Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 57886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #986 on: August 04, 2014, 07:20:29 PM »
Where is your experimental data regarding miracles?
In the Vatican Library.

I agree with you you cannot verify the sleeping patterns of Unicorns. But you can verify or falsify the existence of unicorns once you know enough about them. That is what we are doing here for God.
No, you can’t falsify something that doesn’t exist. If you think you can, be my guest.  Prove that Unicorns don’t exist.  You pick the definition, you pick everything.  I’m not playing your circular scripted game anymore.
I don’t know what we are doing here.  We are going around in circles.  I am not convinced by your arguments or claims.  Actually, you’ve managed to further convince me that there is no “God”.
I don't care. I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here to prove to you that my arguments are irreproachable and if not modify them so they would be.
I'm sorry I might have interpreted falsify in the wrong way. Does it means proving something is false? If so, proving that "unicorns exist" is false is possible. Meanwhile, doing it would be changing the subject. Are you trying to change the subject?

You can review the testing methods and data collected on Unicorns. Theses (the data and the methods) wouldn't exist if the Unicorn did not. I mean scientists reviewed the data and the possible testing methods on the hypothetical HB before it was found didn't they?
No.  How can there be data or testing methods on something that we don’t know exists? If you would do some freaking research on the Higgs boson particle, MAYBE you would understand science a little better.
Do you mean that there was no way to test the existence of the Higgs Boson (no testing methods) before we found the HB? There was no reviewable data on how this boson would interact with our world before we found him?
Maybe I don't understand "data" and "testing methods" the same way you do?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #987 on: August 04, 2014, 07:46:17 PM »
I understand that. This point is valid. What is not valid is saying that Theology do NOT show their thought experiment is both logically valid and relevant to the real world when they do.
Based on what? 
Based on the knowledge about theology. Knowledge that you seem to lack.

You see, the fact that I still have to ask this question is more than enough to demonstrate that they have not shown that their thought experiment about God is relevant to the real world.
For me, it shows only your lack of knowledge about theology. I mean, aren't you talking about things you don't know?
When you say "What they have shown is that it's relevant to the Catholic religion and to the people who believe in it, but that does not itself require your god to be a real entity rather than a subjective one that exists only in the minds of those who believe in him."  I don't disagree with you. I am just saying they showed that AND MORE. And that it is the "more" part that I am "teaching" you the existence of.

It would be the same with the hypothetical religion about interdimensional Guardians I brought up before - the beliefs and interpretation of real events by those who believe in them does not prove that those beings have an objective/real existence.
I totally agree with you. I said fairly clearly :
Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
The interdimensional Guardians you speak about should have a theory at least as deep as the ones about God before even trying to prove their existence by matching them with events.
Quote from: Lukvance
I don't see these examples as circumstantial. Could you give me an example so I understand what you are trying to say here? What makes the example circumstantial?
Ps : Your suspicion is right the full list is learned at school.
Consider circumstantial evidence in a courtroom.  This is evidence which suggests that something is the case without actually proving it.  For example, let's say a murder case was being tried, and the defendant had no alibi for the time of the murder.  That would be circumstantial evidence that he might be the murderer, but it would not prove that he was.  Direct evidence, by comparison, establishes a clear link.  For example, if a scrap of the defendant's clothes were found at the scene of the murder, or if their fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, they would establish that the defendant was most probably the murderer.  By that criteria, the examples you gave of things which are used to prove your god caused a miracle are all circumstantial - they are things which suggest that it might be the case, rather than things that directly link him to the healings.  Because it's circumstantial, it can neither prove nor disprove whether your god did perform the miracles.
I think I understand what circumstantial means. I still don't see how the examples I gave are classified as such. For me there cannot be more direct link to God than him interacting live with mater.
It's like you found the murder weapon and the prints on it and you know who the prints are from but because the culprit is not visible in the court (or cannot be found by the police), the proofs are circumstantial.
What makes the examples I gave circumstantial? Beside you conveniently claiming them as such?

Quote from: Lukvance
the fact that something is explainable indicate that it is not God's direct effect. It's humans.
We can explain how lightning works.  Does that mean that humans cause it?  Does that mean that a lightning bolt could never be produced by your god because we understand the process by which lightning happens?  By the same token, the fact that we could explain how a healing happened does not mean that humans necessarily caused it, and it does not exclude the possibility that your god could have done it anyway.
I understand your point. But yes, the explained lightning bolt can never be produced by God. And before you jump to conclusions, no the lightning bolt wasn't a miracle before it was explained. You see, miracles have more than one criteria they must meet before we can be sure it is God and not "something else that we don't know"
You and your forum friends seem to think that ALL unexplained phenomena is IMMEDIATELY explained by God's doing. When most of the time theologians just say "It isn't God's doing" and "we don't know what caused the event"
You're worth more than my time

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5592
  • Darwins +181/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #988 on: August 04, 2014, 07:56:31 PM »
commentary removed
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 07:44:02 AM by screwtape »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3521
  • Darwins +473/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #989 on: August 04, 2014, 08:12:08 PM »
^^^Well, duh. Notice how few people even bother talking to him anymore?  ;)
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #990 on: August 04, 2014, 08:20:04 PM »
Quote from: Lukvance
If it does not last indefinitely it shows that the cure wasn't "perfect" hence cannot be from God.
Sorry to say, but that doesn't prove a thing.  Some cures explainable by science are 'perfect' by this definition - the person recovers very quickly and doesn't ever relapse.  That means you cannot use the 'perfectness' of a cure as criteria for whether your god was responsible or not.  Although I suppose you will point to the fact that scientists said that the person was incurable as support for this.  That, again, doesn't prove a thing.  A person with a low chance of recovery can still recover; there is no rule saying that they couldn't recover immediately and fully.  It just isn't likely.
"Perfectness" is only one of the many "clues" revealed by God letting us know that it is indeed him who did it. This is not a circumstantial clue when it is accompanied by other clues. It's like a partial print can be a circumstantial clue if there is not enough of it.

Quote from: Lukvance
Each criteria proves/disprove that it must be from God like the theory predicted.
The problem is, none of these criteria you mentioned either proves or disproves that your god is responsible.  To conclusively prove or disprove your god's involvement, we must have direct evidence that either shows him actually doing it, or shows that he cannot have done it.  And no Catholic has ever provided such evidence, at least to the best of my knowledge.
You have direct evidence. You are not accepting them as such ("No the car is not RED" "No, 1+1 does not equals 2") The best proof I can give you is that you have no idea what could be those "direct evidence" you think are missing. Like Zola said "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle"

Quote from: Lukvance
how the argument you give against miracle doesn't make sense you can choose another scientific discovery.
Whatever you want discovered by scientists, only visible through its interaction with something else. Not observable directly. Invisible to the naked eye. (black holes for example)
Then replace "HB" by the new scientific discovery X.
"If there are no X, then no scientific field will ever have any bearing on reality.  It does not matter if there is a field of science for the study of a X which does not actually exist; it would be as relevant in the real world as a field for studying Harry Potter, or for Star Trek, or whatever you might name." Do we agree?

I absolutely do not agree.  I will demonstrate why I don't agree with a comparison.
That's ok I only wanted you to disagree with it. Because it is basically what you told me as an argument against miracles.

Theology is the study of gods.  Therefore, if there are no gods, theology is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.
Science is the study of the real world.  Therefore, if there is no real world, science is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.
Do you see the problem?  If you don't, I'll explain further, but I want to see if you can spot it first.
  Yes, I see a problem.
Saying that science study the real world is an over simplification of science. Saying that Theology study gods is an over simplification of theology.
Theology also study the real world. And Science also study gods.
If I were to make the comparison I would write it like that :
If there are no gods, "theology" is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.
If there is no HB, "science" is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.

