Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 15501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #1015 on: August 05, 2014, 05:35:13 PM »
The existence of God outside our body is not an assertion it is a deduction. (among other things)
It start with an hypothesis drawn from actual things.
This assumption is then "tested" during events were God is supposed to interact with our world.
Based on the "clues" left by the event, we conclude that God interacted with our world.
This allows us to THEN conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Just like
[deleted]
Lukvance we have all had enough of your obsession with an elemental particle. You have been told to avoid this, and if you think you have not, I am telling you now.

Find another way of expressing your thoughts.

Thank you

GB Mod
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 04:52:49 AM by Graybeard »
You're worth more than my time

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1016 on: August 05, 2014, 06:04:56 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?

Your answer is an empty dodge.  You don’t have the experimental data or testing methods, you claim that someone else has it.  So, now not only do you have to prove there is actually experimental data or testing methods, you also have to prove that the Vatican library has this information.  All you’ve done in this thread (as well as others) is pile unsupported assertion on top of unsupported assertion. 

Observing your ignorance relating to science and even the very miracles you assert are proof of the existence of “God” outside of human imagination is not an insult.  It is a valid criticism for which you should take under advisement and attempt to correct.  Your refusal to address this problem is a testament to your cognitive biases.  If I wanted to insult you, I’d call you a total fucking moron and inform you that your bullshit is worthless tripe meant to deceive other brain dead close minded imbeciles like yourself. 

Do you see the difference now between an insult and constructive criticism?

Why do you insist on dodging instead of addressing my points?

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.

The post you are replying to, was reply number 1000 in this thread.  You’re arguments have been reproached at every turn, by many individuals in many different ways, all very effectively debunking your claims and exposing your insistence on using logical fallacies.  YOU, Lukvance, have dodged and avoiding supporting any of your arguments, claims and assertions.  Even this very quote I am replying to, you have made an assertion that “others did exactly what Zola did” yet you have not supported this claim.  At this point, every post you make without supporting your arguments is only supplying evidence that you are delusional or a dedicated troll.

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".

Unfortunately, your method to “make sure that (your) arguments are solid and that they cannot be countered” is based on your presumption that you are right.  The only instance we have of you acknowledging a flaw in your argument is when YOU realized something.  Your method is ineffective as it requires you to realize something, yet if you fail to realize something then you will keep right on using flawed and false arguments.  Your attempts to refute the counter arguments are based on your various assumptions, presumption and other flawed and false logic.  In your very reply, you managed to lose track of a line of discussion we were having.  Given the multiple discussions you are having, it is understandable that you might lose track of a discussion, HOWEVER, if you can’t keep track of a discussion, how would you be able to properly evaluate a counter argument?

Perhaps in addition to doing some research regarding the scientific topics you wish to discuss, you should also take the time to review the discussions you are involved in before responding.  You don’t have to respond immediately to every person who replies to you.  You’re not on a timetable here. 


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")

Okay, so you are not attempting to refute my point that something must be demonstrated before you can test, review and verify predictions regarding that something. 

The relevant discussion can be found here.

I don’t think you understand the concept of falsify properly.  If “God” were falsified by theologians, then that means they would have shown that their “theory of God” was false.  In science, all predictions, hypothesis and theories can be falsified if the evidence either doesn’t support the hypothesis and/or theory or if new evidence is found that contradicts the hypothesis or theory  <   this is what it means for something to be falsifiable.   So if I make a prediction, and the test shows something other than the prediction, then my prediction will have been falsified because the evidence gathered from the test contradicts the predictions.  So far, the point of this thread is for you to provide the supporting evidence that shows that “God” exists.  Unfortunately, all of the “evidence” you have provided so far is not falsifiable, which means that there is no possible way to falsify your claimed “evidence” due to its unverifiable and/or illogical nature.  The same problem exists regarding unicorns, which is why in order for you to refute my points, you would have to prove that unicorns do not exist.

Can you falsify something that is true?

That depends on what you mean by true.  If you mean objectively (absolutely) true, then no, if something is objectively (absolutely) true then it cannot be false or falsified.  Of course, we know of very few things that are actually objectively (absolutely) true, such as mathematical or logical truths.  Everything other than mathematical and logical truths (assuming I’m not missing something besides those to general truths), is subject to being possibly true or possibly false at the same time.  The reason for this is because we are not omniscient, there might be information regarding something we think is true that would make it false.  So anything that we think is true should be capable of being falsified.  Unfortunately, again, there are things which rely on not being capable of being falsified in order to pretend to be true, for instance, unicorns and your god.


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.

How you understand things is questionable at best given your continued use of logical fallacies and numerous presumptions.  You again however insist on dodging having to support your claims by making assumptions about what I said.  Actually, I’m trying to be polite to give you a chance to research the subjects yourself and support your own claims instead of me providing you links to topics you have already ignored in this thread.  If you wish to delude yourself though, be my guest.


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?

Given the multiple occurrences of misunderstandings in this thread (and others), you didn’t think you had to spell everything out?  Is that how you hope to prove something, by not spelling everything out? 

Indeed, perhaps it would be wrong to use GPB as proof if you didn’t believe that “God” was the GPB, however what you believe is not in question in this line of discussion as defining “God” and what you believe “God” is or is not are two different things.


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?

Your condescension is grossly unwarranted considering how oblivious you are to the fact that defining the word “Great” does not define “Greatest”.  The word “greatest” is a subjective concept, what is greatest for you might not be greatest for me and vice versa. 

