Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 14862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #957 on: August 01, 2014, 02:20:04 AM »
So Lukvance, have you made a decision or were you hoping this would slide under the rug?
I don't understand. What is the decision I have to make? You claimed many things but I don't see any support to them other than your imagination.

All the support I need is in your posts, where you clearly show yourself to be holding contradictory positions. I have merely exposed this contradiction and asked you to make a decision so not to be contradictory. If you think about it, I'm actually doing you a favour - this is for your own benefit. So which is it, is god the "first cause" or is there no such thing as miracles?

In case you are struggling with what it is you're actually doing, I have an analogy. You're taking a drop out of the ocean and then contrasting it against the ocean to prove that there is water.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #958 on: August 01, 2014, 07:59:50 AM »
I think you misunderstood me.
You say "I do not imagine roses or money into existence"
I say "I can imagine a situation involving roses and make that situation real" The situation/idea is thought into existence , not the elements of the situation (roses or money) the elements exist whether you think of them or not.

I can imagine an event and make it happen.  sometimes, yes.  But what the heck does this have to do with theology?

Simply put, you claim "theology can only explore ideas, not reality", do you agree with the claim "science can only explore ideas, not reality"?

No.  My objection is this -  in science, you observe reality to see if your ideas are correct.  In theology, even if your ideas are correct, your object of study is unobservable.  God is unobservable.  The holy spirit and jesus H are unobservable. Angels are unobservable.  Souls are unobservable.  Heaven and hell are unobservable.  This is why theology is more like literary analysis.  All you have to go on are old writings.

 
Example : Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre's miracle cure.
In the case of Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre. God was hypothesized because different models (explaining her cure) contained inaccuracies. God corrected those inaccuracies. It was implied, defined and predicted by Theologians. It was like a jigsaw puzzle with a piece missing. You can tell the shape it needs to be by the pieces around it.  You can tell the colors by the pieces around it.

substituting your words into my example does not make it work.  It is wrong on so many levels.
1. nothing about it implied your particular god. It could have been a hindu god for all you know.
2. nothing about it even necessarily implies a god.  It could have been Sally, the healing ghost.
3. there is no math involved.  you need math to have a model.
and most importantly:
4. you are not going out and observing god.  They found Higgs bosons.  Actually found them where they predicted they would find them.  No such thing happened with your alleged miracle.  There is no photo plate with god's footprints on it.

I have already explained to you several times how all you are doing is putting your preferred superstitious belief in place of ignorance.   

The example is one that you can easily verify.

It is not.  The only thing you can do is point to an event you do not have an explanation for.

Thank you for the example. It clarifies a lot for me.
I realize that your example is the opposite of the one I just gave... so, how do we know who the two of us is saying the truth?

you make observations.  Whichever ideas more accurately predict reality are the ideas that are more right.  Oh, wait, you cannot observe anything because your god is in hiding. Well, I guess that pretty decisively shows that theology is not the same game as science.

Is it one piece and we imagine/theorize the puzzle or is it a puzzle and we imagine/theorize one piece?
I believe that the answers lies in the education. We have to educate ourselves on the subject.
I spoke to one of those person who educated herself during many years on the subject. That person agrees with me. I found papers online that also support this person ideas. What about you?

The problem here is you are absolutely clueless.  You either are completely incapable of understanding what evidence is or you are trolling me.  Education would be good, but you seem impervious to it.

I find it interesting that you claim to have found online papers, but failed to post them.


God is responsible for the event (Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre's miracle cure)

In what way was it verified?  Did someone see god doing it?  Is there some trace of god that can be tested for?  what is that test?  Is it like litmus paper?  Or was it just a religious guy claiming the god of his preference did it?


You have wasted enough of my time.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #959 on: August 01, 2014, 05:25:07 PM »

This is how misplaced/uncomprehensive/silly your arguments look like when I read you :

NO. You did not produce a "theory" here. You produced a statement about an alleged "hypothesis" which pertains to an alleged "HB" thing which neither you, nor your "scientists", have coherently defined. Furthermore, you keep acting as if there must be an answer, right now (positive or negative) about these unexplained occurrences - when in fact that is a false dichotomy. The scientists had already stated their position on those alleged "HB sighting" cases. They stated that THEY DON'T KNOW! They do not have an explanation at this time. And that is a perfectly rational and honest position in science. Unfortunately it seems to be one that you and your scientists are unwilling to accept. So you jump on board with your presuppositions and just accept the fallacious reasoning of those within your group (attempting to use an argument from ignorance fallacy to prop up faulty belief that "the HB interacted in the world" when you have no rational justification for drawing that conclusion).

"Hypothesis" does not equal truth and you merely saying, "the HB corrected..." is to assume the very thing you need to prove (namely that there IS a "HB" thing that could have "done" anything). You are still arguing in a circle and it is fallacious.