Let's have a debate. I will take the role where I do not believe HB exist and you do not believe God exist. You might understand how it is useless to try to undermine miracles when it comes to prove the existence of God. It's like if I was trying to undermine the results found by the LHC when it comes to prove the existence of the HB.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #991 on: August 04, 2014, 08:30:37 PM »
When you say : "-You haven't defined "God" in any way, shape, or form"
I remember since before reply #145 :
Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains."
I guess that proves you wrong. I did defined God (as the greatest possible being)
The ontological argument is not a definition.
Okay... says who? you? Are you the master of definitions?
I understand that you might not agree with that definition as a proof of God's existence. We could talk about that if you want in another post. But you not agreeing as a definition of God because it doesn't prove the existence of God? I'm not sure that you are allowed to do that.
Anyway, you are the one presenting it as an argument, while I am presenting it as a definition.

Who says?  YOU DID!

Show me another definition that starts out with the words "If the", then I'll admit what you said was a definition.

Perhaps you would like to rephrase what you said, into a definition?  Be my guest.  Don't try to pretend like you gave a definition.
I underlined the part that you might have missed. 24pt was too big for me so I chose a smaller fount.
Anyway, I gave you a definition were you say I haven't defined him. it is only one of the many definition I gave him.
I also gave him the definition of the "one" in "Everything have a beginning but one."
I also gave him the definition of a judge and the maker.
Anyway you have more than enough definition of God. Stop whining about it.
The one I prefer is of course the GPB since this being has all the other "definitions".
You're worth more than my time

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7682
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #992 on: August 04, 2014, 09:48:04 PM »
commentary removed
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 07:43:33 AM by screwtape »
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3521
  • Darwins +473/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #993 on: August 04, 2014, 10:18:57 PM »
I don't care. I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here to prove to you that my arguments are irreproachable and if not modify them so they would be.

Really, how could anyone help this discussion?
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8737
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #994 on: August 04, 2014, 11:14:12 PM »
"Perfectness" is only one of the many "clues" revealed by God letting us know that it is indeed him who did it.
Problem being, there is no such thing as this 'perfectness'.  None of the miracles cited at Lourdes listed 'perfection' as a quality, and you have not given any others which have been.  Therefore, your claim that you can 'identify' a healing from your god based on its 'perfectness' is not supported and thus cannot even be considered circumstantial evidence.

Quote from: Lukvance
This is not a circumstantial clue when it is accompanied by other clues. It's like a partial print can be a circumstantial clue if there is not enough of it.
No amount of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to make it not circumstantial.  There's a reason that, when someone is tried in a court, you have to have evidence which directly ties them to the crime - in effect, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed it.  No amount of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to pass that threshold.

Quote from: Lukvance
You have direct evidence. You are not accepting them as such ("No the car is not RED" "No, 1+1 does not equals 2") The best proof I can give you is that you have no idea what could be those "direct evidence" you think are missing. Like Zola said "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle"
You are committing the argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) logical fallacy here.  In effect, you are attempting to dismiss my argument by making it sound like I am simply rejecting evidence for no good reason.  This is very bad form no matter what position you hold.  Instead, you should show that some of your evidence is, in fact, direct evidence.  That does not mean making a false analogy; it is possible to mathematically prove that 1+1=2, and it is possible to prove that a car reflects light only in a specific visible wavelength which is defined as red.

The very fact that the "best proof" you can give is the unsupported claim that I have no idea what direct evidence I would need is more than enough to demonstrate that your argument is badly flawed (not to mention being an ad hominem).  I will tell you what would qualify - evidence that establishes a direct causal link between your god and the healings in question.  Of course, to do that, you must demonstrate that your god actually exists in reality beforehand.  Therefore, you cannot use things like Lourdes healings as that evidence, because that commits the circulus in demonstrando (circular argument) logical fallacy; you are assuming exactly that which you are trying to prove.  You have to assume, in advance, that your god caused those healings, because you cannot directly show that he did, and therefore you cannot use those healings as evidence that your god actually exists if you wish to convince someone who does not already believe it.

Quote from: Lukvance
That's ok I only wanted you to disagree with it. Because it is basically what you told me as an argument against miracles.
You keep making this assertion, but you have not yet actually supported it.  Simply changing a few words around in someone else's argument does not actually counter their point.  I could use the same means as you to try to prove that it is equally absurd to dismiss Harry Potter or Star Trek or Star Wars as being fictional, but it wouldn't accomplish anything meaningful.  Therefore, you must pick a different means than that reversal analogy to make your point, at least if you intend to get anywhere with it.

Quote from: Lukvance
Yes, I see a problem.
Saying that science study the real world is an over simplification of science. Saying that Theology study gods is an over simplification of theology.
Sorry, but that is not a contradiction; it is true that both are simplifications, but that does not make either statement contradictory.  Nor is it a problem for either statement.  The contradiction is that if the real world does not exist, then the sciences that study elements of it are meaningless and incoherent.  Yet, the real world must exist in some sense, and therefore science axiomatically has meaning and is coherent. 

Quote from: Lukvance
Theology also study the real world. And Science also study gods.
This is a false equivocation.  Theology only examines the real world to try to identify things that might be the actions of a given god or gods to see if they actually are, because the gods themselves cannot be examined directly.  And I have never heard of any branch of science which actually studies gods of any stripe, because nobody has ever successfully managed to demonstrate that gods exist (except to people who already believe they do for other reasons).  To put it another way, theology can only use circumstantial evidence because the actual subject of study cannot be seen or located; science does not accept circumstantial evidence because the scientific method requires direct evidence in order to function.

Quote from: Lukvance
If I were to make the comparison I would write it like that :
If there are no gods, "theology" is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.
If there is no HB, "science" is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.
Are you being disrespectful on purpose?  I already told you I would not acknowledge any statement you made about the Higgs boson until you had satisfied me that you understood it, and asked you not to bring it up if you were unwilling to do that.  You have not yet done so, and yet here you are, bringing it up again.

If you want respect from people, you must give them respect.  That means, if I ask you not to try to discuss the Higgs boson with me, that you should refrain from bringing it up.  I don't care if you want to use analogies like that with other people, but kindly do not attempt to do so with me.

Quote from: Lukvance
Let's have a debate. I will take the role where I do not believe HB exist and you do not believe God exist. You might understand how it is useless to try to undermine miracles when it comes to prove the existence of God. It's like if I was trying to undermine the results found by the LHC when it comes to prove the existence of the HB.
I decline.  Leaving aside my lack of interest in debating you, and my principled refusal to discuss anything relating to the Higgs boson with you until such time as you can demonstrate that you understand it to me, your choice of debate topics is questionable.  You are effectively proposing two separate, unrelated debate topics to be discussed in the same topic, which would be very likely to cause quite a bit of confusion.

A debate should be on the same specific subject, with one person arguing the affirmative side and one person arguing the negative side.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 8426
  • Darwins +882/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #995 on: August 05, 2014, 05:00:25 AM »
God is as observable as any HB particle out there. You just need to use the correct tools and the correct method.[...]
So, your counter argument "God is unobservable" is false. The truth is that "God is as observable as the HB"
Allegedly, the last time that God was seen was c. 3000 BC when Moses[1] went up Mount Horeb. Since then nobody has seen the slightest evidence of God or any other god. During those 5,000 years Jews and Christians have tried to find evidence of Yahweh – they have found none.

I really don't care what you think of me
This is your problem, not mine. Your inability to argue logically has caused this thread to extend to 1000 posts and you still are no further to even establishing that God is anywhere but in your head.

Quote
God does not stand in the same position as a Higgs Boson.
So what!?
 1. Who did not exist
This is precisely what I mean.

You are trying to establish a parallel between a Middle-Eastern tribal god and one elementary particle. You have failed because it is not possible to make this parallel and thus all your silly comparisons are pointless, as many people have been trying to tell you.

As I have said, if there is no Higgs Boson, then we will have to find another explanation. You, on the other hand, insist that there is a god - there must be a god - you will listen to no other explanation. You will not even think "Hmmm... perhaps my Middle Eastern tribal god did not do it, I will look for another explanation.”

