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 01:28:05 PM by YRM_DM »
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #732 on: July 21, 2014, 01:34:16 PM »
In theology - which is a pretend field to begin with - they don't do that. They have no way to study their particular "something that might exist," except through what other people have written, sometimes thousands of years ago.  And, let's face it, what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit.  On top of that, they do not make predictions because even if they did, they have no way to verify, no way to compare observed reality to their hypothesis.
Oh, how do you know that? Have you study theology? Do you have a diploma from some school? Maybe you know some people who have a diploma? Did they agree with your statement ("what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit"."they do not make predictions")?

I've met with graduated students from Theology. They would strongly disagree with you.
They study what might exist through very real things like people, behaviors, lives, rituals, history...etc. Of course some of the theory is based on books written by other people. These books ideas are based on real things. The possibility of these things being wrong is looked at with scrutiny by thousands of students and scholars worldwide. Papers are published. (look at some of them here)
Peer reviewing is a common practice among them.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #733 on: July 21, 2014, 01:39:46 PM »
IN particle physics, new particles are theorized based on mathematical models.  That is, the current models - like e=mc2 - are incomplete and have some error to them.  That error is explained in variouse ways, like dark matter or new particles.  Then, based on the math, the new particle is defined.  That definition makes predictions.  And here is the crucial difference: then they go look for the particle.  They test the predictions and compare observed reality to their hypothesis.
In theology, God is theorized based on different models.  The current models might be incomplete and might have some error to them. That error is explained in various ways (like culture or localisation or crazy people). Then, based on the models, God is defined.  That definition makes predictions.  Then they go look for God. 
They test the predictions and compare observed reality to their hypothesis.

I don't see any difference between the two.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #734 on: July 21, 2014, 01:47:40 PM »
Jumping in on the discussion, I agree with you that there's a very small chance that a "god" (not necessarily jesus) might exist.   If you'd assume that "a" god did exist, then you'd have to look at the universe to try to determine his characteristics.   If he did exist, would he resemble the god described in the Bible?
Welcome to the discussion. I've read your posts.
No, God would not resemble the God described in the Old Testament. Most of the objections/questions that you have is based on the God from the Old testament. For most of us (Catholics) the Old testament is just a story without factual events. (like harry potter)
If you have arguments against the existence of God that are not based on the Old testament I would gladly address them.
About the story of the girl with rabies could you sent us the link where it is said to be recognize as a miracle by the Catholic church (Vatican)?
These are the miracles we are talking about on this thread since I am trying to prove the existence of Catholic God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #735 on: July 21, 2014, 01:49:01 PM »
It's something else. Metacrock's opinion about Lourdes. Not what it really is.
Care to supply a statement from an official source in the Vatican to tell us what the purpose of those investigations is, then?

Quote from: Lukvance
I agree with you. The branch is not based on that.
Nevertheless, before finding the Higgs particle in the LHC, did this branch (in our case Particle Physics) study something that might exist (the Higgs Boson)? What were those study based on if it's not "things that do exist"?
The purpose of particle physics is to study what actually exists, not to study things that might exist.  Until the Higgs boson was shown to exist with actual physical evidence, it could not be studied via particle physics.  The purpose of the investigation into it was not to 'study' it, but to find evidence of it so that it could then be studied.  Statements like this demonstrate that you don't really understand the purpose of the Higgs boson investigations and thus that claims you make about it cannot be taken seriously.

It would be like proposing a biological study of unicorns or leprechauns when there are no specimens to actually study.  At best, such a 'study' would be speculative.  Now, there is a place for speculation in science, but you cannot perform a study on speculated data, because there is no way to verify whether the speculations are correct or not.  It is only when you find hard physical evidence on something that you can study it.