Now, how about you present us with educated /supported counter arguments?
Let me remind you what you should be counter arguing
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.

You are truly a buffoon. First, the HB does have a coherent definition (see below). Your alleged "God" does not. I've already told you (on multiple occasions) that I have not studied the HB enough to discuss it. So for the purpose of this OP I am agnostic about it. But you aren't agnostic about your alleged "God"! So for the last time, you can stop bringing it up. I simply do-not-care how many times you keep trying to bring up the HB. It will be rejected every-single-time. Further, you are attempting to draw an analogy between what is natural and what is the alleged supernatural. That is a false analogy. The two cannot rightly be compared because "the supernatural" has not been demonstrated to exist; whereas the natural has been demonstrated to exist.

My rebuttals to your arguments (i.e. - my counter arguments) have in fact been educated and supported. You continually attempt to use logical fallacies and I have noted them in detail. No more counter-argument is necessary b/c when you attempt to use logically fallacious reasoning there is nothing else to consider. Your arguments are logically unsound and invalid and therefore you have not met your burden of proof. Case closed. It is not my job to come up with "another theory" (aka - another explanation) b/c when science does not have an explanation for something (or is ignorant of a phenomena) that is when we admit ignorance. There is no logical necessity to ASSERT anything one way or the other. And your claiming that your method is 'science' does not make it so. You need to first demonstrate that by (first and foremost) defining WTF you are talking about!

Higgs-Boson - a subatomic particle whose existence is predicted by the theory that unified the weak and electromagnetic interactions.

-You haven't defined "God" in any way, shape, or form
-You haven't demonstrated that such a thing is independently real
-You haven't shown that such an alleged "thing" interacts with the world

So you cannot just assert that "IT" did anything and have it pass muster!!! Your saying so doesn't make it so. You need to meet these 3 challenges in order to meet your burden of proof for the claims that you have made (i.e. - to meet the challenge of this OP).
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 05:46:00 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #960 on: August 01, 2014, 06:19:57 PM »
Now, how about you present us with educated /supported counter arguments?
Let me remind you what you should be counter arguing
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.
[...]

-You haven't defined "God" in any way, shape, or form
-You haven't demonstrated that such a thing is independently real
-You haven't shown that such an alleged "thing" interacts with the world

So you cannot just assert that "IT" did anything and have it pass muster!!! Your saying so doesn't make it so. You need to meet these 3 challenges in order to meet your burden of proof for the claims that you have made (i.e. - to meet the challenge of this OP).
Thank you Screwtape and median.

Almost 1,000 posts and Lukvance has not yet even started to explain.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #961 on: August 03, 2014, 10:38:08 AM »

Thank you Screwtape and median.

Almost 1,000 posts and Lukvance has not yet even started to explain.

I always find it extraordinarily laughable when religionists try to argue for an alleged being that they themselves cannot even coherently define.

-Hey guys, I think that a Schmarbelfarben exists and interacts with the world!
-What the heck is that??
-It fits the theory! It fits my theory!
-What the heck is a "Schmarbelfarben"?? What are you even talking about??
-[silence...]

Religious talk of "God" really is non-sense.

-Still waiting Luk...
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 10:48:32 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Don_Quixote

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Darwins +3/-0
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #962 on: August 04, 2014, 10:17:40 AM »
I wonder how do you all get so patient with Luk.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #963 on: August 04, 2014, 12:01:29 PM »
“If science does not demonstrate the existence of “HB" as separate from human imagination then it cannot test, review or verify predictions.  The reason for this is that you can’t test, review or verify predictions of something that hasn’t been demonstrated.”

Makes perfect sense. 
Well my friend if that makes sense I don't know what kind of scientist you are. You telling me that you can demonstrate the existence of something without testing reviewing or predicting anything about it!? I have to see that, it will be a "miracle". :)
Please, share with us an example.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #964 on: August 04, 2014, 12:45:37 PM »
Quote from: Lukvance
Theology allow us to draw a theory based on real things. It allows us to define God theoretically.
However, I cannot agree with this.  It may be true that you can devise a theoretical definition of a god using theology, however, that theoretical definition is not useful in and of itself.  It is possible to come up with a theoretical definition of just about anything, but such a thing is essentially a thought experiment.  Since a thought experiment is based on real things, it is entirely possible to commit the cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy and draw the conclusion that the thought experiment has validity in the real world, when in fact that is not a reasonable conclusion to draw.  A thought experiment can be logically valid, yet whether something is logical has no bearing on whether it actually exists.
A thought experiment can be logically valid AND whether something is logical can have bearing on whether it actually exists. You are really cautious about your counter argument and I can understand why. You are right "it might" but that means that "it might not" and for your counter argument to be complete it would have to explain why in this case "it might". I'm not sure how to explain that more clearly, I'm trying to point out that you are right in general but that your counter argument is missing some example to make it right in that particular case.