Without God – all religion is nothing more than superstitious garbage and worship of ignorance. The entire Catholic Church is postulated upon there being a God – no God, No Church.

Without a Higgs Boson, another explanation must be sought for one single phenomenon. It does not impinge upon many other areas of science, and science has continued with and without the Higgs Boson. As late as the 19th century, some scientists believed that outer space was filled with a substance called “ether”. This explained how light (a wave) could be transmitted – there is no ether. Science kept thinking and arrived at a better conclusion.

No one in the Catholic Church is going to say – Miracles are our own ignorance because there is no God.

You see, religion needs a god more than science needs anything.
Quote
So basically what you are saying is that because God is more important than the Higgs Boson, he must be not existent!?
No. I am saying that you are irrationally obsessed with giving God the credit for various events. I am saying that you simply cannot see that there might be another explanation.

Nor do you explain why it is your god and not someone else’s god.
Quote
or We must follow different rules than the HB when we look for him (even if you do not have any ideas what those rules might be but they MUST be different and we must follow them)?
Your English has let you down. I don't know what you mean by "Rules" - I am saying that you have produced no evidence at all for the existence of any deity at all.
Quote
or...some other argument that is mysteriously hidden in your text comparing the importance of HB and God?
I'll say it again Lukvance:
If there is no Higgs Boson, then we will have to find another explanation. You, on the other hand, insist that there is a god - there must be a god - you will listen to no other explanation. You will not even think "Hmmm... perhaps my Middle Eastern tribal god did not do it: I will look for another explanation."
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 05:03:12 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 8426
  • Darwins +882/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #996 on: August 05, 2014, 05:50:10 AM »
When you say : "-You haven't defined "God" in any way, shape, or form"
I remember since before reply #145 :
Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains."
I guess that proves you wrong. I did defined God (as the greatest possible being)
The ontological argument is not a definition.
Okay... says who? you? Are you the master of definitions?
I understand that you might not agree with that definition as a proof of God's existence. We could talk about that if you want in another post. But you not agreeing as a definition of God because it doesn't prove the existence of God? I'm not sure that you are allowed to do that.
Anyway, you are the one presenting it [i.e. The Ontological Argument] as an argument, while I am presenting it as a definition.
Lukvance:

For your information, The Ontological Argument is an argument. There is a clue in the name.

It is an argument because it is open to dispute.

You cannot use an argument as a definition.

A definition is true. The truth value of an argument has not been established.

The Ontological Argument has been shown to have no truth value and no real world application as the definition of “greatest” is (i) entirely subjective and (ii) is itself without a definition.

You may, of course, use “The Greatest Possible Being” as your opinion of the nature of the Judeo-Christian Deity but

(i) this will leave you open to also having to define “greatest” and I do not think that you are capable of doing that.

(ii) given that The Bible, in several passages, describes Yahweh as being indecisive, deceptive and jealous, inflicting evil, causing blindness, and committing genocide, the evidence for “greatest” has presentational problems[1].

I am sure that you have an idea about what you mean when you say “greatest”, unfortunately, nobody else has as nobody can see into your mind.

GB Mod

 1. Perhaps you mean “the most powerful?” but even that has difficulties
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15119
  • Darwins +1140/-38
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #997 on: August 05, 2014, 10:27:41 AM »
Luk,

You appear to know nothing about the Higgs boson.  Please do not bring it up unless you can demonstrate that you understand what you are talking about.

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

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #998 on: August 05, 2014, 01:29:01 PM »
"Perfectness" is only one of the many "clues" revealed by God letting us know that it is indeed him who did it.
Problem being, there is no such thing as this 'perfectness'.  None of the miracles cited at Lourdes listed 'perfection' as a quality, and you have not given any others which have been.  Therefore, your claim that you can 'identify' a healing from your god based on its 'perfectness' is not supported and thus cannot even be considered circumstantial evidence.
"perfectness" is one of YOUR terms used in your counter argument. I mean, read it again, maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "perfectness".
Quote from: Lukvance
If it does not last indefinitely it shows that the cure wasn't "perfect" hence cannot be from God.
Sorry to say, but that doesn't prove a thing.  Some cures explainable by science are 'perfect' by this definition - the person recovers very quickly and doesn't ever relapse.  That means you cannot use the 'perfectness' of a cure as criteria for whether your god was responsible or not.
It's not because you and I have the same gun at our place (and they both "disappeared") that we must dismiss the gun found at the crime scene as a clue.

Quote from: Lukvance
This is not a circumstantial clue when it is accompanied by other clues. It's like a partial print can be a circumstantial clue if there is not enough of it.
No amount of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to make it not circumstantial.  There's a reason that, when someone is tried in a court, you have to have evidence which directly ties them to the crime - in effect, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed it.  No amount of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to pass that threshold.
I kind of disagree with you, with enough circumstantial evidences you can condemn the defendant as guilty.
Anyway, I am not talking about more circumstantial evidence here. I am talking about the same evidence being sometime considered as circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint isn't full and we can only say that it matches X% the defendant fingerprint meaning it could be someone else fingerprint) and sometime non-circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint is full and we can say that it matches 100% the defendant fingerprint)
Each characteristic of God found in miracle is like a partial print. When combined together they form a full print that allow to determine without a doubt God as the responsible of the act. These evidences are not circumstantial.
If you prefer, another example, sometime you can find the murder weapon at someones place and this murder weapon is considered as circumstantial evidence (for the moment) because there are other pieces of the puzzle missing (like who's fingerprint is on it). The murder weapon alone might be not enough, but when combined with other evidence (like who's fingerprint is on it) it changes and the whole allow us to convict the culprit without the shadow of a doubt.
Equally when you look at one evidence of God's culpability in the event, you might dismiss it as circumstantial evidence, but when combined with the other evidences...we are sure it's him who caused the event.

I hope I explained it enough (with examples!) so you understand your mistake when you claim that there are only circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence that God was responsible.


The very fact that the "best proof" you can give is the unsupported claim that I have no idea what direct evidence I would need is more than enough to demonstrate that your argument is badly flawed (not to mention being an ad hominem).
I think you might have misunderstand what this best proof proves. What do you understand that it proves?

I will tell you what would qualify - evidence that establishes a direct causal link between your god and the healings in question.
For example? Do you have an idea of what evidence? Or you "have no idea what direct evidence you would need"?


Of course, to do that, you must demonstrate that your god actually exists in reality beforehand.
This phrase translate to me as : "you must demonstrate that your god actually exists in reality before demonstrate that your god actually exists in reality"

Therefore, you cannot use things like Lourdes healings as that evidence, because that commits the circulus in demonstrando (circular argument) logical fallacy; you are assuming exactly that which you are trying to prove. You have to assume, in advance, that your god caused those healings, because you cannot directly show that he did, and therefore you cannot use those healings as evidence that your god actually exists if you wish to convince someone who does not already believe it.
(bolded for emphasis) You are using the same argument over and over without showing us that it's not just something from your imagination. "because you cannot directly show that he did" is a claim of yours that need support. Do you have an idea of what evidence would directly show that he did it?
Of course it should be other direct evidences than the ones I presented to you that you are dismissing just "because they are not direct evidence". You labelled them as "not direct evidence" without proving them as such. I don't think that you can prove them as such as long as you don't know what would be "direct evidence".

Quote from: Lukvance
That's ok I only wanted you to disagree with it. Because it is basically what you told me as an argument against miracles.
You keep making this assertion, but you have not yet actually supported it.
Support what? We agree that your argument doesn't make sense when used for something else similar!

Simply changing a few words around in someone else's argument does not actually counter their point.  I could use the same means as you to try to prove that it is equally absurd to dismiss Harry Potter or Star Trek or Star Wars as being fictional, but it wouldn't accomplish anything meaningful.
No, you could not use the same means. That's what one of your friend, SevenPatch, tried then realized that he had to lie through is teeth if he wanted to continue the comparison.