Quote from: Lukvance
I'll say it again
"Particle Physics allows the study of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the study of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."
Do you have any counter argument that could withstand critics? Or do you accept that these phrases are true?
I demonstrated above that your phrases cannot be true.  Particle physics does not allow the study of things that might exist based on things that do exist.  No branch of science can do this.  What science can do is investigate something that might exist in order to find hard physical evidence of it which can then be studied.  If you do not find that hard evidence, then you cannot study it.  For example, we cannot study what happened at the moment of the Big Bang because we have no evidence of what happened at that moment.

----

This is a report on the actual process undertaken at Lourdes:  http://www.economist.com/node/304212

According to Dr. Patrick Theillier, the head of the Medical Bureau, here is the actual process used to investigate healings at Lourdes.

First, they have a series of standards that must be met: the original disease must be incapacitating, with a sure and precise diagnosis; the cure must be sudden, instantaneous, and without convalescence; it must not come from medical treatment, and must permanently restore normal normal function to the beneficiary.  Psychiatric conditions are excluded because diagnoses are too uncertain and recoveries are too hard to assess (in effect, these are too subjective to be investigated).  Only if these standards are met is it investigated.

Second, the patient is examined by one of the doctors of the Medical Bureau, in consultation with their attending doctors, and the patient's regular doctor is also consulted.

Third, the patient is told to return in one year with their medical records so those can be investigated by an association of doctors resident in Lourdes for three years.  Assuming none of them can find a medical cause for the cure, it is passed up to the international medical committee of 20 doctors, who do additional tests and examinations and then put the matter to a vote of the committee.  Notably, this is not to determine whether it is a miracle or not; it is solely to determine if the cure surpasses normal medical expectations in ways which cannot be accounted for by scientific understanding.

I have no problem with acknowledging that these investigations are scientific up to this point.  As the article describes, this is actually a sort of inverse peer review; instead of looking for a sound scientific basis for the cases and discarding anomalies, they discard the cases that have a sound scientific basis, leaving only the anomalies for review.  If it were left at this point, where the anomalies were recommended for further study to try to figure out what actually happened in that case, I would have no problem at all with considering it scientific.

However, it is what they do next that I contend is not scientific.  They pass the anomalies on to non-scientists - specifically, the bishop of the patient's diocese and his theological councilors - to check whether the cure has any spiritual significance for the beneficiary and witnesses, and whether it reinforced their faith in God.  However, note above that they exclude things like psychiatric conditions specifically because they are too subjective to investigate scientifically.  So, too, this spiritual significance and faith in God that are used as the final benchmark are too subjective to investigate scientifically.  In short, this final step of the investigation cannot be scientific because it involves factors which science cannot possibly investigate.

In short, scientists are in no way involved in actually determining whether the cure was miraculous or not, and the criteria used for that are too subjective to be examined by science in any case.  Therefore, the determination whether a given cure is miraculous is not scientific, even though science is used to exclude cases where medical science can explain what happened.  In order for an investigation to be scientific, it must be scientific all the way through.  The investigations at Lourdes are not; they are only scientific to the point where the international medical committee votes on whether they can be explained or not.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #736 on: July 21, 2014, 01:52:18 PM »
Luck only one set of books separates you from non theists.....The NT. The NT/OT are both fiction ...like Harry potter
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #737 on: July 21, 2014, 02:07:17 PM »
It's something else. Metacrock's opinion about Lourdes. Not what it really is.
Care to supply a statement from an official source in the Vatican to tell us what the purpose of those investigations is, then?
I don't understand. You want me to ask the Vatican why do they look for proof of the existence of God? Why are they making sure that it comes from God and not from any other sources?

Quote from: Lukvance
I agree with you. The branch is not based on that.
Nevertheless, before finding the Higgs particle in the LHC, did this branch (in our case Particle Physics) study something that might exist (the Higgs Boson)? What were those study based on if it's not "things that do exist"?
The purpose of particle physics is to study what actually exists, not to study things that might exist.  Until the Higgs boson was shown to exist with actual physical evidence, it could not be studied via particle physics.  The purpose of the investigation into it was not to 'study' it, but to find evidence of it so that it could then be studied. 
I understand. I will then reformulate the phrase to it will fit the correct definition of study. In french we do not make such a difference. Thank you for underlining it. I loved the fact that you underlined your point with the example (the big bang). It allowed me to understand better were was my mistake.