Quote from: Lukvance
This theory is then proved right or wrong by events.
Not necessarily.  Let's take the example of healings at Lourdes.  According to your church's 'theoretical' definition of God, those events stand as evidence of your god acting in the world, and therefore that he is not simply an imagined creation of human beings.  However, it has not done a good job of showing that to be the case.  It has medical experts examine these healings in order to rule out any which are scientifically explainable, and only then examines the remainder to see if they fit the theological 'theory'.  This commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy; there is no way to tell for sure that a person having a revitalized faith in their god because of a 'miraculous' healing means that their recovery has anything to do with their god.  Therefore, it is not a reasonable conclusion to draw about their recovery; they went to a Catholic shrine in the hopes of being healed, they recovered from their illness, most people would have their faith revitalized after such a recovery, therefore the mere fact that their faith became stronger afterward is not an indication that a god is responsible.
I agree with you, But it is not only the fact that the faith become stronger afterward that indicate a possible God responsible. What indicate that it is God who did it is not only one thing. It's a multitude. I talked already about some of them (the immediate cure, the long lasting effect, the good directly caused by the miracle, the place of the miracle in the sick person life...etc) If you wish to know what are all the fact taken in you will have to learn them from theology courses. There are things that "cannot be from God" because they do not fit the theoretical description of God.
The theory (of what God might be) is proved right or wrong by events like the ones in Lourdes. Let me underline the fact that the Theory can be proved WRONG.
There might be a mistake in saying that God need to exist for Theology to exist. I agree that it is true for some field of Theology (the courses where God is accepted as existing) but some other fields that do not see God as existing. These are the fields I believe is used to create the Theory of God, based on real things.

For example, if there are no gods, then no theological field will ever have any bearing on reality.  It does not matter if there is a field of theology for the study of a god 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.
I love examples. They allow me to understand ideas better. If your example is true, so is the following :
"If there are no Higgs Boson, 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 HB 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?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #965 on: August 04, 2014, 01:17:55 PM »
I love examples. They allow me to understand ideas better. If your example is true, so is the following :
"If there are no Higgs Boson, 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 HB 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 sincerely hope that there is no agreement. Agreement would be to confirm that neither of you can argue logically when, as I see it, there is only one whose critical thinking is weak and confused.

God does not stand in the same position as a Higgs Boson.

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.

PS, if you stop using "Higgs Boson" as an example, I will put £1 in the local Catholic Church's collection box.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #966 on: August 04, 2014, 01:42:52 PM »
I think you misunderstood me.
You say "I do not imagine roses or money into existence"
I say "I can imagine a situation involving roses and make that situation real" The situation/idea is thought into existence , not the elements of the situation (roses or money) the elements exist whether you think of them or not.

I can imagine an event and make it happen.  sometimes, yes.  But what the heck does this have to do with theology?
Theology can imagine an event (God Interacting with the world) and this event happen (miracle)

Simply put, you claim "theology can only explore ideas, not reality", do you agree with the claim "science can only explore ideas, not reality"?

No.  My objection is this -  in science, you observe reality to see if your ideas are correct.  In theology, even if your ideas are correct, your object of study is unobservable.  God is unobservable.  The holy spirit and jesus H are unobservable. Angels are unobservable.  Souls are unobservable.  Heaven and hell are unobservable.  This is why theology is more like literary analysis.  All you have to go on are old writings.
God is as observable as any HB particle out there. You just need to use the correct tools and the correct method. Just like HB. ONly by using those specific tools in these specific manner that you will be able to observe "it".
So, your counter argument "God is unobservable" is false. The truth is that "God is as observable as the HB"
However I do agree with you that Theologians learn about things that are unobservable...yet (like angels or souls). Maybe the study of those things will allow us to write theory that will allows us to observe them.

Example : Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre's miracle cure.
In the case of Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre. God was hypothesized because different models (explaining her cure) contained inaccuracies. God corrected those inaccuracies. It was implied, defined and predicted by Theologians. It was like a jigsaw puzzle with a piece missing. You can tell the shape it needs to be by the pieces around it.  You can tell the colors by the pieces around it.
substituting your words into my example does not make it work.  It is wrong on so many levels.
1. nothing about it implied your particular god. It could have been a hindu god for all you know.
2. nothing about it even necessarily implies a god.  It could have been Sally, the healing ghost.
3. there is no math involved.  you need math to have a model.
and most importantly:
4. you are not going out and observing god.  They found Higgs bosons.  Actually found them where they predicted they would find them.  No such thing happened with your alleged miracle.  There is no photo plate with god's footprints on it.
In case 1 and 2 we would still have demonstrated the existence of God. We would simply have given it another name.
In case 3 you only need math to have a mathematical model. The mathematical model is not the only one existing.
In cas 4. There is something way more relevant than a photo plate. There is a cured person. More than one. More than one place. That person was "found" exactly where they predicted they would find her.