Are you being disrespectful on purpose?
No
I already told you I would not acknowledge any statement you made about the Higgs boson until you had satisfied me that you understood it, and asked you not to bring it up if you were unwilling to do that.  You have not yet done so, and yet here you are, bringing it up again.
Refusing to continue the discussion for a reason that have no basis. I asked you, or maybe someone else, to cite the passage(s) that made them think I don't know enough about the Higgs Boson. No one did, I assumed that it was just a trick used to derail the conversation like it was used so many times before. Blaming the ignorance of the opposite party to avoid revealing our own.

If you want respect from people, you must give them respect.  That means, if I ask you not to try to discuss the Higgs boson with me, that you should refrain from bringing it up.  I don't care if you want to use analogies like that with other people, but kindly do not attempt to do so with me.
I respect you. I underline with care each and every fail in your counter argument. I try to help you realize how silly they sound once they (the counter arguments) are used in another subject and how silly they sound to me when you use them against miracles.

I gave you the opportunity to use whatever scientific discovery you want. You chose to continue stonewalling. That's ok. It proves that you don't have anymore counter arguments and that you don't want to admit it. (or that you have counter arguments but don't seem to be able to formulate them so they make sense what ever the subject might be)
You're worth more than my time

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2335
  • Darwins +299/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #999 on: August 05, 2014, 01:35:48 PM »
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
You are just inventing things that contradict what I say and they are not supported by anything but your imagination.
You keep repeating that they are logic and supported and I keep repeating that they aren't. You have shared definition of words that do not fit what you are using. You keep asserting that those definition prove you right when they clearly don't apply to what you are saying ("The car is not red I've been into a car and it wasn't red"; "Anyway you cannot prove that the car is red by using the word "car" in you proof")
When you say : "-You haven't defined "God" in any way, shape, or form"
I remember since before reply #145 :
Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains."
I guess that proves you wrong. I did defined God (as the greatest possible being)
When you say :"-You haven't demonstrated that such a thing is independently real"

What does "the greatest possible being" even mean?? What 'being' is this thing?? What is it made up of? In positive terms, what does this 'thing' consistent of??

Your car analogy fails b/c you haven't demonstrated that "the car" actually exists (i.e. - the "God" thing). You just keep trying to define your way into being right - and that is an ad hoc fallacy. Have you even bothered to research the refutations of Anselm's argument?? You certainly didn't respond to my refutation of it early on. The Ontological Argument fails on multiple fronts; for one because it does not provide any positive characteristics pertaining to what this alleged 'being' is actually made up of, second because the term "greater" is subjective and depends upon what one means by that term, and third because it is arbitrary and ad hoc. Anyone can makeup a definition for a made-up word (in the brain) and act as though their word actually refers to something that is independently real. But it does not follow that b/c someone can THINK of something, that such a proposed 'thing' therefore must exist independently of human imagination.

SOME EXAMPLES USING YOUR FAULTY LOGIC:

-Realicorn - all attributes of a unicorn except that it exists independently and must exist
-Schmarbelfarben - The greatest inconceivable being - greater than anything conceivable and must exist


Pure imagination does not make your "God" thing independently real, and no amount of your saying-so is going to make it so. I could just assert that "the greatest conceivable being" is one that only exists in imagination; that having something exist independently would make it lesser - and I could use those terms in whatever way I want to. It still would do nothing to make the object of my imagination actually real in independent existence. But even if I agreed that the "greatest conceivable being must exist" (and I don't) I could assert that MY greatest being must be able to do ANYTHING. Well, the bible says that Yahweh CANNOT LIE! So my being is greater because he can lie! HA! Therefore, your religion fails on both accounts. Are you finished with your Kindergarten sandbox make-believe stuff yet? How about you actually demonstrate your alleged "God" instead of must making more claims from your imagination.


I remember since before reply #910 :
Maybe I wasn't clear enough :
Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.
This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.
Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
That is a demonstration of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains synonym for "independently real".
When you say : "-You haven't shown that such an alleged "thing" interacts with the world" I have shown "it's" interaction. You are not willing to look at it. ("No, the car isn't red!")

You keep using this word "theory" over and over, even though I have already rebutted your nonsense. You do not have a theory. You have conjecture. In order to have a theory you would need to have already DEMONSTRATED that a "God exists as a separate entity" (not just ASSERTED IT). You would need to have actually presented the deity - not just made claims about it. Second, you have not shown a "God" interacted with the world, anymore than a unicorn interacted with the world. You just keep assuming your own claims without dealing with the fact that anybody else could make similar claims for their fiction beings "interacting" as well. Whether or not someone got better right way, or they stayed healthy a long time (or anything else), does not demonstrate that YOUR alleged deity (the one in your head) actually did anything or exists independently. I could say Spiderman did it. Would I be right?

I'll say it again and maybe this time you will go research the term: CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. People can pray all they want to, but just because something happens afterward does NOT mean that your alleged deity interacted - because you have not demonstrated that the alleged 'thing' is real, independently of your imagination.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 02:31:04 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1000 on: August 05, 2014, 01:47:28 PM »
Where is your experimental data regarding miracles?

In the Vatican Library.

Empty dodge, no different than me saying all the evidence for leprechauns is located in the Dublin Library.  I’ll assume that since you have not posted a link for this experimental data that you do not have access to the expiremental data, and that you think the Vatican library has it.  Given your complete ignorance regarding other subjects, I have no reason to presume you are accurate in this regard either.

No, you can’t falsify something that doesn’t exist. If you think you can, be my guest.  Prove that Unicorns don’t exist.  You pick the definition, you pick everything.  I’m not playing your circular scripted game anymore.
I don’t know what we are doing here.  We are going around in circles.  I am not convinced by your arguments or claims.  Actually, you’ve managed to further convince me that there is no “God”.
I don't care. I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here to prove to you that my arguments are irreproachable and if not modify them so they would be.

Lukvance, I think your understanding of the word “convince” may be mistaken.  If you want to prove something to me, you have to convince me.  Proving anything requires the evidence to be convincing evidence.  If the evidence is not convincing then it is either insufficient, incomplete or irrelevant (among other possibilities).  So far, your arguments have been so incredibly reproachable that modification will likely not help them.  If you don’t care however if I’m convinced, why are you here?  You seem to have already decided that if we don’t agree with you that we are ignoring your “evidence” and not even attempting to review your “evidence”. 

Your circular tactics have been effective for you to avoid learning anything though or having to admit you’re wrong, I’ll give you that.

I'm sorry I might have interpreted falsify in the wrong way. Does it means proving something is false? If so, proving that "unicorns exist" is false is possible.

Falsify does indeed simply mean “proving something is false”.   Like I said, be my guest.  You keep claiming you can prove that unicorns do not exist, so do it.  I don’t believe that you can, and until you actually prove that unicorns do not exist, I have no reason to believe it is possible.  Time to put up or admit you are wrong.

Meanwhile, doing it would be changing the subject.  Are you trying to change the subject?

No it is not, you are attempting to refute one of my points by claiming that you can prove that unicorns do not exist.  It is precisely on subject.  Your attempted refutation is dismissed unless you can support your claim by proving that unicorns do not exist.  Unsupported assertions are useless and do not refute anything.  Are you trying to dodge the subject because you know I’m right?

You can review the testing methods and data collected on Unicorns. Theses (the data and the methods) wouldn't exist if the Unicorn did not. I mean scientists reviewed the data and the possible testing methods on the hypothetical HB before it was found didn't they?
No.  How can there be data or testing methods on something that we don’t know exists? If you would do some freaking research on the Higgs boson particle, MAYBE you would understand science a little better.
Do you mean that there was no way to test the existence of the Higgs Boson (no testing methods) before we found the HB? There was no reviewable data on how this boson would interact with our world before we found him?
Maybe I don't understand "data" and "testing methods" the same way you do?