You’ve chosen a subjective concept to define “God”.  Nice.
"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 eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1992
  • Darwins +83/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1017 on: August 05, 2014, 06:07:16 PM »
ok here we again - control groups, statistical analysis of populations that are not catholics or even theists that have spontaneous remission or healings, falsifiability of miracle theory, predictability of miracle theory, actual method used, peer review, documentation of all medical records and treatment schedule before and after miracle in longitudinal studies, explanation of mechanism and how it is supported by other theories, multiple lines of evidence...... how can people be this ignorant in the 21'st century.
Signature goes here...

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1018 on: August 05, 2014, 06:10:53 PM »
The existence of God outside our body is not an assertion it is a deduction.

The conclusion of a deduction is entirely reliant on the truth of the premise.  If the premise is false, then the conclusion is false.  If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true.

The fact that you say "the existence of God outside our body is a deduction" is exactly saying that there is an assertion being made.  It is the assertion or premise that is being questinoned and idenfitied as being false, thus making any conclusions you attempt to make also false.

EDIT: Sorry, made a mistake in typing the part in Italic. 
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 06:15:12 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

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5074
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1019 on: August 05, 2014, 06:12:47 PM »
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.
I think someone just realized how badly he messed up when he said, "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""[1].  You see, we have an explanation for how lightning works in general, so we no longer need to point to a god as the cause for it - any of it.  So, as Lukvance said, lightning bolts can never be produced by his god, because we can explain every lightning bolt that ever happened and every lightning bolt that will ever happen using that explanation.  In order to say that your god can produce lightning bolts, you must mean ones we can explain, because there is no such thing as a lightning bolt we cannot explain using science.

Quote from: Lukvance
Like who? Was he Catholic? Examples? Or just something that you just thought of/create/imagine?
The specific religion is irrelevant, Lukvance, as you have given no evidence to show that Catholic theologians are any more or less right than theologians from other religions.  But if you want examples...

http://www.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html
Quote
It was not until Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning came along that the question could finally be answered that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians: Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them?
This applied to every Christian faith up until well after Franklin figured out how lightning worked and invented the lightning rod (in 1752, no less).  No theologian ever figured out the actual cause of lightning, though they had plenty of 'theories' based on their theological beliefs, and it took decades after Franklin's discovery for most of them to get it through their heads that lightning was a natural force, rather than a divine (or infernal) one, and thus had nothing to do with theology.  No amount of sacred rituals or theological reasoning ever did anything to prevent lightning from striking a tall steeple or tower on a church, whereas the lightning rod, a simple mechanism for grounding electrical current, stopped it entirely.

Quote from: Lukvance
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 saying that if science can later explain miracles recognized by the Vatican, that the Vatican will retroactively declare those things not to be miracles?

Quote from: Lukvance
Are you running out of counter-argument and is starting to invent new ones?
I felt it was necessary to point out how badly you contradicted yourself, and it's usually best to focus on something like that rather than burying it in a post that is several paragraphs (or pages) long.


edit: added url code to footnote link
 1. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg627837.html#msg627837
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 08:13:45 AM by screwtape »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1020 on: August 05, 2014, 06:24:34 PM »
Have I imagined it, or has Lukvance referred more than once to "the Catholic god"? Like, there are other gods busy doing miracles for Hindus or Baptists, but the Catholic god sticks to doing miracles for people who follow the pope.

Why does it matter whether the people who receive miracles are Catholic or not? That is one point I think Lukvance has glossed over. How is it that the all powerful best possible miracle doing god is only accessible or detectable to people of a particular religious faith?

Is the [Catholic] god really that petty and small as to ignore the vast majority of the planet in favor of one group? And only does a few random miracles per billion, at a rate undetectable from the random miracles performed by Pringles Potato chips or by proximity to superhero movies on a lap top? That ineffectual disappearing god meets the definition of best possible being?

I can imagine a better being than that, one that physically appears to everyone, and immediately grants all miracles to anyone who needs them, everywhere, all the time. My imagined best possible being drops tons of food from the clouds down to victims of famine, gently airlifts villages out of the way of tsunamis, rains on wildfires before they reach populated areas, catches every plane before they can crash, makes sure no species becomes endangered or goes extinct, grows back amputated feet, reverses Down Syndrome and Alzheimers, instantly cures PTSD and traumatic brain damage, makes all child molesters and rapists painfully, permanently impotent.

No excuses, just miracles everywhere and way above the level of statistical chance. This being is far, far better than Lukvance's puny part time partisan invisible do-nothing god.

Which, according to Lukvance, means that my best possible being has to exist. Outside my brain. Because if it was only inside my brain, it would not be the best possible being. Logic 101.

And I don't have to physically demonstrate this being, or explain why all requests for miracle healings are not immediately granted. You need to have faith. The evidence is available in the Library of Congress.

Because water is real. And love. And sub-atomic particles. And theology. The existence of my best possible god is not an assertion. It is a deduction.  If you can't understand that, well, I just can't help you.
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.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1021 on: August 05, 2014, 07:20:41 PM »
NoGods,I have asked him about people from other cultures and religions being healed by faith through their gods,I have not received an answer.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1022 on: August 05, 2014, 07:27:59 PM »
I can imagine a better being than that, one that physically appears to everyone, and immediately grants all miracles to anyone who needs them, everywhere, all the time. My imagined best possible being drops tons of food from the clouds down to victims of famine, gently airlifts villages out of the way of tsunamis, rains on wildfires before they reach populated areas, catches every plane before they can crash, makes sure no species becomes endangered or goes extinct, grows back amputated feet, reverses Down Syndrome and Alzheimers, instantly cures PTSD and traumatic brain damage, makes all child molesters and rapists painfully, permanently impotent.