"Particle Physics allows the investigation of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the investigation of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."

Upon modification, do you have any counter argument? Or do you accept that theses phrases are true?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3021
  • Darwins +267/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #738 on: July 21, 2014, 02:36:40 PM »
"Particle Physics allows the investigation of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the investigation of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."

Upon modification, do you have any counter argument? Or do you accept that theses phrases are true?

The key to this is the word "investigation."  An investigation in physics and an investigation in theology are simply not the same.

Physics uses mathematical formulae plus observation and measurement of physical phenomena.  An experiment done by one physicist can be duplicated by another physicist and achieve similar results.

Theology is essentially a branch of philosophy, with elements of literary criticism and history.  It does not calculate, observe or measure anything in a consistent manner.  There is not one theology, but rather myriad schools of theology that support the assertions of myriad sects.  Due to its inconsistencies, it is unsatisfying to anyone looking for repeatable, falsifiable empirical evidence.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #739 on: July 21, 2014, 02:47:59 PM »
Jumping in on the discussion, I agree with you that there's a very small chance that a "god" (not necessarily jesus) might exist.   If you'd assume that "a" god did exist, then you'd have to look at the universe to try to determine his characteristics.   If he did exist, would he resemble the god described in the Bible?
Welcome to the discussion. I've read your posts.
No, God would not resemble the God described in the Old Testament. Most of the objections/questions that you have is based on the God from the Old testament. For most of us (Catholics) the Old testament is just a story without factual events. (like harry potter)
If you have arguments against the existence of God that are not based on the Old testament I would gladly address them.
About the story of the girl with rabies could you sent us the link where it is said to be recognize as a miracle by the Catholic church (Vatican)?
These are the miracles we are talking about on this thread since I am trying to prove the existence of Catholic God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47465427.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47469357.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47473837.html

I was raised Catholic btw...   it struck me that "if god and heaven and hell were real" why didn't more people in the Catholic Church take them more seriously?  (most people were just standing in church bored, staring at hot members of the opposite sex, then racing out of the parking lot when finished)

After trying out more evangelical churches, I found they had even more issues than the Catholic Church.   

I have less issue with the Catholic Church than most others because:
- The popes are at least somewhat progressive over past ones... this current one has been better than most.
- Catholics tend to keep their faith more separated from how they live their lives... they're more like atheists who happen to go to church.
- Catholics have lower divorce rates than other so-called christians... almost as low as atheists.
- There's a little more emphasis on "being good" rather than just accepting Jesus, and in that sense, I try to live my life in a good way
- Catholics don't think the earth is 6,000 years old and as you said, view the Old Testament as mostly stories from a forgotten era.

Catholics, in general, are pretty casual when it comes to faith, and are more likely to put it into action with a charity where they don't evangelize too much.

My beefs with the Catholic church are more with the boring, repetitive rituals, lack of support for birth control, etc.  Also get around to letting priests marry so that you attract less oddball pedophile type people to want the career...  god's not real, he's not going to help a man be celebate for his adult life...  I even went to a Catholic Church on Christmas out of kindness towards my in-laws, and it didn't bother me as much as most churches.

It's more like a social club for people who keep their faith and science totally separate.   I have good friends who are very practicing, very good Catholics, and we co-exist just fine.   They're much easier to hang out with than evangelicals of any sort.

I don't really think Jesus rose from the dead or Mary appears in burnt toast or whatnot but, if you have to pick a religious friend, Catholics are the ones to drink a beer and watch sports with.  =-)

Catholics I've met, mostly, believe in science and they don't let faith get in the way of strong scientific theory... they just move the faith to another compartment and let the two beliefs live in sort of contradiction (perhaps by shuffling the old testament into the "mostly stories" category)

I mean all this stuff as a compliment, though you could take it the other way that catholics are currently one of the more casual religions as far as how the followers act.