I’ve researched the subject, reviewed the science behind the Higgs boson particle.  Your questions and statements regarding the Higgs boson particle indicate that you do not understand or comprehend the science.  I would recommend that you follow the instructions from the moderators and avoid referencing the Higgs boson particle further unless you wish to demonstrate your full knowledge regarding the science behind the Higgs boson particle.   I would also recommend you avoid referencing any subject related to science unless you can demonstrate your thorough understanding and comprehension regarding any subject you wish to bring up.  I make these recommendations for the benefit of moving forward in this discussion.

I underlined the part that you might have missed. 24pt was too big for me so I chose a smaller fount.
Anyway, I gave you a definition were you say I haven't defined him. it is only one of the many definition I gave him.
I also gave him the definition of the "one" in "Everything have a beginning but one."
I also gave him the definition of a judge and the maker.
Anyway you have more than enough definition of God. Stop whining about it.
The one I prefer is of course the GPB since this being has all the other "definitions".

The part that you underlined was after you had been requested to provide a definition.  The post you quoted did not actually contain a definition.  You may have intended that the definition was “Greatest Possible Being” however this was not necessarily apparent to anyone except you.  So unless you directly stated that “GPB” was your definition, it cannot be assumed that it was.  Since indeed you did not directly state that “GPB” was your definition, then you are incorrect in stating that you provided a definition.  None of this really matters though as now you have provided a definition from which a discussion can proceed.

If “Greatest Possible Being” is your definition, would you please define “Greatest”, “Possible” and “Being” in the context of your definition.

Edit: fixed quotes.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 01:49:21 PM by SevenPatch »
"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 Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1001 on: August 05, 2014, 02:44:21 PM »
What does "the greatest possible being" even mean?? What 'being' is this thing?? What is it made up of? In positive terms, what does this 'thing' consistent of??

Your car analogy fails b/c you haven't demonstrated that "the car" actually exists (i.e. - the "God" thing). You just keep trying to define your way into being right - and that is an ad hoc fallacy. Have you even bothered to research the refutations of Anselm's argument?? You certainly didn't respond to my refutation of it early on. The Ontological Argument fails on multiple fronts; for one because it does not provide any positive characteristics pertaining to what this alleged 'being' is actually made up of, second because the term "greater" is subjective and depends upon what one means by that term, and third because it is arbitrary and ad hoc. Anyone can makeup a definition for a made-up word (in the brain) and act as though their word actually refers to something that is independently real. But it does not follow that b/c someone can THINK of something, that such a proposed 'thing' therefore must exist independently of human imagination.

SOME EXAMPLES USING YOUR FAULTY LOGIC:

-Realicorn - all attributes of a unicorn except that it exists independently and must exist
-Schmarbelfarben - The greatest inconceivable being - greater than anything conceivable and must exist

Pure imagination does not make your "God" thing independently real, and no amount of your saying-so is going to make it so. I could just assert that "the greatest conceivable being" is one that only exists in imagination; that having something exist independently would make it lesser - and I could use those terms in whatever way I want to. It still would do nothing to make the object of my imagination actually real in independent existence. But even if I agreed that the "greatest conceivable being must exist" (and I don't) I could assert that MY greatest being must be able to do ANYTHING. Well, the bible says that Yahweh CANNOT LIE! So my being is greater because he can lie! HA! Therefore, your religions fails on both accounts. Are you finished with your Kindergarten sandbox make-believe stuff yet? How about you actually demonstrate your alleged "God" instead of must making more claims from your imagination.

Are you trying to change the subject?
Am I to understand that you agree with the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains is proved by miracles. You seem to be arguing something else completely different.

I remember since before reply #910 :
Maybe I wasn't clear enough :
Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.
This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.
Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
That is a demonstration of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains synonym for "independently real".
When you say : "-You haven't shown that such an alleged "thing" interacts with the world" I have shown "it's" interaction. You are not willing to look at it. ("No, the car isn't red!")
You keep using this word "theory" over and over, even though I have already rebutted your nonsense.
No you have not. I proved that your counter arguments did not make any sense. They were all in your head/imagination, created only to contradict a phrase without anything supporting them.

In order to have a theory you would need to have already DEMONSTRATED that a "God exists as a separate entity" (not just ASSERTED IT).
We went over this already. I misuse theory and hypothesis sometimes. It's the same thing in french.
I hope you understood that the theory I am talking about in the demonstration does not require a God, that he is hypothetical.
I tried to clarify that bit with the first phrase "Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains"


you have not shown a "God" interacted with the world, anymore than a unicorn interacted with the world. You just keep assuming your own claims without dealing with the fact that anybody else could make similar claims for their fiction beings "interacting" as well. Whether or not someone got better right way, or they stayed healthy a long time (or anything else), does not demonstrate that YOUR alleged deity (the one in your head) actually did anything or exists independently. I could say Spiderman did it. Would I be right?
You wouldn't be right. Spiderman do not theoretically cure people, and if he does it does not do it that way.
So you CANNOT SAY SOMEONE ELSE DID IT. Just try, it required lifetimeS work to create a solid hypothesis based on reality about God. Do you have the equivalent for Spiderman? or someone/something else? Do they fit the event?


I'll say it again and maybe this time you will go research the term: CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. People can pray all they want to, but just because something happens afterward does NOT mean that your alleged deity interacted - because you have not demonstrated that the alleged 'thing' is real, independently of your imagination.
Again, and maybe this time you might understand. The reason why it is God who did it is not the prayer alone. It is not one thing it is a multitude of things that make us sure it is God who did it.
Again, and because you might have missed it.
I believe that most of the answers about any event in Lourdes coming from the theologians reunion is in the form "we don't know who or what caused that event" and it is left at that. The event do not become a miracle and it is not regarded as proof of the existence of God.
Why? because the event did not fit the theory/hypothesis made about God.
They are allowed to say that even before all the medical tests have been made on the body.
If you want to learn about all these cases that were presented as miracles and were dismissed not because we found a "scientific" cause but because it was clearly not God's doing, you can read a book about miracles or go to the Vatican Library and read about them.
You're worth more than my time

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2335
  • Darwins +299/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1002 on: August 05, 2014, 03:06:33 PM »
I am talking about the same evidence being sometime considered as circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint isn't full and we can only say that it matches X% the defendant fingerprint meaning it could be someone else fingerprint) and sometime non-circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint is full and we can say that it matches 100% the defendant fingerprint)
Each characteristic of God found in miracle is like a partial print. When combined together they form a full print that allow to determine without a doubt God as the responsible of the act. These evidences are not circumstantial.

This is another one of your false analogies. Having a partial fingerprint requires that it has been first demonstrated that there is such thing as a real fingerprint! We know that human beings make fingerprints because that has been demonstrated. It has not been demonstrated that an alleged "God" interacts in the world and is responsible for healing people of their illnesses. So you simply cannot rightly compare the two things. You first need to show the 'fingerprint' before anything else (which is the subject of this OP). Secondly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and you haven't even come close to showing ordinary evidence of an alleged "God" doing anything. More importantly, you have not coherently defined what the word "God" even refers to (i.e. - what that alleged 'thing' consists of). So all of your work is still ahead of you in this OP.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 04:07:30 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2335
  • Darwins +299/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1003 on: August 05, 2014, 04:04:33 PM »
What does "the greatest possible being" even mean?? What 'being' is this thing?? What is it made up of? In positive terms, what does this 'thing' consistent of??

Your car analogy fails b/c you haven't demonstrated that "the car" actually exists (i.e. - the "God" thing). You just keep trying to define your way into being right - and that is an ad hoc fallacy. Have you even bothered to research the refutations of Anselm's argument?? You certainly didn't respond to my refutation of it early on. The Ontological Argument fails on multiple fronts; for one because it does not provide any positive characteristics pertaining to what this alleged 'being' is actually made up of, second because the term "greater" is subjective and depends upon what one means by that term, and third because it is arbitrary and ad hoc. Anyone can makeup a definition for a made-up word (in the brain) and act as though their word actually refers to something that is independently real. But it does not follow that b/c someone can THINK of something, that such a proposed 'thing' therefore must exist independently of human imagination.