The example is one that you can easily verify.
It is not.  The only thing you can do is point to an event you do not have an explanation for.
YOU don't have an explanation for. *I* and many other theologians have an explanation for the event. YOU are the one saying "they don't know what they are talking about" or "they are liars anyway" or "I don't trust them" and that's ok. Everyone could say that about scientists too. But it doesn't change the facts/truth.
Go and check for yourself if needed.

Is it one piece and we imagine/theorize the puzzle or is it a puzzle and we imagine/theorize one piece?
I believe that the answers lies in the education. We have to educate ourselves on the subject.
I spoke to one of those person who educated herself during many years on the subject. That person agrees with me. I found papers online that also support this person ideas. What about you?
The problem here is you are absolutely clueless.  You either are completely incapable of understanding what evidence is or you are trolling me.  Education would be good, but you seem impervious to it.
I find it interesting that you claim to have found online papers, but failed to post them.

Funny, I asked about you and you feel the need to talk about me...without talking about your knowledge. Are you afraid to admit that "you know nothing screwtape snow" ? (Games of Thrones reference)
Here is the link about the papers :
I am not a theologian. You can find what you are looking for here : http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=existence+of+god

God is responsible for the event (Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre's miracle cure)
In what way was it verified?  Did someone see god doing it?  Is there some trace of god that can be tested for?  what is that test?  Is it like litmus paper?  Or was it just a religious guy claiming the god of his preference did it?
Since the claim of the event, even before biological tests were made, theologians worked to make sure if this event fitted the theory of God or not. In that way it was verified.
No one directly saw God doing it since he is invisible. But many saw what he did.
The trace god left was the cure. You can test the cure to make sure that is was god and nothing else that made it. (it was no human feat)

Now let me ask you the same questions about the HB, maybe you'll understand the absurdity of some of them :
In what way was it verified?  Did someone see the HB doing it?  Is there some trace of the HB that can be tested for?  what is that test?  Is it like litmus paper?  Or was it just a religious guy claiming the Boson of his preference did it?
Care to answer them? Or are you ready to admit the absurdity of your questions?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #967 on: August 04, 2014, 01:53:38 PM »
I sincerely hope that there is no agreement. Agreement would be to confirm that neither of you can argue logically when, as I see it, there is only one whose critical thinking is weak and confused.
I really don't care what you think of me or jaimehlers. Stop judging us and stick to your arguments.

Quote
God does not stand in the same position as a Higgs Boson.
So what!?

Quote
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.

PS, if you stop using "Higgs Boson" as an example, I will put £1 in the local Catholic Church's collection box.

So basically what you are saying is that because God is more important than the Higgs Boson, he must be not existent!? 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)? or...some other argument that is mysteriously hidden in your text comparing the importance of HB and God?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #968 on: August 04, 2014, 02:18:52 PM »
Higgs-Boson - a subatomic particle whose existence is predicted by the theory that unified the weak and electromagnetic interactions.

-You haven't defined "God" in any way, shape, or form
-You haven't demonstrated that such a thing is independently real
-You haven't shown that such an alleged "thing" interacts with the world

So you cannot just assert that "IT" did anything and have it pass muster!!! Your saying so doesn't make it so. You need to meet these 3 challenges in order to meet your burden of proof for the claims that you have made (i.e. - to meet the challenge of this OP).
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"
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're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #969 on: August 04, 2014, 02:37:50 PM »
A thought experiment can be logically valid AND whether something is logical can have bearing on whether it actually exists. You are really cautious about your counter argument and I can understand why. You are right "it might" but that means that "it might not" and for your counter argument to be complete it would have to explain why in this case "it might". I'm not sure how to explain that more clearly, I'm trying to point out that you are right in general but that your counter argument is missing some example to make it right in that particular case.
The point I was trying to make is that the burden of proof lies on the one making the thought experiment to show that it is both logically valid and relevant to the real world.  One can make a thought experiment based on, say, Star Trek or Harry Potter that could easily be logically valid, but one could not assume that it was relevant just from that.

Quote from: Lukvance
I agree with you, But it is not only the fact that the faith become stronger afterward that indicate a possible God responsible. What indicate that it is God who did it is not only one thing. It's a multitude. I talked already about some of them (the immediate cure, the long lasting effect, the good directly caused by the miracle, the place of the miracle in the sick person life...etc) If you wish to know what are all the fact taken in you will have to learn them from theology courses. There are things that "cannot be from God" because they do not fit the theoretical description of God.
None of those things indicate that a god was responsible, however.  All of the examples you listed here (and, I suspect, the full list that you intimate that one would have to learn from theology courses) are circumstantial, not direct.  Indeed, that's the problem; circumstantial examples can suggest that something might be the case, but they cannot conclusively prove it, no matter how many examples you end up having.  To prove something, you need direct evidence, and from what I've been able to tell, nothing at Lourdes provides that direct evidence.  That may be enough to convince someone who is already inclined to believe, but you need more than that for proof.