No excuses, just miracles everywhere and way above the level of statistical chance. This being is far, far better than Lukvance's puny part time partisan invisible do-nothing god.

Now here's the thing, nogodsforme can conceive of acts more charitable and caring than the god that Luk would have us believe is the greatest conceivable being. This makes nogodsforme, herself, greater than Luk's god. And she clearly is. Seriously so.

Luk, let me suggest a change of plan. Seeing that nogods actually does good stuff for other people. Instead of praying then waiting for a cooincidence miracle, why don't you just ask someone like her to do something for someone else instead?

Win-win, right?

People get helped, and you get to feel good that someone even more powerful than your god sat up and took notice of what you asked them to do
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

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 #1023 on: August 05, 2014, 07:48:52 PM »

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.

This is a false analogy (another logical fallacy). We know people make guns and that people have fingerprints b/c people have demonstrated both of those (and can do so right now - I own a gun and I have fingerprints; both I can demonstrate to anyone else independently). We do not, however, have any demonstrations of an alleged "God" doing anything. You have yet to "find" that an invisible "person" is responsible for a human being getting better. It's just your assumption (unlike that of demonstrable guns and fingerprints). So stop your bullshit already. This analogy you keep trying will fail every-single-time b/c you haven't demonstrated that a "God" thing did anything to anyone. It is still an argument from ignorance - and again CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

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.

First, your attempt at a definition of "God" doesn't tell me anything useful about what "God" actually IS. All you've told me is what is POSSIBLE. I don't give a rats fucking ass what is "possible". I'm looking for you to give a me logically coherent definition of what this alleged "God" IS (what it is made of). You need to define "being" as it relates to your definition b/c in order for something to be a "being" it must have attributes (positive characteristics) - not what it supposedly does, but what it IS.

Second, your saying "God is everywhere" doesn't tell me anything useful either. I'm asking you about what your alleged 'being' IS - not what it does or how it allegedly behaves. Your attempted definition in #2 is meaningless because it doesn't actually demonstrate the alleged deity. It is just a CLAIM - like all of your other claims. More importantly though, if your alleged 'thing' has no "specific form or composition" then WTF are you talking about??? You are literally talking about nothing. It's pure nonsense. "I'm talking about a thing with no form or composition" is nonsense because you just talked about "it" as though "it" DID have form and/or composition! This concept of yours is meaningless and that is the point. If you cannot coherently tell me what the alleged "God" IS (what it is made of, in positive - not negative - terms) then the idea that the word "God" actually refers to a real, actual, independent "thing" is absurd b/c it literally refers to nothing. It is indistinguishable from fiction.

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.

You literally just contradicted yourself. A second ago you admitted that "[God] does not have a specific form or composition." If this is true then you cannot even talk about such a 'thing' as interacting with the world - because in order for something to interact with the world there must be some "thing" with which our world can interact. So you literally have just stated that 'nothing' (i.e. - no form or composition) interacts with our world - and that is non-sense (i.e. - irrational).

IN SYLLOGISM FORM:

P1 - God has no form or composition
P2 - God interacts with the world
C1 - God interacting in the world is proof of God

Second (and I've said it a bunch of times now) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Retreating back to mere definitions is NOT extraordinary evidence. So you don't get out of this by merely asserting some benign, vague, nonsense definition of "God" that renders the term useless for demonstration. If your alleged "God" has no form/composition (whatsoever) then it is not a "thing" and hence it cannot interact with the world. In fact, if it has no form or composition then it makes no sense to call it an  "it" - henceforth there is no good reason for thinking it even exists!!!

Third, your SAYING that there are "healings at Lourdes" and that they are "miracles" doesn't make them miracles. It merely shows that (once again) you are trying to ASSUME the very thing you need to prove - namely that "God interacted". You haven't even come close to showing that there was some kind of "God" that interacted at Lourdes. Indeed, you demonstrated that (by your own definition) there is no "thing" that can interact with anything b/c the alleged "thing" has no form or composition. Sorry Luk, you can't define things into existence. You need to actually demonstrate them; and it is that which you cannot do (which is why you are struggling so badly to impress anyone here at WWGHAF).

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.

NOPE. And you repeating your same dumb-fuck circular reasoning a million times doesn't make it anymore true the next time you try it. Your term for "miracles" (i.e. - God interacting with the world) is the very thing you need to prove. So you cannot say that "God interacting with the world" is proof of anything b/c you have not proven that there such a thing as "God" that interacts with the world - and that is the very point of this OP. You need to actually prove that there is a "thing" called "God" that interacts with the world - not just ASSUME it and then ASSERT it a million times.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5074
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1024 on: August 05, 2014, 08:24:39 PM »
The existence of God outside our body is not an assertion it is a deduction. (among other things)
A deduction is only the derivation of a conclusion by reasoning of some kind.  So making a statement such as the above does not actually prove anything, let alone demonstrating that the deduction is valid in the real world.

Quote from: Lukvance
It start with an hypothesis drawn from actual things.
Granted, for the sake of argument.

Quote from: Lukvance
This assumption is then "tested" during events were God is supposed to interact with our world.
The problem is, your 'testing' does not actually establish that your god actually does interact with the world, for the simple reason that the existence of your god has not been demonstrated.