SOME EXAMPLES USING YOUR FAULTY LOGIC:

-Realicorn - all attributes of a unicorn except that it exists independently and must exist
-Schmarbelfarben - The greatest inconceivable being - greater than anything conceivable and must exist

Pure imagination does not make your "God" thing independently real, and no amount of your saying-so is going to make it so. I could just assert that "the greatest conceivable being" is one that only exists in imagination; that having something exist independently would make it lesser - and I could use those terms in whatever way I want to. It still would do nothing to make the object of my imagination actually real in independent existence. But even if I agreed that the "greatest conceivable being must exist" (and I don't) I could assert that MY greatest being must be able to do ANYTHING. Well, the bible says that Yahweh CANNOT LIE! So my being is greater because he can lie! HA! Therefore, your religions fails on both accounts. Are you finished with your Kindergarten sandbox make-believe stuff yet? How about you actually demonstrate your alleged "God" instead of must making more claims from your imagination.

Are you trying to change the subject?
Am I to understand that you agree with the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains is proved by miracles. You seem to be arguing something else completely different.

Go back and read what I just wrote again (maybe with a translator!). My rebuttal was pertaining to your use of Anselm's Argument (which pertained to your attempt to define God as "the greatest possible being"). That attempt didn't tell me anything. It has no substance. I am asking you to provide a coherent definition of what this alleged "God" is (i.e. - what it is made of; in coherent positive terms - just like we do with everything else in science). If you do not do this then I have no idea what you are attempting to refer to when you say that "God" did something or interacted with the world.


I remember since before reply #910 :
Maybe I wasn't clear enough :
Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.
This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.
Analyzing these events allows us to conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
That is a demonstration of the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains synonym for "independently real".
When you say : "-You haven't shown that such an alleged "thing" interacts with the world" I have shown "it's" interaction. You are not willing to look at it. ("No, the car isn't red!")
You keep using this word "theory" over and over, even though I have already rebutted your nonsense.
No you have not. I proved that your counter arguments did not make any sense. They were all in your head/imagination, created only to contradict a phrase without anything supporting them.

No, you did not "prove" that. YOU ASSERTED IT. There is a big difference. Go back and read my response to you and actually address my response, instead of just making more claims. The word "theory" is used in science to describe that which has already been demonstrated as accurate in bringing together all of the facts regarding given hypotheses. What you keep asserting as "theory" is actually hypothesis/conjecture. Please stop confusing the terms.


In order to have a theory you would need to have already DEMONSTRATED that a "God exists as a separate entity" (not just ASSERTED IT).
We went over this already. I misuse theory and hypothesis sometimes. It's the same thing in french.
I hope you understood that the theory I am talking about in the demonstration does not require a God, that he is hypothetical.
I tried to clarify that bit with the first phrase "Theology do not demonstrate the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains"

WOW. You just admitted my previous rebuttal is correct (that you do not have a "theory" for "God" or "miracles"; you have an hypothesis). So stop saying that I didn't refute your use of that term when in fact I did. You don't have a theory. You have a speculative hypothesis (at best), and those are easy to come by.



you have not shown a "God" interacted with the world, anymore than a unicorn interacted with the world. You just keep assuming your own claims without dealing with the fact that anybody else could make similar claims for their fiction beings "interacting" as well. Whether or not someone got better right way, or they stayed healthy a long time (or anything else), does not demonstrate that YOUR alleged deity (the one in your head) actually did anything or exists independently. I could say Spiderman did it. Would I be right?
You wouldn't be right. Spiderman do not theoretically cure people, and if he does it does not do it that way.
So you CANNOT SAY SOMEONE ELSE DID IT. Just try, it required lifetimeS work to create a solid hypothesis based on reality about God. Do you have the equivalent for Spiderman? or someone/something else? Do they fit the event?

Look at you, making all sorts of positive assertions about Spiderman when you have not backed them up. HA! How do you know what Spiderman can or can't do? How do you know how he cures people? I'm calling you out on this one dude. Demonstrate how you know these things about Spiderman.

Secondly (and I have said this multiple times before), it is not my job to assert that "someone else did it" (i.e. - someone else healed the people). What I'm trying to show you is that you don't know what you claim to know. You don't know that "God" did anything. You are just assuming it - just like any person could just assume Spiderman did it. Neither you, nor the Spiderman "theorist" have sufficient evidence that the alleged being "Spiderman" and/or "God" are independently real so as to DO anything! What you both have in common is speculation. And speculation is not ordinary, nor extraordinary, nor sufficient evidence. As Jaime mentioned, you need to demonstrate direct causation. And in order for you to do that you first need to demonstrate that your alleged "THING" exists (before showing that it interacted with the world).



I'll say it again and maybe this time you will go research the term: CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. People can pray all they want to, but just because something happens afterward does NOT mean that your alleged deity interacted - because you have not demonstrated that the alleged 'thing' is real, independently of your imagination.
Again, and maybe this time you might understand. The reason why it is God who did it is not the prayer alone. It is not one thing it is a multitude of things that make us sure it is God who did it.

Here's a quote from Christian Apologist William Lane Craig. "Two or more fallacious arguments, put together, do not make a sound argument."[1][/b] SORRY! I don't care how many "multitudes" of irrational arguments you attempt. They do not add up to "We know God did it". Furthermore, this attempt of yours regarding "multitudes" (even if true - and I don't believe it is) does not make correlation equal to causation. Again, just because two events correlate does not mean that one caused the other. The example you have given to both Jaime and Sevenpatch thus far (i.e. - the ones about "immediate healing" and "longevity" etc) are both fallacious because CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Face it.

Again, and because you might have missed it.
I believe that most of the answers about any event in Lourdes coming from the theologians reunion is in the form "we don't know who or what caused that event" and it is left at that. The event do not become a miracle and it is not regarded as proof of the existence of God.
Why? because the event did not fit the theory/hypothesis made about God.
They are allowed to say that even before all the medical tests have been made on the body.
If you want to learn about all these cases that were presented as miracles and were dismissed not because we found a "scientific" cause but because it was clearly not God's doing, you can read a book about miracles or go to the Vatican Library and read about them.

You haven't proven that there is any such thing as "God's doing". That is the point! As per this OP, you need to meet the challenge by doing the following:

1. Coherently define the term "God" (what 'thing' it refers to and consists of) in positive terms
2. Demonstrate that such a being exists independently of human imagination
3. Demonstrate that such a being actually interacted with the world in a clear and non-vague demonstrable way

EXAMPLE:

WATER


1. Water - a colorless, transparent, odorless, tasteless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms.[2]

2. Water is the most abundant compound on Earth's surface, covering 70 percent of the planet. In nature, water exists in liquid, solid, and gaseous states. Wikipedia
Molar mass: 18.01528 g/mol
Density: 999.97 kg/m³
Boiling point: 212°F (99.98°C)
Melting point: 32°F (0°C)
Formula: H2O
Triple point temperature: 32.02°F (0.01°C)
IUPAC ID: Water, Oxidane[3]

Water can be demonstrated to exist all over the world today, in places like Niagra Falls, Lake Mead, The Colorado River, The Nile River, the Atlantic Ocean, and nearly every faucet in people's homes.[4]