« Last Edit: July 21, 2014, 02:51:25 PM by YRM_DM »
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #740 on: July 21, 2014, 02:49:14 PM »
I don't understand. You want me to ask the Vatican why do they look for proof of the existence of God? Why are they making sure that it comes from God and not from any other sources?
I meant look up to see if the Vatican has made any statements as to their purpose for investigating the events at Lourdes.  For example, I'm fairly sure that they don't use the investigations to provide scientifically verifiable evidence of God.  It makes more sense to find out what their actual rationale/reasoning is rather than guessing or posting opinions.

Quote from: Lukvance
I understand. I will then reformulate the phrase to it will fit the correct definition of study. In french we do not make such a difference. Thank you for underlining it. I loved the fact that you underlined your point with the example (the big bang). It allowed me to understand better were was my mistake.

"Particle Physics allows the investigation of something that might exist (HB) based on something that do exist"
"Theology allows the investigation of something that might exist (God) based on something that do exist."

Upon modification, do you have any counter argument? Or do you accept that theses phrases are true?
First, it is not necessary to add "based on things that exist", at least not for particle physics (and by extension other sciences).  It makes the sentence unnecessarily awkward and can confuse the issue.  Second, it is important to distinguish between the fact that physics is a branch of science and theology is not.  A field that does not follow the scientific method cannot be considered scientific, and theology doesn't, because the scientific method only works on things that can be shown to exist.  I am not going to say that theology is a useless field, but it is not a scientific one.

I may have more points to make later on, but I don't have time to make them right now.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #741 on: July 21, 2014, 04:31:06 PM »
The key to this is the word "investigation."  An investigation in physics and an investigation in theology are simply not the same.

Physics uses mathematical formulae plus observation and measurement of physical phenomena.  An experiment done by one physicist can be duplicated by another physicist and achieve similar results.

Theology is essentially a branch of philosophy, with elements of literary criticism and history.  It does not calculate, observe or measure anything in a consistent manner.  There is not one theology, but rather myriad schools of theology that support the assertions of myriad sects.  Due to its inconsistencies, it is unsatisfying to anyone looking for repeatable, falsifiable empirical evidence.
You talk about Theology like you know a lot about it. What is it you draw these information from?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #742 on: July 21, 2014, 04:37:15 PM »
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47465427.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47469357.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/47473837.html
I don't know why you gave us again those links. Maybe you could explain why they are duplicated here?

Quote
I was raised Catholic btw...   it struck me that "if god and heaven and hell were real" why didn't more people in the Catholic Church take them more seriously?  (most people were just standing in church bored, staring at hot members of the opposite sex, then racing out of the parking lot when finished)
Have ever been to school? why don't more people in school take it more seriously?(most people were just standing in class bored, staring at hot members of the opposite sex, then racing out when finished)
Anyway we are here to discuss the existence of God and how miracle are proof of that. Do you have any counter arguments?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #743 on: July 21, 2014, 04:40:34 PM »
In theology - which is a pretend field to begin with -
Oh, how do you know that? Have you study theology? Do you have a diploma from some school? Maybe you know some people who have a diploma? Did they agree with your statement ("what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit"."they do not make predictions")?

I've met with graduated students from Theology. They would strongly disagree with you.
Oh.. So you once met some students who might once have studied some Theology - Well I once read a book about a man whose uncle was married to a woman whose brother was a theologian - So I think I know more than you.

At this level, you do not need to have a degree in a subject to know something about it, OK, well at least not in most of the world, France might be different.

Luk - you do not have to be a carpenter to say that the table has a broken leg.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6763
  • Darwins +904/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #744 on: July 21, 2014, 04:42:09 PM »
YRM__DM, you make some very interesting points about modern Catholics as opposed to evangelical Protestants, and I agree with your assessment. I have found US Catholics to be very pragmatic, more progressive, very accepting of science and less willing to push their faith in peoples' faces than many other Christians. I have mentioned elsewhere in this forum how much I admire the nuns I have worked with in overseas development projects. I also like the beautiful church buildings, the music, the statues and the artwork. I really appreciate the way the Catholics adapt to local cultures and incorporate local practices into their services.