Quote from: Lukvance
Based on the "clues" left by the event, we conclude that God interacted with our world.
Except you cannot, because you have not demonstrated that your god actually exists.  You simply pointed to unexplained events and used theological philosophy to 'prove' that your god was responsible.

Quote from: Lukvance
This allows us to THEN conclude on the existence of God as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Your reasoning does not follow and therefore is invalid.

I deleted the entire 'example' you gave regarding the Higgs boson because, yet again, you demonstrated that you don't know jack about it, and because you simply substituted "HB" for "God", which made the example nonsensical.

Instead, I will replace it with a more accurate example using a hypothetical particle known as the 'graviton', believed to be the 'carrier' for gravity, similar to how the electron/proton are the 'carriers' for electromagnetism.

1.  The existence of the graviton is not an assertion, it is a deduction.
2.  It starts with a hypothesis based on known particles which transmit force, and deduces that it is likely that a particle exists which transmits the force known as gravity.
3.  This hypothesis is tested based on observable phenomena, such as the force imparted to a nearby galaxy by the gravity well of this one, to see if it is a good explanation for those phenomena.
4.  Based on those tests, it was concluded that gravity acted like it was being transmitted by a particle emitted from the location of this galaxy, since the nearby galaxy moved towards the location of this galaxy when the particle would have been emitted.
5.  However, this does not establish that the graviton exists.  It simply establishes that the hypothesis is valid as far as we know, but more testing is required until we figure out how to observe the graviton.

Lukvance, if you want to write up an example using the format I gave above, feel free, but do not simply replace "graviton" with "God", as the example will make no sense whatsoever if you do it that way.

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 #1025 on: August 05, 2014, 08:25:52 PM »
Do you see the difference now between an insult and constructive criticism?
Is it still constructive when it's a lie? (meaning that it is not the truth)
Why do you insist on dodging instead of addressing my points? Dodging what? Which point are you talking about? If I don't know the answer to a question i direct you toward where you could find the answer. If your argument is based on my lack of knowledge then I need to remind you that before I answered this question (about miracles) I took time to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me in the field of miracles. I took also time to make sure I wasn't saying false things about theology by talking with someone who graduated from theology. If you want answer to your general questions, I can help. If you need more specifics, you have to dig deeper in the libraries.
Nothing about our lack of knowledge change the truth : Miracles are acts from God in this world and because we can see his acts in this world he exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

The post you are replying to, was reply number 1000 in this thread.  You’re arguments have been reproached at every turn, by many individuals in many different ways, all very effectively debunking your claims and exposing your insistence on using logical fallacies.  YOU, Lukvance, have dodged and avoiding supporting any of your arguments, claims and assertions.
You see, this and the ones about the HB are things that you and your friends keep repeating like it is the truth. And it never have been demonstrated as such. These are claims about my behavior that cannot be supported. I remember missing one counter argument from median and he reminded me of it. I apologized and explain to him why his counter argument couldn't stick.
Now, before asking me to do stuff that I am already doing. How about you give me some quotes from me that have "unsupported arguments, claims and assertions"?
Like with the HB business I am still waiting for them. I am pretty sure that if you quote me I might be able to explain how I might have explain myself better so you might understand why my claim, argument, assertion was indeed supported.
I shared with you many links on the web. All of these support the claim that I have made since the beginning of miracles (right after Graybeards example of scientific method) and others that I made afterwards.
I remember asking for source for some of your counter argument. Not being able to give them should have made it fall.

  Even this very quote I am replying to, you have made an assertion that “others did exactly what Zola did” yet you have not supported this claim.  At this point, every post you make without supporting your arguments is only supplying evidence that you are delusional or a dedicated troll.
That's easy to point the finger at the other when you don't seem to support your arguments either. I understand that most of your arguments are results of the lack of knowledge, but I corrected them so you might understand how this position I took is rock solid and based on many lifetime of work made by all kind of people around miracles recognized by the Vatican.
 
Given the multiple discussions you are having, it is understandable that you might lose track of a discussion, HOWEVER, if you can’t keep track of a discussion, how would you be able to properly evaluate a counter argument?
That's ok all tracks are not counter arguments. Most of them are just us talking to each other about our feelings. Sometime I voluntary skip some of them because I don't want to lose track of what is really the counter argument.

For example. All that has been said in this reply do not affect my arguments or your counter arguments. My arguments still remain the same and your counter arguments still remain destroyed.

Okay, so you are not attempting to refute my point that something must be demonstrated before you can test, review and verify predictions regarding that something. 
The relevant discussion can be found here.
[...] So far, the point of this thread is for you to provide the supporting evidence that shows that “God” exists.  Unfortunately, all of the “evidence” you have provided so far is not falsifiable, which means that there is no possible way to falsify your claimed “evidence” due to its unverifiable and/or illogical nature.  The same problem exists regarding unicorns, which is why in order for you to refute my points, you would have to prove that unicorns do not exist.

Maybe I still don't get your point about falsifying. Could you give me an example?
Here is how I understand it :
People theorized that the bowling ball would fall faster than the baseball (in the void). This was falsified.
People theorized that God would never heal a sinner. This was also falsified.
People theorized that the bowling ball would not fall faster than the baseball (in the void) how do you falsify this?