Quote from: Lukvance
The theory (of what God might be) is proved right or wrong by events like the ones in Lourdes. Let me underline the fact that the Theory can be proved WRONG.
There might be a mistake in saying that God need to exist for Theology to exist. I agree that it is true for some field of Theology (the courses where God is accepted as existing) but some other fields that do not see God as existing. These are the fields I believe is used to create the Theory of God, based on real things.
Actually, no, the 'theory' isn't proved right or wrong by supposedly miraculous events, because all of those events are circumstantial in nature.  The most one can show with them is a maybe.  Even the ones excluded from consideration are still excluded based on circumstance, not on direct proof.  For example, if the cure is explainable, the assumption is that it isn't miraculous, but the fact that something is explainable in no way indicates whether a god was responsible or whether it was a miraculous event.  Same thing with the other criteria; if the cure is not immediate, that does not show whether a god was responsible or not.  If it does not last indefinitely, that does not show whether a god was responsible or not.  So on and so forth.

Quote from: Lukvance
I love examples. They allow me to understand ideas better. If your example is true, so is the following :
"If there are no Higgs Boson, 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 HB 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 categorically refuse to consider any 'example' you give using the Higgs boson unless and until you demonstrate to my satisfaction that you know what you're talking about.  If you wish to do this by PM, you may, but that is the minimum requirement for me to be willing to talk with you about it.  If you are not willing to do that, then do not bring it up with me again, please.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #970 on: August 04, 2014, 02:45:23 PM »
“If science does not demonstrate the existence of “HB" as separate from human imagination then it cannot test, review or verify predictions.  The reason for this is that you can’t test, review or verify predictions of something that hasn’t been demonstrated.”

Makes perfect sense. 

Well my friend if that makes sense I don't know what kind of scientist you are. You telling me that you can demonstrate the existence of something without testing reviewing or predicting anything about it!? I have to see that, it will be a "miracle". :)
Please, share with us an example.

Take a rock and hold it into your hand, hold your arm outstretched from your body and parallel to your shoulders.  Make sure the palm of your hand is facing towards your feet and that you are standing.  Release your grip of the rock, letting the rock fall to the ground.  When you do this, you will have demonstrated that objects move towards the Earth.  Now you can test, review and verify predictions regarding this demonstrated phenomenon.

Let’s say I make a prediction that a bowling ball will move towards the Earth faster than a golf ball if dropped from the same height at the same time.  We’ve already demonstrated that a rock will move towards the Earth when dropped from various heights.  Now we can test my prediction.  Each of us can perform the test, and review our testing methods for insuring the bowling ball and golf ball are dropped from the same height and at the same time.  We can measure the heights, and even build complex timing devices that will release the objects at a specified time(which we will also have to test, review and verify predictions of).  After completing the test multiple times and from various heights, we will find that my prediction has been falsified.  From our tests, we found that the objects moved towards the Earth at the same rate.  We can now make a better prediction that a bowling ball and a baseball will move towards the Earth at the same rate.  Again, we test, and this time we verify our prediction. 

Merriam-Webster defines “science” as a study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.  Merriam-Webster defines “demonstrate” as to prove (something) by showing examples of it or to show evidence of (something).

You telling me that you can demonstrate the existence of something without testing reviewing or predicting anything about it!?

I would also like to point out that I never said predictions couldn’t be made.   I said that predictions couldn’t be verified.   There is a big difference.  Anyone can make predictions about anything and everything.  Predictions are useless unless they can be verified or falsified.  Yes, even falsified predictions are more useful than predictions that can’t be falsified. 

Please explain how a person can verify or falsify a prediction regarding something that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist?  For example, how can I verify or falsify a prediction regarding the sleeping patterns of Unicorns?  Someone would have to demonstrate that Unicorns exist before the prediction regarding their sleeping patterns can be verified or falsified right?
In contrast, I can verify or falsify a prediction regarding the sleeping pattern of African Elephants as they have been demonstrated to exist.

Please explain how a person can test something that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist?  For example, how can I test the peak running speed of a Unicorn?  Someone would have to demonstrate that Unicorns exist before I can test their peak running speed right?  In contrast, I can test the peak running speed of cheetahs as they have been demonstrated to exist.