However, my problem is with the Catholic leadership and how their actions negatively affect the believers in poor countries. The lack of support for birth control, telling people that condoms are sinful, making sure that most abortions are illegal and dangerous, the backward thinking on AIDS and other STD's that lead to worse outcomes for people, the outright lies about science that I have personally heard from priests in church. People suffer and die needlessly because of the Catholic Church.

I was sitting in a Catholic mass when the priest told the congregation--mostly women and children-- that birth control pills caused cancer! This is an out and out lie to scare poor women who trust that their church is telling them the truth about the world.[1]

When I objected to this kind of thinking, I was told that the suffering women and children face on earth does not really matter, because it is the lot of human beings to suffer. A priest in training told me that. As long as immortal souls are being saved, it is okay to lie to people and make their lives worse.

That is my major problem with the Catholic Church and any religious group like that.
 1. Birth control pills are not for every woman, but they are far less risky than a pregnancy every year between age 13 and 43.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #745 on: July 21, 2014, 04:51:57 PM »
theology doesn't[follow the scientific method], because the scientific method only works on things that can be shown to exist
Are you sure you are allowed to write such phrases? I'm not sure it is logically sound. For it to be true, wouldn't you have to prove that God cannot be shown to exist first?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #746 on: July 21, 2014, 04:56:23 PM »
In theology - which is a pretend field to begin with -
Oh, how do you know that? Have you study theology? Do you have a diploma from some school? Maybe you know some people who have a diploma? Did they agree with your statement ("what they wrote is almost certainly bullshit"."they do not make predictions")?

I've met with graduated students from Theology. They would strongly disagree with you.
Oh.. So you once met some students who might once have studied some Theology - Well I once read a book about a man whose uncle was married to a woman whose brother was a theologian - So I think I know more than you.

At this level, you do not need to have a degree in a subject to know something about it, OK, well at least not in most of the world, France might be different.

Luk - you do not have to be a carpenter to say that the table has a broken leg.
So he is allowed unsupported assertion as long as you agree with the assertion?
If I know a carpenter who tells me that the table do not have a broken leg and you tell me that it has (or vice versa)...I would call on your unsupported assertion and ask for sources.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #747 on: July 21, 2014, 05:01:40 PM »
Are you sure you are allowed to write such phrases? I'm not sure it is logically sound. For it to be true, wouldn't you have to prove that God cannot be shown to exist first?
Given that it is physically impossible to show that something doesn't exist, setting such a condition would be ludicrous.

My point about theology not being scientific is because it doesn't follow scientific methodology.  That has nothing to do with whether it is right, wrong, useful, or useless, just that it is not science.  Philosophy, art, literature, jurisprudence, governance, and numerous other fields also do not follow scientific methodology, yet they have their places in human society.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #748 on: July 21, 2014, 05:05:35 PM »
Are you sure you are allowed to write such phrases? I'm not sure it is logically sound. For it to be true, wouldn't you have to prove that God cannot be shown to exist first?
Given that it is physically impossible to show that something doesn't exist, setting such a condition would be ludicrous.

My point about theology not being scientific is because it doesn't follow scientific methodology.  That has nothing to do with whether it is right, wrong, useful, or useless, just that it is not science.  Philosophy, art, literature, jurisprudence, governance, and numerous other fields also do not follow scientific methodology, yet they have their places in human society.
Does the fact that theology is not scientific a counter argument to "Miracles are proof of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains"?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #749 on: July 21, 2014, 05:07:06 PM »
Are you sure you are allowed to write such phrases? I'm not sure it is logically sound. For it to be true, wouldn't you have to prove that God cannot be shown to exist first?
Given that it is physically impossible to show that something doesn't exist, setting such a condition would be ludicrous.