Your condescension is grossly unwarranted considering how oblivious you are to the fact that defining the word “Great” does not define “Greatest”.  The word “greatest” is a subjective concept, what is greatest for you might not be greatest for me and vice versa.
I'm sorry if the definition of greatest is just "the superlative of great". I defined great so that we know what greatest meant. Maybe you want me to define superlative?
Superlative : 1. Of the highest order, quality, or degree; surpassing or superior to all others.
There can only be one greatest. The qualities of the greatest is beyond you and me.
Let's say that you claim the greatest must be blue because you love blue and if he was of another color one similar being but blue would be greater.
Someone else claim he must be Red.
The real greatest possible being must be every possible colors. That way he would always be blue and red at the same time... Anyway this is another discussion I am letting myself being distracted.

I understand that you claim that the evidence/clues proving that it is God who did it cannot be falsified (because they are illogical or not verifiable) and for that reason they cannot point out the one responsible for the event. (this is your counter argument)
Could you give me an examples about falsified evidence? Falsifiable evidence? And non falsifiable evidence?
For the sake of simplicity let's pick 2 evidences regarding the miracles. immediate and long lasting cure.
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 #1026 on: August 05, 2014, 08:29:51 PM »
The existence of God outside our body is not an assertion it is a deduction.

The conclusion of a deduction is entirely reliant on the truth of the premise.  If the premise is false, then the conclusion is false.  If the premise is true, then the conclusion is true.

The fact that you say "the existence of God outside our body is a deduction" is exactly saying that there is an assertion being made.  It is the assertion or premise that is being questinoned and idenfitied as being false, thus making any conclusions you attempt to make also false.

EDIT: Sorry, made a mistake in typing the part in Italic. 
I understand, you think that the premise is that God exist? Or is it "there are events happening in Lourdes let's see who or what is causing them"?
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1027 on: August 05, 2014, 09:58:25 PM »
I can imagine a better being than that, one that physically appears to everyone, and immediately grants all miracles to anyone who needs them, everywhere, all the time. My imagined best possible being drops tons of food from the clouds down to victims of famine, gently airlifts villages out of the way of tsunamis, rains on wildfires before they reach populated areas, catches every plane before they can crash, makes sure no species becomes endangered or goes extinct, grows back amputated feet, reverses Down Syndrome and Alzheimers, instantly cures PTSD and traumatic brain damage, makes all child molesters and rapists painfully, permanently impotent.

No excuses, just miracles everywhere and way above the level of statistical chance. This being is far, far better than Lukvance's puny part time partisan invisible do-nothing god.

Now here's the thing, nogodsforme can conceive of acts more charitable and caring than the god that Luk would have us believe is the greatest conceivable being. This makes nogodsforme, herself, greater than Luk's god. And she clearly is. Seriously so.

Luk, let me suggest a change of plan. Seeing that nogods actually does good stuff for other people. Instead of praying then waiting for a cooincidence miracle, why don't you just ask someone like her to do something for someone else instead?

Win-win, right?

People get helped, and you get to feel good that someone even more powerful than your god sat up and took notice of what you asked them to do

People,  pray to me for a miracle!

I promise to grant your request just as well as Lukvance's god.  I will not do any of the things that I described for my most perfect bestest possible being. I will only do the things that Lukvance's god already does. You know, "healing" ambiguous conditions that sometimes get better by themselves, and doing it at the same level as random chance.

And I am going to make a prediction. I will have a higher rate of miraculous healings than Lukvance's god does at Lourdes.


I do not care whether you kneel when you pray, or what direction you face, or if you have sincerity in your heart. I don't care what language you pray in, or even what you say when you pray. However, my sole requirement us that everyone stay home when you pray to me for your healing miracle.

Nobody is to travel to any sacred sites when seriously ill or with an undiagnosed and possibly contagious disease. (People with bird flu, TB or ebola, please do not get on any planes!) I will perform all miracle healings from a remote and undisclosed location. Only if you get the miracle that you pray for, will you then be asked to send me a love offering in the amount of your choosing.

I am this close to starting that religion, folks! And when I open the doors of my business-- I mean church-- no health insurance for anyone who refuses to sign a document swearing that they a) acknowledge the theory of evolution, b) understand that correlation is not causation,  c) support comprehensive sex education in the schools, and d) never vote for republican hypocrite nutjobs...... ;D
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1028 on: August 05, 2014, 11:26:17 PM »
before I answered this question (about miracles) I took time to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me in the field of miracles.

Do you understand that none of us think this is relevant. Because expertise on something that doesn't exist just doesn't exist.

Why you're here spewing this crap all over people who don't believe a bit of it is beyond me. Surely you could go to miracles.com or something and find all kinds of people to bullshit with.

The chances of you getting even one person on this site to start thinking that maybe miracles are real is so low that if it happens, it would be more mysterious than a miracle. You're wasting our time, Internet bandwidth and a vivid imagination on us. Plus you are single handedly lowering my overall opinion of all humans by at least 20%. I do hope you can find another hobby soon.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2273
  • Darwins +413/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1029 on: August 06, 2014, 12:22:14 AM »
before I answered this question (about miracles) I took time to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me in the field of miracles.

Do you understand

Regardless of whatever other concepts, ideas, instructions, questions, answers, words, letters, or muted grunts follow 'Do you understand' - when directed at Lukvance - the answer is a resolute no.

He's like talking to an NPC in an RPG - there is no process of thinking poor phrasing removed.  His 'brain' houses a functional yet primitive word parsing engine that supports, like, 8 response branches tops.  Because there are often a large-ish number of words in the posts that he is replying to, the variety of possible responses that he can post is rather large, and thus, simulates a conversation with an actual sentient creature moderately well, or at least well enough to keep actual sentient creatures engaged for a limited period of time.  And to account for unexpected combinations of words, this primitive word parser has a default catch-all in case it cannot branch to a somewhat-coherent response – it will pull an ELIZA, do a basic word swap, and ask a question in return (occasionally denoting, accidentally containing a hint of mockery poor phrasing removed.