Please explain how a person can review testing methods and data collected regarding something that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist?  For example, how can I review the testing methods and data collected on Unicorns?  Someone would have to demonstrate that Unicorns exist before I can review the testing methods and data collection right?  In contrast, I can review testing methods and data collected regarding African Elephants and Cheetahs as they have been demonstrated to exist. 

Welcome to science Lukvance.  It works.  First something is demonstrated, THEN you test, review and verify predictions.  It’s how science has functioned for a few centuries now at least. 
"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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6713
  • Darwins +896/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #971 on: August 04, 2014, 03:52:29 PM »
^^^^How was the list of supposed attributes of a godly miracle (instant, permanent, make the person's life better, etc.) drawn up?

Where is the evidence that god only acts in these ways and in no other? Where is the evidence that those attributes could not possibly refer to a friendly but shy alien being from a different galaxy who uses advanced technology to heal, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any "best possible god" thought up by humans? Where is the evidence that a tricky demon who wants to fool people for a few hundred years, is not doing the healings exactly the way a "best possible god" would do it?

If I was a tricky evil demon, that is exactly what I would do--and then, when people are thinking they have god all figured out, pull the switcheroo and have everyone who drinks the Lourdes water die instantly and horribly. But that might still be the work of the loving god, right?

Don't many religious people see god in whatever happens? If the person gets cured instantly and permanently from the cancer, it was a godly miracle. But if the person dies in horrible  pain, still faithful to god, it is also a miracle-- what a wonderful example that brought other people to the faith!

Wasn't that the case of Bernadette of Lourdes? She had visions and drank the Lourdes water. She had cholera and asthma, but did not get any miraculous healing--she died of TB in her early 30's.  Yet, every year millions of folks go to Lourdes because of her, and also, just like her, get no miracle healing.

Many actually get worse, and die horribly. Some certainly infect others by traveling while ill, spreading their diseases on the way there and back.[1] But that's all coolio because lots more people believe as a result of the insignificant occasional coincidence that the Catholic Church decides are godly miracles. That way, even if more people sicken and die as a result, they have a better chance at heaven!

The bar for religious belief is so incredibly low, it boggles the mind.

When a soft drink company implies that drinking their product will make you beautiful, happy and popular, that's bogus, but it's a fairly harmless lie. However, if Mountain Dew said their product cured cancer and gave sinful people a better chance of getting into heaven, with the exact same scientific basis as religious miracles, they would be shut down by the authorities.

I swear, one of these days when I decide it's time to quit professoring for pennies and get dishonestly filthy rich, I (like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, Elijah Muhammed, Charles Taze Russell and Saul of Tarsus) will start a religion. I promise to share the proceeds with all the atheists here.  :angel:
 1. Should people from Africa with ebola travel to Lourdes for a chance at a miracle healing or not? Let's take a vote, shall we?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

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

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +376/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #972 on: August 04, 2014, 05:05:48 PM »
I swear, one of these days when I decide it's time to quit professoring for pennies and get dishonestly filthy rich, I (like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, Elijah Muhammed, Charles Taze Russell and Saul of Tarsus) will start a religion. I promise to share the proceeds with all the atheists here.  :angel:

Quote from: L. Ron Hubbard
You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #973 on: August 04, 2014, 05:31:23 PM »
I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Good for you.  The thought is mutual, as most here don’t think you know what you are talking about.  For instance:

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.  It is a failed attempt to argue for “God’s” existence using logic.  It is logically flawed.  In your version there is no reason to accept the premise that if something exists in the mind (greatest being or whatever), it must also exist in reality.  The flaw of this premise was first identified by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers when he used the same logic to conceive of the greatest island.  The second flaw is the premise that something is greater if it exists outside the mind, there is no reason to accept this premise as “greater” is subjective. 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 05:33:57 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
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #974 on: August 04, 2014, 05:48:40 PM »
The point I was trying to make is that the burden of proof lies on the one making the thought experiment to show that it is both logically valid and relevant to the real world.  One can make a thought experiment based on, say, Star Trek or Harry Potter that could easily be logically valid, but one could not assume that it was relevant just from that.
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.

None of those things indicate that a god was responsible, however.  All of the examples you listed here (and, I suspect, the full list that you intimate that one would have to learn from theology courses) are circumstantial, not direct.
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.
 
circumstantial examples can suggest that something might be the case, but they cannot conclusively prove it, no matter how many examples you end up having
Ok I really don't get what are theses "circumstantial examples" you are talking about. If I take the red Car example. What could be the "circumstantial examples" and the "non circumstantial examples"?

if the cure is explainable, the assumption is that it isn't miraculous, but the fact that something is explainable in no way indicates whether a god was responsible or whether it was a miraculous event.  Same thing with the other criteria; if the cure is not immediate, that does not show whether a god was responsible or not.  If it does not last indefinitely, that does not show whether a god was responsible or not.  So on and so forth.
the fact that something is explainable indicate that it is not God's direct effect. It's humans. Same thing with the immediate cure. If the cure is not immediate, it indicate that it could be from some other secret procedure or let's say something from something the patient inhaled in the plane back to her place. It indicate that it is not certain anymore that the cure comes from God directly. If it does not last indefinitely it shows that the cure wasn't "perfect" hence cannot be from God. Each criteria proves/disprove that it must be from God like the theory predicted.