3. The Indian Ocean Tsunami in Sri Lanka[5] is an example of water interacting with the world; and so are toilets flushing.[6] We can now, and have in the past, demonstrated the interaction of water with the world through observation, direct testing, and disinterested independent verification. 
 1. In his debate with Peter Atkins - find it on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE
 2. https://www.google.com/search?num=50&safe=off&q=water+definition&oq=water+definition&gs_l=serp.3..0i67j0i20j0l7.1258.3302.0.3409.13.11.1.0.0.0.221.1342.0j7j2.9.0.chm_loc%2Chmss2%3Dfalse%2Chms2min%3D10%2Chms2max%3D10%2Chmtb%3D120%2Chmta%3D1440%2Chmrde%3D0-0%2Chmde%3D1-0%2Chmmpp1%3D0-5%2Chmmpp2%3D0-3%2Chmth%3D4%2Chmffs%3D10000...0...1.1.51.serp..3.10.1353.xjptjMjJoAA
 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water
 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagra_falls
 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami
 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 04:30:11 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1004 on: August 05, 2014, 04:20:15 PM »
If that one last post from median isn't a real hook punch to Luk's argument, I don't know what it is.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1005 on: August 05, 2014, 04:28:52 PM »
Where is your experimental data regarding miracles?
In the Vatican Library.
Empty dodge, no different than me saying all the evidence for leprechauns is located in the Dublin Library.  I’ll assume that since you have not posted a link for this experimental data that you do not have access to the expiremental data, and that you think the Vatican library has it.  Given your complete ignorance regarding other subjects, I have no reason to presume you are accurate in this regard either.
You wanted to know, I gave you the answer. Now you are insulting me by saying that I am ignorant? Why do you feel the need to do that? Attack me personally. Are you afraid of something? Like finally admitting that you don't have enough knowledge ton counter argue the fact that Miracles are the proof of the existence of God?

No, you can’t falsify something that doesn’t exist. If you think you can, be my guest.  Prove that Unicorns don’t exist.  You pick the definition, you pick everything.  I’m not playing your circular scripted game anymore.
I don’t know what we are doing here.  We are going around in circles.  I am not convinced by your arguments or claims.  Actually, you’ve managed to further convince me that there is no “God”.
I don't care. I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here to prove to you that my arguments are irreproachable and if not modify them so they would be.
So far, your arguments have been so incredibly reproachable that modification will likely not help them.
Yeah. I don'r remember any reproach made towards them sticking. They were all based on a lack of knowledge from the opposing party. I corrected them by giving them the opportunity to learn by themselves enough so they understand why their counter arguments simply don't work. Some of them categorically refused. Others just changed the subject. Others went stonewalling. Others did exactly what Zola did, looked the other way and kept thinking their counter-arguments were still valid.

If you don’t care however if I’m convinced, why are you here?  You seem to have already decided that if we don’t agree with you that we are ignoring your “evidence” and not even attempting to review your “evidence”. 
I am here because I want to give a chance to people to learn about God. I want also make sure that my arguments are solid and that they cannot be countered.
For instance I don't open discussion about the existence of god with the philosophical arguments anymore. I use the comparison with love and if needed I use miracles. And that's all because of you guys and your critics. I realized that the philosophical arguments are not enough proof because they stay "in the mind".



Falsify does indeed simply mean “proving something is false”.   Like I said, be my guest.  You keep claiming you can prove that unicorns do not exist, so do it.  I don’t believe that you can, and until you actually prove that unicorns do not exist, I have no reason to believe it is possible.  Time to put up or admit you are wrong.
That would be changing the subject. Let's stay with my claims about miracles and your counter arguments.

you are attempting to refute one of my points by claiming that you can prove that unicorns do not exist. 
Oh no! I don't want to refute your counter argument using that. It would derail the conversation. What was the argument again? Because we can't falsify unicorns, we can't falsify God? If this is it, the counter argument is that God has been falsified many times by theologians. More times falsified ("we don't know what caused the event") than not ("God is responsible for the event")
Can you falsify something that is true?


You can review the testing methods and data collected on Unicorns. Theses (the data and the methods) wouldn't exist if the Unicorn did not. I mean scientists reviewed the data and the possible testing methods on the hypothetical HB before it was found didn't they?
No.  How can there be data or testing methods on something that we don’t know exists? If you would do some freaking research on the Higgs boson particle, MAYBE you would understand science a little better.
Do you mean that there was no way to test the existence of the Higgs Boson (no testing methods) before we found the HB? There was no reviewable data on how this boson would interact with our world before we found him?
Maybe I don't understand "data" and "testing methods" the same way you do?

I’ve researched the subject, reviewed the science behind the Higgs boson particle.  Your questions and statements regarding the Higgs boson particle indicate that you do not understand or comprehend the science.  I would recommend that you follow the instructions from the moderators and avoid referencing the Higgs boson particle further unless you wish to demonstrate your full knowledge regarding the science behind the Higgs boson particle.   I would also recommend you avoid referencing any subject related to science unless you can demonstrate your thorough understanding and comprehension regarding any subject you wish to bring up.  I make these recommendations for the benefit of moving forward in this discussion.
Haha. I understand, you realize the questions would make your statement in peril so you stonewall. Nice.


The part that you underlined was after you had been requested to provide a definition.  The post you quoted did not actually contain a definition.  You may have intended that the definition was “Greatest Possible Being” however this was not necessarily apparent to anyone except you.  So unless you directly stated that “GPB” was your definition, it cannot be assumed that it was.  Since indeed you did not directly state that “GPB” was your definition, then you are incorrect in stating that you provided a definition.
I didn't think I had to spell everything for you. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to use the GPB as a proof of the existence of God if I didn't believe that God was the GPB?


If “Greatest Possible Being” is your definition, would you please define “Greatest”, “Possible” and “Being” in the context of your definition.
I think the dictionary can accomplish that better than me.
Greatest : the superlative of great 
Great : 1. Very large in size.
2. Larger in size than others of the same kind.
3. Large in quantity or number : A great throng awaited us.
4. Extensive in time or distance : a great delay.
5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent : a great crisis.
6. Of outstanding significance or importance : a great work of art.
7. Chief or principal : the great house on the estate.
8. Superior in quality or character; noble : "For he was great, ere fortune made him so" (John Dryden).
9. Powerful; influential : one of the great nations of the West.
10. Eminent; distinguished : a great leader.
11. Grand; aristocratic.
Possible : 1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.

Being : 1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.
2.
  a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
  b. The totality of all things that exist.
3.
  a. A person: "The artist after all is a solitary being" (Virginia Woolf).
  b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
  c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.
Did I have to copy paste the dictionary for you?
Are you going to present your counter argument against miracles being proof of the existence of God? Or do you plan to keep trying to change the subject?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1006 on: August 05, 2014, 04:37:35 PM »
Quote
Are you going to present your counter argument against miracles being proof of the existence of God? Or do you plan to keep trying to change the subject?

See Luk, the problem is that you keep playing the card of "Miracles are proof of God, now you counter argument". Burden of proof hasn't been met by you after all this time. I'm sorry I do not participate but I've been reading all.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5592
  • Darwins +181/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1007 on: August 05, 2014, 04:39:15 PM »
I can't speak for anybody else here but you,Lukevance,have not convinced me of anything,be it God or miracles that prove he exists.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1008 on: August 05, 2014, 04:39:25 PM »
Did anyone understand Lukvance's response to my post about soft drinks producing the same amount of miracle healings as his god? I read it and got the impression he was having seizure while typing.

Why don't any of the theists here pray to their gods to communicate more clearly so we atheists would be convinced? Instead, they get all tangled up in their own illogic and argue over syntax and produce walls of incomprehensible garbled text and mock our arguments and piss everyone off. Then, if we are lucky, they leave.

They have very little success in making a clear, coherent argument, let alone changing anyone's mind. You would think that with all their faith, they would be able to win over some silly atheists in way less than 1000 posts....
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8737
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1009 on: August 05, 2014, 04:42:02 PM »
Quote from: Lukvance
I understand your point. But yes, the explained lightning bolt can never be produced by God. And before you jump to conclusions, no the lightning bolt wasn't a miracle before it was explained. You see, miracles have more than one criteria they must meet before we can be sure it is God and not "something else that we don't know"
So, you're saying that your god couldn't produce a lightning bolt, then.  Every lightning bolt that ever happened in the entirety of human history was due to natural causes rather than divine power, even though people long thought that lightning bolts were manifestations of divine power.  Even though theologians in the past had 'theories' to explain whether a lightning bolt was due to a god (or something else), and even to explain what the meaning of one was.

