Author Topic: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?  (Read 14819 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 #1131 on: August 12, 2014, 05:20:51 PM »
I agree that it is not predictable science.
The point of my whole post, was that it needs to be predictable in order to be science science.  So when you talk about "not predictable science", it's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
[...]
Not only that, but if miracles can't be predicted, they cannot be scientific, by definition.  Because you can't do anything scientific if you have no way to make predictions regarding it.  That's what the whole concept of a repeatable experiment is - a prediction that you will get the same result by doing the experiment the same way.  No prediction?  No science.
Do you think that you exist? Is your existence provable scientifically? Are you THAT predictable? Does your actions need to be predictable for us to determine that you exist?

You say this as if we knew in advance exactly what to expect, and because we didn't always get it, the Higgs boson somehow magically decides which way it's going to react.
That would be interpreting me wrong. I am saying that we don't know enough to have it each time we "look for it". We have it enough times to be sure that it is real.

There is no parallel.  Scientists are still trying to figure out all the details of the Higgs boson, and it is anything but the same as your god making a miracle recognizable or not recognizable depending on his own inscrutable purpose.  A subatomic particle does not decide how to react; your god, if he exists, does.  You cannot do science on something that can decide to react differently to the same criteria.
You got it wrong about God. He is not the one "making a miracle recognizable or not recognizable". You have to remember that we don't know everything about God. We learn more everyday. I believe we will never "fully understand" God because he is infinite. And this infinity makes him "always more". It doesn't mean that we cannot find his interactions based on what we know.

The following works in both cases :
"Once it interact with the world (if it does) it will leave basically the same clues."


you cannot be sure that these 'clues' of yours have any relevance to your god, because you cannot define a clear cause-effect relationship between the two the way scientists can with the decay products of a subatomic particle.
Not in that particular way but in a similar one we can define a clear cause-effect relationship. As clear as your fingerprint has a clear cause-effect relationship to you.

Quote from: Lukvance
They are like a fingerprint you leave that would allow us to make sure that you are still alive (that you still exist in this world). We cannot predict where the fingerprint will be but if we find one we will have confirmation of your existence...at least at the time the fingerprint was made. Since a fingerprint can be faked, we do not only base our belief in your existence on that only, we gather enough evidence and once we have enough then we conclude that you still exist. (even if we have never see or touch you directly, we've seen the clues left by your interaction with reality)
Sorry, but no, this isn't believable at all; the analogy is terrible.  If anything, it actually detracts from the point you're trying to make.  What you're doing is pointing at something you're calling a fingerprint (or some other such clue)and claiming that it actually is one, even though you have no way to show that it actually is one, or that it's a fingerprint of what you're saying it is. People just have to take your word for it; if they don't, you have nothing else to convince them with, because you have no way to show that the supposed clue-maker existed in the first place.
I shared with these people some links that would allow them to understand without taking my word for it. My assertions are supported by a huge community. They are not product of my imagination. Unlike some of the claims I've read presented as counter argument.

You talk about someone leaving 'clues' even though nobody's ever actually seen this supposed clue-maker; you ignore the tendency of the human brain to identify patterns, even fake ones.  And so on and so forth.
Some people have seen God (people who lived with Jesus). That proves you wrong when you say "nobody's ever actually seen this supposed clue-maker" but does it make him more real? Or does it must have to be you who see him? Wouldn't that makes you like Zola?
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 #1132 on: August 12, 2014, 05:38:58 PM »
so what does this God look like?
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 #1133 on: August 12, 2014, 05:40:44 PM »
It matters because, depending on the definition you choose, god is one thing or another different thing. God cannot be both things if the things are completely different. That is why it matters. If god is a gigantic elephant headed being, god cannot also be immaterial and invisible.
Unless everything people say is a god is a real god. And that would make for crazy times.
I understand. But do you think that god is a gigantic elephant headed being? It is not a crazy person definition that matters. As I said, you compare your definition with the dictionary then you chose the one (from the dictionary) who fits best with yours. Then you move on.
As I explained before we all have our own perception of God. Even if there is only one tree there are as many different drawings of the tree that there are of people drawing it.
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 #1134 on: August 12, 2014, 05:43:46 PM »
Whoa, hold on here a second, I missed this.  I realized no such thing, nor did I have to lie through my teeth.  I simply used your arguments.  Do you have any supporting evidence that I lied?  No, you don't, and you know that I realized no such thing since you have no supporting evidence for that either.  YOU, Lukvance, are lying.
You assume that I am lying when I use your arguments because you know that you yourself are lying. 
You said and I quote "there are schools for toothfairyology." If this is not a lie, I don't know what is.
You're worth more than my time


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 #1136 on: August 12, 2014, 06:33:51 PM »
God is not a thing like chair. I have my own definition of God. Since I believe that he is infinite and that we are not, I believe that we won't be able to understand God the way you wish to. We can only aproximate. My definition of God is the GPB. I do not know if he's made of matter or not, I do know that he can interact with the world (as Jesus or as miracles) so that he has the capacity to be material.
Each and every definition of the dictionary (perfected by Graybeard) is a "logically coherent definition for the term "God"".
I believe that since you have not yet find a definition that accommodate you, you are saying that this definition is not logical nor coherent. Once you find a definition that will satisfy you, you will then be able to compare it with the dictionary definition(s) and maybe adjust it if necessary. This is how people usually proceed when they want to define something.