Quote from: Lukvance
I love examples. They allow me to understand ideas better. If your example is true, so is the following :
"If there are no Higgs Boson, 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 HB 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 categorically refuse to consider any 'example' you give using the Higgs boson.
Then you could change it for something else. I don't care. The question is the same. I used the HB example to make it understandable by all. If it's still too complicated for you to understand 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?
You're worth more than my time

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #975 on: August 04, 2014, 06:17:59 PM »
Fuck your "the car is red" bullshit....you have been shown over and over how scientific princples and theories work,and when you apply it to your theologies it fails to work.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #976 on: August 04, 2014, 06:19:04 PM »
Take a rock and hold it into your hand, hold your arm outstretched from your body and parallel to your shoulders.  Make sure the palm of your hand is facing towards your feet and that you are standing.  Release your grip of the rock, letting the rock fall to the ground.  When you do this, you will have demonstrated that objects move towards the Earth.  Now you can test, review and verify predictions regarding this demonstrated phenomenon.
Ok here is the equivalent with the miracles as existence of God.
Go to Lourdes (or set up a shop in front of your house) Look at someone being cured "miraculously" under your nose. When you do this, you will have demonstrated that people can get cured "miraculously".  Now you can test, review and verify predictions regarding this demonstrated phenomenon.

Let’s say I make a prediction that if God is involved the cure must be immediate.
We have already demonstrated that people can get cured "miraculously".  Now we can test my prediction.  Each of us can perform the test, and review our testing methods. After completing the tests we will find that my prediction has been falsified.  From our tests, we found that people who do not get cure immediately cannot be held accountable as "proof of God".  We can now make a better prediction cure must be immediate. Again, we test, and this time we verify our prediction. 

Quote
Please explain how a person can verify or falsify a prediction regarding something that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist?  For example, how can I verify or falsify a prediction regarding the sleeping patterns of Unicorns?  Someone would have to demonstrate that Unicorns exist before the prediction regarding their sleeping patterns can be verified or falsified right?
In contrast, I can verify or falsify a prediction regarding the sleeping pattern of African Elephants as they have been demonstrated to exist.
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.

Quote
Please explain how a person can review testing methods and data collected regarding something that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist?  For example, how can I review the testing methods and data collected on Unicorns?  Someone would have to demonstrate that Unicorns exist before I can review the testing methods and data collection right?  In contrast, I can review testing methods and data collected regarding African Elephants and Cheetahs as they have been demonstrated to exist.
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?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #977 on: August 04, 2014, 06:21:55 PM »
nogodsforme, I am not able to answer your questions. Please ask them to a miracle expert or a theologian. Or follow a course in theology, just one introduction to theology course might suffice to answer your questions.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #978 on: August 04, 2014, 06:27:16 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.
You're worth more than my time

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1650
  • Darwins +63/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #979 on: August 04, 2014, 06:30:03 PM »
ok so set up a shop in yr back yard, witness a miracle, it can not be explained by science, hypothesis Allah did it, BOOM allah exists.

if you don't believe me take a course in theology or ask a theologian.
Signature goes here...

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4617
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #980 on: August 04, 2014, 06:36:51 PM »
ok so set up a shop in yr back yard, witness a miracle, it can not be explained by science, hypothesis Allah did it, BOOM allah exists.

if you don't believe me take a course in theology or ask a theologian.
boom,Vishnu,Boom,Zeus,Boom,flying spaghetti monster,boom,L.Ron Hubbard,Boom,any god you can imagine
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6713
  • Darwins +896/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #981 on: August 04, 2014, 07:02:00 PM »
nogodsforme, I am not able to answer your questions. Please ask them to a miracle expert or a theologian. Or follow a course in theology, just one introduction to theology course might suffice to answer your questions.

Of course you can answer my questions. They only require you to apply the same common sense that any person, even you, uses to navigate their everyday life. No special knowledge or expertise needed. You know that Coca Cola and Mountain Dew don't have miracle healing properties, and they would be put out of business if they claimed to.

However, those soft drinks heal exactly as many people from cancer and paralyzed hands as your miracle performing god does. With far less harm, since nobody seriously ill travels halfway round the world to get a soft drink. But sick people do travel long distances to get to holy places, getting sicker and infecting others.