You may not have realized it, but you completely destroyed your case with this one ill-considered example.  All these months of work you've put in are completely for naught now, at least if you intended to convince anyone that what you say is true.  What you just succeeded in doing is in demonstrating that people, who held their beliefs just as sincerely as you, and had theological rationalizations just as strong as yours, were hopelessly wrong about those beliefs because there was a scientific, natural explanation for them that they simply weren't aware of yet.

The only difference between them and you is that we do not yet have a scientific explanation for the events that we cannot explain and that you claim are caused by divine action.  Yet the comparison is clear; people back then did not yet have a scientific explanation for the events that they could not explain and that they claimed were caused by divine action.  Therefore, the rational conclusion is that we should not assume that events that you claim are caused by divine action actually are, especially when your criteria amounts to a sorting mechanism to identify events which humans cannot explain so you can call them miraculous.

I can definitely say that no amount of convoluted theological rationalization on your part has any chance of convincing me at this point.  And all because you got cocky and took your rationalizations one step too far.  It reminds me of a story I heard about Abraham Lincoln while he was a lawyer, defending someone who was accused of biting off the nose of someone else in a tavern fight.  Step by step, he established that the tavern was quite full, that people were milling around, and that the witness couldn't have seen the fight clearly.  He even got the witness to admit that he hadn't actually seen the defendant bite off the man's nose.  But then he went one step too far and asked how the witness knew that the defendant had done it, and the witness answered, "I saw him spit it out."
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5592
  • Darwins +181/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1010 on: August 05, 2014, 04:43:43 PM »
Did anyone understand Lukvance's response to my post about soft drinks producing the same amount of miracle healings as his god? I read it and got the impression he was having seizure while typing.

Why don't any of the theists here pray to their gods to communicate more clearly so we atheists would be convinced? Instead, they get all tangled up in their own illogic and argue over syntax and produce walls of incomprehensible garbled text and mock our arguments and piss everyone off. Then, if we are lucky, they leave.

They have very little success in making a clear, coherent argument, let alone changing anyone's mind. You would think that with all their faith, they would be able to win over some silly atheists in way less than 1000 posts....
The amount of text wasted over interpretation or context on the meaning of Biblical text is astounding. The theists here fail to realize that Biblical text has been edited and cleansed over the centuries to make the words softer and more appealing,and to appear less vile and disgusting.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2335
  • Darwins +299/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1011 on: August 05, 2014, 04:45:13 PM »
Are you afraid of something? Like finally admitting that you don't have enough knowledge ton counter argue the fact that Miracles are the proof of the existence of God?

Miracles (you mean "God interacting with the world") is supposed to be "proof of the existence of God?"

This has already been refuted (circular reasoning) - and you even admitted so by previously attempting to change your definition of "miracle" to "the kinds of events that happen at Lourdes". I rebutted that definition and you never responded. WOW.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 04:58:33 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1012 on: August 05, 2014, 05:08:28 PM »
I am talking about the same evidence being sometime considered as circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint isn't full and we can only say that it matches X% the defendant fingerprint meaning it could be someone else fingerprint) and sometime non-circumstantial evidence (when for example the fingerprint is full and we can say that it matches 100% the defendant fingerprint)
Each characteristic of God found in miracle is like a partial print. When combined together they form a full print that allow to determine without a doubt God as the responsible of the act. These evidences are not circumstantial.
This is another one of your false analogies. Having a partial fingerprint requires that it has been first demonstrated that there is such thing as a real fingerprint! We know that human beings make fingerprints because that has been demonstrated. It has not been demonstrated that an alleged "God" interacts in the world and is responsible for healing people of their illnesses. So you simply cannot rightly compare the two things. You first need to show the 'fingerprint' before anything else (which is the subject of this OP). Secondly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and you haven't even come close to showing ordinary evidence of an alleged "God" doing anything. More importantly, you have not coherently defined what the word "God" even refers to (i.e. - what that alleged 'thing' consists of). So all of your work is still ahead of you in this OP.
Let's make the example more clear.
I disagree that I have to prove the fingerprint.
Here is the analogy as I see it.
Someone died yesterday, we found a gun and a full print on the gun. (and some other clues but let's focus on those 2)
Someone was cured yesterday, we found that this person healed instantly and that the cure was permanent (and some other clues but let's focus on those 2)
We find the owner of the gun and his fingerprint on the gun. We accuse him of murder and send him to prison.
We find the person responsible for the instant and permanent healing, God.
Such things as "real fingerprint" has been demonstrated. Same goes for the other clues
Such things as "real instant healing" has been demonstrated. Same goes for the other clues
Therefore It has been demonstrated that an alleged "God" interacts in the world and is responsible for healing people of their illnesses.
As for who is God? he is the greatest possible being.

Let's demonstrate it like you did with water :
1. Coherently define the term "God" (what 'thing' it refers to and consists of) in positive terms
2. Demonstrate that such a being exists independently of human imagination
3. Demonstrate that such a being actually interacted with the world in a clear and non-vague demonstrable way

1. Water - Water : a colorless, transparent, odorless, tasteless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms.
1. God - God : The greatest possible being.

2. Water -  Water is the most abundant compound on Earth's surface, covering 70 percent of the planet. In nature, water exists in liquid, solid, and gaseous states. Wikipedia[...] Oxidane
Water can be demonstrated to exist all over the world today, in places like Niagra Falls, Lake Mead, The Colorado River, The Nile River, the Atlantic Ocean, and nearly every faucet in people's homes.

2. God - God is everywhere. He does not have a specific form or composition. He is the greatest possible being. He can be demonstrated to exist all over the world today in places like Lourdes, Vatican or any miracle related places in the world.

3. Water - The Indian Ocean Tsunami in Sri Lanka is an example of water interacting with the world and so are toilets flushing. We can now, and have in the past, demonstrated the interaction of water with the world through observation, direct testing, and disinterested independent verification.

3. God - The healings at Lourdes is an example of God interacting with the world. So are any other miracles. We can now, and have in the past, demonstrated the interaction of God with the world through observation, direct testing, and disinterested independent verification.

Do you want to try the same thing with the HB? The result will be similar. Miracle will still be the proof of the existence of God outside your body.

You have to understand that some things are proven to exist even if we are not able to directly look at them (like the HB or black Holes) their only proof of existence is by looking at their action in their surroundings. God is one of these things.
Unless you are like a baby (I don't see "it", i can't feel "it" or taste "it" or detect "it" using my 5 senses so "it" doesn't exist) You must realize by now that miracles are proof of the existence of God outside our body.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1013 on: August 05, 2014, 05:18:21 PM »
So, you're saying that your god couldn't produce a lightning bolt, then.  Every lightning bolt that ever happened in the entirety of human history was due to natural causes rather than divine power, even though people long thought that lightning bolts were manifestations of divine power.
No no no. God can produce lightning bolts. I don't know if he ever produced one, I don't think that we could make sure that he did.
Even though theologians in the past had 'theories' to explain whether a lightning bolt was due to a god (or something else), and even to explain what the meaning of one was.
Like who? Was he Catholic? Examples? Or just something that you just thought of/create/imagine?

The only difference between them and you is that we do not yet have a scientific explanation for the events that we cannot explain and that you claim are caused by divine action.  Yet the comparison is clear; people back then did not yet have a scientific explanation for the events that they could not explain and that they claimed were caused by divine action.
Who are you talking about. Catholics? If not this "counter argument" of yours does not apply. Sorry. We have been talking about miracles recognized by the Vatican and I don't think that the Vatican ever recognized a miracle that science had since "debunked". If so, please share with us the source of your knowledge.

Are you running out of counter-argument and is starting to invent new ones?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1014 on: August 05, 2014, 05:20:20 PM »
Bolt of lightning is evidence of Zeus interacting in this world. We can measure them, so we can tell Zeus' power. Therefore, Zeus exists outside of our brains!