My point about theology not being scientific is because it doesn't follow scientific methodology.  That has nothing to do with whether it is right, wrong, useful, or useless, just that it is not science.  Philosophy, art, literature, jurisprudence, governance, and numerous other fields also do not follow scientific methodology, yet they have their places in human society.
Does the fact that theology is not scientific a counter argument to "Miracles are proof of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains"?

You haven't even posted any useful argument in favour of your own topic so far.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #750 on: July 21, 2014, 05:18:15 PM »
theology doesn't[follow the scientific method], because the scientific method only works on things that can be shown to exist
Are you sure you are allowed to write such phrases? I'm not sure it is logically sound. For it to be true, wouldn't you have to prove that God cannot be shown to exist first?

Your counter argument is not logically sound.  One cannot prove a negative.

In support of jaimehlers claim, one cannot use the scientific method on the Hulk.  The Hulk is a fictional character, we cannot test, make predictions or observe fictional characters.  "God" exists as a fictional character.  Theology is the study of fictional characters.  Theology has no use for the scientific method, except perhaps as a guise to trick people into believing that there is science behind believing that a fictional character exists.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #751 on: July 21, 2014, 05:20:38 PM »
Does the fact that theology is not scientific a counter argument to "Miracles are proof of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains"?

Miracles are proof that unicorn's blood is the best cure for everything...so your statement is wrong.

Give a long list of things you have learnt since you have been on this site just to prove you are not a hopeless case who should be banned from wasting time.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #752 on: July 21, 2014, 05:31:45 PM »
Does the fact that theology is not scientific a counter argument to "Miracles are proof of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains"?
Yes.  The fact that something is considered a miracle through a theological argument does not preclude a scientific explanation for it.  A theological argument is not objectively demonstrable, as it depends on subjective beliefs.  For example, a Lutheran, a Methodist, or an Anglican would not necessarily come to the same conclusion about the events at Lourdes as you, a Catholic, did.  For example, your church excludes any cures that do not fit its standards from consideration as miracles; someone from a different branch of Christianity might well conclude that those cures were still miracles.

That does not make you wrong and them right, nor does it make them wrong and you right.  Neither you can really know for sure; that's why they call it "faith" and "belief" rather than "knowledge" and "understanding.  Personally, I prefer to avoid that whole business to begin with.  I prefer to know why something happens rather than who might, or might not, have caused it.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6508
  • Darwins +772/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #753 on: July 21, 2014, 05:41:24 PM »
Are you sure you are allowed to write such phrases? I'm not sure it is logically sound. For it to be true, wouldn't you have to prove that God cannot be shown to exist first?
Given that it is physically impossible to show that something doesn't exist, setting such a condition would be ludicrous.

My point about theology not being scientific is because it doesn't follow scientific methodology.  That has nothing to do with whether it is right, wrong, useful, or useless, just that it is not science.  Philosophy, art, literature, jurisprudence, governance, and numerous other fields also do not follow scientific methodology, yet they have their places in human society.
Does the fact that theology is not scientific a counter argument to "Miracles are proof of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains"?

Nope. The most you can hope for is that a miracle could prove that there are sometimes miracles. That says nothing about the source.

If someone from a non-christian religion (hindu, for instance) proved that a miracle happened and claimed that vishnu did it, where would that leave you?

What you are saying is that there are miracles, catholics think they've confirmed that fact, hence the god that did them must have been your own.

We don't see evidence of miracles in the first place, we don't agree that those miracles that didn't happen were because of any god, and we're pretty sure the miracles that didn't happen were caused by your specific non-god.

(Allow me to take a intermission and talk about flying saucers. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But even though I've never given you a negative karma, because I've just mentioned something off topic, you should give me one, like you gave nogods, Because you are also the thread police, and it is time for you to give me a choke-hold, or pretend I'm black, or just shoot and ask questions later.)

Back to the topic. Nope, people who have a vested interest in collecting tithes if they are right don't get to be the ones to decide if a miracle, which would increase tithing considerably if true, happened. Especially when they're wrong about everything else in the first place.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.