The problem you have is that, once you answer my questions, you no longer have your miracle performing god. So to protect your miracle performing god, you will not answer my questions.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

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

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #982 on: August 04, 2014, 07:07:29 PM »
Take a rock and hold it into your hand, hold your arm outstretched from your body and parallel to your shoulders.  Make sure the palm of your hand is facing towards your feet and that you are standing.  Release your grip of the rock, letting the rock fall to the ground.  When you do this, you will have demonstrated that objects move towards the Earth.  Now you can test, review and verify predictions regarding this demonstrated phenomenon.
Ok here is the equivalent with the miracles as existence of God.
Go to Lourdes (or set up a shop in front of your house) Look at someone being cured "miraculously" under your nose. When you do this, you will have demonstrated that people can get cured "miraculously".  Now you can test, review and verify predictions regarding this demonstrated phenomenon.

Let’s say I make a prediction that if God is involved the cure must be immediate.
We have already demonstrated that people can get cured "miraculously".  Now we can test my prediction.  Each of us can perform the test, and review our testing methods. After completing the tests we will find that my prediction has been falsified.  From our tests, we found that people who do not get cure immediately cannot be held accountable as "proof of God".  We can now make a better prediction cure must be immediate. Again, we test, and this time we verify our prediction. 

Your attempted mimicry is meaningless to me.  All you have are empty assertions with no supporting evidence. 

Here are some links showing experimental data regarding free fall:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/ffallex.html

http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/IYearLab/Intros/FreeFall/FreeFall.html

http://physics.appstate.edu/laboratory/quick-guides/free-fall-0

Where is your experimental data regarding miracles?

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”.

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.

This is the hurdle you are struggling with, you’re not finding data or testing methods for “God” or miracles BECAUSE “GOD” HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO EXIST!

Go ahead, post a reply without any data or testing methods, you only continue to prove my point valid.
"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
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #983 on: August 04, 2014, 07:09:30 PM »
nogodsforme, I am not able to answer your questions. Please ask them to a miracle expert or a theologian. Or follow a course in theology, just one introduction to theology course might suffice to answer your questions.

Of course you can answer my questions. They only require you to apply the same common sense that any person, even you, uses to navigate their everyday life. No special knowledge or expertise needed. You know that Coca Cola and Mountain Dew don't have miracle healing properties, and they would be put out of business if they claimed to.

However, those soft drinks heal exactly as many people from cancer and paralyzed hands as your miracle performing god does. With far less harm, since nobody seriously ill travels halfway round the world to get a soft drink. But sick people do travel long distances to get to holy places, getting sicker and infecting others.

The problem you have is that, once you answer my questions, you no longer have your miracle performing god. So to protect your miracle performing god, you will not answer my questions.
Since you seem to know so much about Coke, answer this :
How was the list of supposed ingredient of Coke drawn up?
Where is the evidence that these ingredients indeed make the Coke and no others where added? Where is the evidence that those attributes could not possibly refer to another type of Coke? Where is the evidence that a tricky company who wants to fool people for a few hundred years, is not selling coke using exactly the same ingredients?

If I was a tricky evil company, that is exactly what I would do--and then, when people are thinking they have coke's all figured out, pull the switcheroo and have everyone who drinks the coke die instantly and horribly. But that might still be the work of the original coke recipe, right?
You're worth more than my time

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #984 on: August 04, 2014, 07:19:44 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?  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.  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.  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.

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.
 
Quote from: Lukvance
Ok I really don't get what are theses "circumstantial examples" you are talking about. If I take the red Car example. What could be the "circumstantial examples" and the "non circumstantial examples"?
I explained above, but if you still don't understand after reading that, I'll try again.

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.

Quote from: Lukvance
Same thing with the immediate cure. If the cure is not immediate, it indicate that it could be from some other secret procedure or let's say something from something the patient inhaled in the plane back to her place. It indicate that it is not certain anymore that the cure comes from God directly.
The problem with this approach is that they never demonstrated that the cure came directly from God to begin with.  That is a big flaw in your reasoning.  All they have demonstrated is that we cannot explain it scientifically, and then pointed to circumstantial evidence which suggests (to you and to them) that it might be your god.  The problem is, circumstantial evidence does not prove that something is the case (or that it isn't, for that matter).  It's the same reason we don't generally convict people based only on circumstantial evidence.

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.

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.

Quote from: Lukvance
Then you could change it for something else. I don't care. The question is the same. I used the HB example to make it understandable by all. If it's still too complicated for you to understand
This is very insulting.  I did not object to your use of the Higgs boson because it was too complicated for me to understand, I objected to it because I am far from convinced that you understand it anywhere near as well as you think you do.  However, I am not willing to waste further time and effort locking horns with you over it.

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.

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.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #985 on: August 04, 2014, 07:20:18 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.
"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