It fits.  It explains why Lukvance repeats himself, over and over and over again, as if the problems with his statements and arguments that have been directly pointed out by multiple people in multiple threads at multiple times in multiple ways hadn't even been posted.  It explains why he engages in his poor phrasing removed mimicry games poor phrasing removed that seem so completely disjointed from the idea of it almost kind of constitutes a valid response.

poor phrasing removed
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 01:50:13 PM by Graybeard »
"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 Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1030 on: August 06, 2014, 02:10:30 AM »
I understand, you think that the premise is that God exist? Or is it "there are events happening in Lourdes let's see who or what is causing them"?

Does it not register with you that you believe that the events happening in Lourdes are down to god, but that you also believe that all events that are happening outside of Lourdes are down to god too? You have a compartmentalisation issue going on, where you suppress your belief that god is the cause of everything and then point to specific events as evidence for god being the cause of something. This is a fantastic example of special pleading.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6775
  • Darwins +543/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1031 on: August 06, 2014, 05:03:02 AM »
[...]Or do you plan to keep trying to change the subject?
Lukvance,

There has been no change of subject. Any change of subject is in your mind.

I note that you have often used the ploy "Don't change the subject" when there has been no change but when you find it inconvenient to answer.

GB Mod
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6775
  • Darwins +543/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1032 on: August 06, 2014, 05:31:42 AM »
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?
The Catholic Church is corrupt. It suppresses free information to keep the "faithful deluded by ignorance:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/17/indian-skeptic-faces-arrest-for-debunking-catholic-miracle/

Dear friends,
On 10th March, Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Rationalist International, flew to Mumbai. The TV channel TV-9 had invited him to investigate a “miracle” that caused local excitement. He went with the TV team to Irla in Vile Parle to inspect the crucifix standing there in front of the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni. This crucifix had become the centre of attraction for an ever growing crowd of believers coming from far and wide. The news of the miracle spread like wild fire. For some days, there were little droplets of water trickling from Jesus’ feet. Hundreds of people came every day to pray and collect some of the “holy water” in bottles and vessels. Sanal Edamaruku identified the source of the water (a drainage near a washing room) and the mechanism how it reached Jesus feet (capillary action). The local church leaders, present during his investigation, appeared to be displeased. See the investigation in detail on YouTube.



Some hours later, in a live program on TV-9, Sanal explained his findings and accused the concerned Catholic Church officials of miracle mongering, as they were beating the big drum for the drippling Jesus statue with aggressive PR measures and by distributing photographs certifying the “miracle”. A heated debate began, in which the five church people, among them Fr. Augustine Palett, the priest of Our Lady of Velankanni church, and representatives of the Association of Concerned Catholics (AOCC) demanded that Sanal apologize. But Sanal refused and argued against them.

When they saw Sanal refused to bow to their demands, they threatened to file a blasphemy case against him. And they did.

Yesterday (10th April,2012) Sanal received a phone call from a Police official of Juhu Police Station in Mumbai directing him to come to the said police station to face the charges and get arrested. He also said that FIRs have also been filed in Andheri and some other police stations u/s 295 of Indian Penal Code on the allegations of hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community. Mumbai police has announced that they were out to arrest him. It is apprehended that he can be arrested any moment.

And this - the miracle of the self-lighting holy candles



and this:

Science debunks miracle of weeping madonna http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science-debunks-miracle-of-weeping-madonna-1590530.html

THE ONLY weeping madonna officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church has been exposed as a fake by an Italian scientist who used the logic of Mr Spock, the deductive reasoning of Sherlock Holmes and a knowledge of capillary attraction.
[...]
Dr Garlaschelli said the actual madonna of Siracusa is kept behind a glass partition and he is unable to inspect its glazing for himself. ''I think permission won't be granted to examine it. Many of these relics are not allowed to be examined.''

Italy in particular is going through a craze of weeping madonna sightings. Last year there were only two or three, but this has risen to more than a dozen in the first few months of this year, Dr Garlaschelli said.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5074
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1033 on: August 06, 2014, 08:06:39 AM »
There can only be one greatest. The qualities of the greatest is beyond you and me.
Let's say that you claim the greatest must be blue because you love blue and if he was of another color one similar being but blue would be greater.
Someone else claim he must be Red.
The real greatest possible being must be every possible colors. That way he would always be blue and red at the same time...
Actually, this example makes no sense.  Our eyes interpret color from the reflection of light off of material objects.  For example, something appears red to us because it reflects visible light from a specific wavelength and absorbs the other wavelengths.  There is actually a word for the color created when something reflects all wavelengths of visible light - white.  Not only that, but white is considered a color in its own right.  Furthermore, the color black is only created when something absorbs all visible wavelengths of light, meaning it is impossible for something to be every possible color - something cannot simultaneously be white and black, because the definitions of these two colors are mutually exclusive. 

I suppose it could be mottled in every possible color - blue on one spot, red on another, purple on a third, green on a fourth, and so on.  But I would certainly not consider such mottling to be representative of the "greatest possible"; in fact, it would be an eyesore in my opinion.  Not only that, but what if the person who thinks the "greatest possible" would be blue thinks the worst possible was red?  Then you have an even worse problem on your hands.

Which means your idea that a "greatest possible" would be all colors is logically impossible - it cannot actually be all colors at the same time because something cannot appear to be both white and black without having them in different spots on its body.  Furthermore, there would be people who would consider such mottling to definitely not be a quality of the "greatest possible", and there would be people who would consider someone else's idea of the "greatest possible" to be the worst possible because they hate that particular color.  Therefore, there cannot be one "greatest possible" without falling afoul of a logical contradiction, but there also cannot be many "greatest possible" because, according to you, there can only be one greatest.  Therefore, the whole idea of the "greatest possible" existing is paradoxical; it cannot match everyone's definition of the "greatest possible" without being contradictory.

I'm guessing you cut it off there and said that "it was another discussion" (even though you were perfectly willing to discuss the "greatest possible being" at considerable length at the beginning of this thread) because you recognized at least one of the problems I have detailed here, and wanted to avoid impeaching yourself by bringing it up.  However, it is very relevant, as you yourself stated in the first post in this topic: "So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.
Or using the ontological argument.
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.
"[1]

In short, the Ontological Argument has been shown to be logically inconsistent and even paradoxical, and therefore is not valid in its current form.  You cannot therefore use it as a proof of a god's existence.
 1. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg617313.html#msg617313

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 #1034 on: August 06, 2014, 10:46:51 AM »
If I may, let me just remind everyone as to the current condition of Lukvance's attempts to prove that "God exists as a separate entity" (and I predicted it would get to this point - which is why I stuck to my line of questioning).

A. Early on, I challenged Luk to do the following 3 things:

1. Coherently define the term "God" (i.e. - what this alleged 'thing' is made of, etc)
2. Demonstrate that this alleged 'being' exists independently of human imagination
3. Demonstrate that this alleged 'thing' interacted with the world in some way

B. Lukvance finally attempted a definition here:




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.


C. I responded by noting that this attempt ends in a direct logical contradiction because if "God has no specific form or composition" it can neither interact with the world, b/c there is nothing to interact with, nor can it be rightly called a "thing"; or an "it" for that matter, b/c "it's" have some kind of composition (i.e. - they composed of 'some-thing' or 'things'). This is not to mention the fact that Luk has not told us what God IS. He has told us what God is NOT and I have pressed this point as well b/c it is evidently clear that this is precisely where things break down for theists. There simply is no coherent definition of the term "God". The term doesn't refer to anything. It is literally non-sense and void of any meaning.

So from now on, anytime Luk attempts to talk about "God", as though God is a "thing" that can even be talked about (under his own attempted definition), let us hammer his ass by disallowing any mentioning of that term until he can come up with a logically coherent and meaningful definition.

THANKS!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6879
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1035 on: August 06, 2014, 12:07:12 PM »
Hey! My greatest possible being is a spirit-thing. It's made of spirit-thinginess. Non-corporeal, immaterial, formless, compositionless, invisible spirit-thinginess. No scientific instruments or human senses can detect this spirit-thinginess that my greatest possible being is made from.

So since we cannot detect it at all, or show it in any physical manner, how do we know that my being exists? Because of all the wonderful ways that this non-corporeal, immaterial, formless, compositionless, invisible being interacts with the physical world! Without leaving any sure-fire concrete physical sign of having done anything.....

If brains could spontaneously explode, mine would have done it at this totally, literally nonsensical sh!t. The only way people can believe this stuff is by turning off their thinking capacity. My eyes have rolled to the back of my head like a kid in an exorcist movie. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

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

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1036 on: August 06, 2014, 12:10:13 PM »
Does it not register with you that you believe that the events happening in Lourdes are down to god, but that you also believe that all events that are happening outside of Lourdes are down to god too? You have a compartmentalisation issue going on, where you suppress your belief that god is the cause of everything and then point to specific events as evidence for god being the cause of something. This is a fantastic example of special pleading.
It's something different. Don't you see the difference between one event and the universe(s)?
I understand that proving that God interacted with reality when he created it only can be possible using logic. You guys need actual proof of his existence, not philosophical proof. That's why I chose to use miracle which are actual/physical events.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3041
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1037 on: August 06, 2014, 12:16:12 PM »
Hey! My greatest possible being is a spirit-thing. It's made of spirit-thinginess. Non-corporeal, immaterial, formless, compositionless, invisible spirit-thinginess. No scientific instruments or human senses can detect this spirit-thinginess that my greatest possible being is made from.

So since we cannot detect it at all, or show it in any physical manner, how do we know that my being exists? Because of all the wonderful ways that this non-corporeal, immaterial, formless, compositionless, invisible being interacts with the physical world! Without leaving any sure-fire concrete physical sign of having done anything ...

 :P But what if the spirit-thing's "interactions" are actually the work of the anti-spirit-thing, the Worst Possible Being™, trying to deceive those who believe in the GPB?  Or possibly by the equally-undetectable Kind of Okay But We're Not Quite Sure Being (patent pending) running errands on its lunch break?

Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1038 on: August 06, 2014, 12:27:21 PM »
Luk keeps talking about "the greatest possible being". All I can picture is a combination of Albert Einstein and Bruce Lee (Let me teach you about the speed of light with my fists!)

The fact that gods can be imagined as superior to us doesn't automatically bring them in to being. "The greatest possible being" is a concept that is not required by existence. Superiority is always contingent upon current and/or convenient conditions. In other words, it depends on the circumstances. And a god who is afraid of iron chariots, can't accurately describe what a bat is and who can't help half a million of his followers when they're walking around in the desert, lost for 40 years, is hardly "the greatest possible being" in the first place.

I think we can disregard that concept. But mostly because of the source. You know. Luk.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

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 #1039 on: August 06, 2014, 12:45:43 PM »
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?
The Catholic Church is corrupt. It suppresses free information to keep the "faithful deluded by ignorance:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/17/indian-skeptic-faces-arrest-for-debunking-catholic-miracle/
[...]
and this:
Science debunks miracle of weeping madonna http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science-debunks-miracle-of-weeping-madonna-1590530.html
I see... the first one is another miracle NOT recognized by the Vatican (you still keep presenting those? Do you think that at one point they will become revelant to the conversation or what?) and the second is from one guy who never touch the real thing and is making theories based on what he saw. He could be saying "they sprayed water with a hose when no one was looking" and the effect would be the same.
If you want to know about the real scientific research made around the madonna of syracuse you'll have to go back to 1953. I hope that you now know where you can find such information.
We have to be clear about something, when it comes to weeping Mary and events of this order, the miracle is usually claimed for only ONE event. Even if the statue "cried" many times after that event. The event claimed as a miracle is only one, not all of them.
It takes a lot of time and manpower before declaring a miracle. Why? Because we have to make sure that is it really God who did it. Not something that we don't know. (which I remind you is the most offered answer by the Theologians when presented with an event that has the possibility to be a miracle)
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 #1040 on: August 06, 2014, 01:13:22 PM »
I'm guessing you cut it off there and said that "it was another discussion" (even though you were perfectly willing to discuss the "greatest possible being" at considerable length at the beginning of this thread) because you recognized at least one of the problems I have detailed here, and wanted to avoid impeaching yourself by bringing it up.  However, it is very relevant, as you yourself stated in the first post in this topic: "So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.
Or using the ontological argument.
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.
"[1]

In short, the Ontological Argument has been shown to be logically inconsistent and even paradoxical, and therefore is not valid in its current form.  You cannot therefore use it as a proof of a god's existence.
 1. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg617313.html#msg617313
It was another discussion indeed. I realized that philosophical proof weren't an argument strong enough. That the fact that God must logically exist is not proof of his existence. If God is real He must have interacted with the world and that interaction would prove his existence. It would be a direct proof, a physical proof. So I presented miracles as proof of his existence.
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 #1041 on: August 06, 2014, 01:24:55 PM »
If I may, let me just remind everyone as to the current condition of Lukvance's attempts to prove that "God exists as a separate entity" (and I predicted it would get to this point - which is why I stuck to my line of questioning).
A. Early on, I challenged Luk to do the following 3 things:
1. Coherently define the term "God" (i.e. - what this alleged 'thing' is made of, etc)
2. Demonstrate that this alleged 'being' exists independently of human imagination
3. Demonstrate that this alleged 'thing' interacted with the world in some way
B. Lukvance finally attempted a definition here:
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.
C. I responded by noting that this attempt ends in a direct logical contradiction because if "God has no specific form or composition" it can neither interact with the world, b/c there is nothing to interact with, nor can it be rightly called a "thing"; or an "it" for that matter, b/c "it's" have some kind of composition (i.e. - they composed of 'some-thing' or 'things'). This is not to mention the fact that Luk has not told us what God IS. He has told us what God is NOT and I have pressed this point as well b/c it is evidently clear that this is precisely where things break down for theists. There simply is no coherent definition of the term "God". The term doesn't refer to anything. It is literally non-sense and void of any meaning.

So from now on, anytime Luk attempts to talk about "God", as though God is a "thing" that can even be talked about (under his own attempted definition), let us hammer his ass by disallowing any mentioning of that term until he can come up with a logically coherent and meaningful definition.
THANKS!
Ok, ok. You want a better definition of God? One that you must agree with.
I'll play the dictionary for you. Since it seems too hard for you to open one.
God :
1.
   a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
   b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed : Money was their god.

I hope that it satisfy your thirst of knowledge. I really don't understand what your counter argument is. But hey, maybe now we could move on. Or maybe you will say "that is not the definition of God" and talk about how definitions are made and how they all are based on people and how they can be wrong.
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 #1042 on: August 06, 2014, 01:32:32 PM »
Quote from: Lukvance
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 saying that if science can later explain miracles recognized by the Vatican, that the Vatican will retroactively declare those things not to be miracles?
I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.
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 #1043 on: August 06, 2014, 01:40:15 PM »
Have I imagined it, or has Lukvance referred more than once to "the Catholic god"? Like, there are other gods busy doing miracles for Hindus or Baptists, but the Catholic god sticks to doing miracles for people who follow the pope.

Why does it matter whether the people who receive miracles are Catholic or not? That is one point I think Lukvance has glossed over. How is it that the all powerful best possible miracle doing god is only accessible or detectable to people of a particular religious faith?

Is the [Catholic] god really that petty and small as to ignore the vast majority of the planet in favor of one group? And only does a few random miracles per billion, at a rate undetectable from the random miracles performed by Pringles Potato chips or by proximity to superhero movies on a lap top? That ineffectual disappearing god meets the definition of best possible being?
The reason why I chose miracles recognized by the Vatican (so, by definition, miracles made by the Catholic God) is because they are the most throughout researched events. As much as I know, they are the only ones using the "devil advocate" process before claiming that the event is miracle.
I hope this will answer all those questions you asked.
If you want to talk about other gods, we could. It doesn't really matter since to talk about them would require you to admit the existence of a god (at least one) outside your body.
You're worth more than my time