If I was to be as crazy as you seem to me right now I would have said "no the definition you gave to "chair" is not a logical and coherent one because you need to define "seat" "persons" and "legs". " Good thing I'm not like that...right?

The definition of "chair" that I gave was coherent and sufficient b/c it actually points (refers) to 'some-thing', and the reference it makes is rational and meaningful in denoting it's reference (not to mention the fact that chairs are demonstrable!). Your attempted definitions of the term "God" do not refer to anything specifically unique to that term (especially since you already admitted that your term refers to "no form" and "no composition"). So you keep giving negative definitions instead of positive ones. Again, what is this "thing"?? I want you to state what it IS, not what it is NOT.

Now, you keep referring to "God" as a "him"; as if we don't notice the direct contradiction in your thinking. If this alleged thing you call "God" is a "him" (i.e. - a male) then it must have some form (i.e. - be composed of something(s) - not no form) like you tried to assert earlier. This is what you need to provide in order to be rational. And this is exactly why I am pointing this out. You have an irrational definition of that word, and you keep jumping around with your terms to avoid it (which you've been doing for pages now).

You have attempted to shift your definition of "God" multiple times. So I still have no idea what you are trying to refer to. If you say the term "God" is referring to "The Supreme Ruler of the Universe" then you still have not told me what this 'thing' is made of. Again, how can you call this thing a "being" when you have already admitted that it has no form and no composition? This attempt is completely incoherent and meaningless.
I am not shifting definitions. I'm sorry if you feel that way. In fact I gave you the definition from the dictionary pretty quickly. Graybeard corrected me with a better definition. You should have by now the answer you seek. I really don't understand the argument here.

Yes you are shifting definitions. You've given multiple attempted definitions - some of which are self contradictory (such as trying to refer to a 'thing' that has no form and no composition). You tried this same tactic with the word "miracle". Once I pointed out your fallacy you attempted to assert another definition (i.e. - "the things that happen at Lourdes" instead of "God interacting in the world"). Each of your attempted definitions have been rebutted and you have not responded to those rebuttals. You have ignored them. "Greatest possible being" doesn't tell us anything. How do you know there is such a thing? You cannot define something into existing (or kids could do it with Harry Potter). Merely asserting that something is possible doesn't mean that it is; and even if it were possible to have such a "being" what makes you think that being is a "God". Again, you cannot define something into existence. "Supreme ruler of the universe" is an assumptive definition. It is coherent but has not been demonstrated; just asserted by you. How do you know there is such a thing? What is it made of? Can you demonstrate it?

Secondly, it is not our job to give you "arguments against the existence of God" - b/c that is you trying to shift the burden of proof again.
I'm sorry. I presented you with proof of God's existence (miracles recognized by the Vatican). I am not asking for proof against the existence of God. I am asking for arguments against the submitted proof. In other words do you accept the proof presented to you as sufficient or not? If not what is missing? You told me that you wanted "hard tangible evidence" of the existence of God. I gave it to you in the form of miracles.

You didn't give a proof. You gave an ASSERTION (affirmation in French) and we asked you to backup that assertion with actual evidence of direct causation. Since you have not demonstrated there is a "supreme ruler of the universe" you cannot assert that "IT" did anything, and then call it a "miracle" - b/c that would be circular reasoning. You defined "miracle" as "God interacting with the world" and we have asked you to demonstrate how you think you know that "God interacted with the world". Each time, you have come back with a post hoc ergo proper hoc (correlation/causation) fallacy by attempting to assert that b/c certain events followed one another it must mean that, therefore, your (undemonstrative) "God" thing interacted. In other words, you keep attempting to draw causation from correlation. That is fallacious.

Finally, it's not our job to "choose one and go from there" b/c we are asking YOU for YOUR definition of what YOU are trying to refer to, and we are analyzing that attempted definition to see whether or not it is rational, meaningful, and actually refers to something. 
OK. Then stop analyzing right now. I am not infinite and will never grasp God fully. My definition is the GPB. It is mine and mine alone. My definition and yours can be different that is why you need your own definition. These different definition doesn't change anything in the FACTS.

The facts are : God (whatever definition you gave him) interacted with the world in the form of miracles. This prove his existence as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

No, these are not "the facts". The very definition you are attempting is the problem b/c merely using a term does not make that term meaningful. You actually need a definition that denotes some-specific-thing. Otherwise you are talking nonsense - and that is the point. Here's an example. What if I took the definition of "chair" and replaced the word "chair" with the word "God"? Is that a sufficient definition of the "thing" that caused the people at Lourdes to get better? It's not, is it? So, the very definition of what you are trying to talk about is key. Without a coherent definition (that actually refers to some-thing) you are not talking about anything (i.e. you are talking about 'no-thing') and that is the problem. Merely saying, "greatest possible being" doesn't tell us anything about the alleged "it" that you are trying to refer to. You need to actually demonstrate that your proposed "thing" is real separate from human brains.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 06:40:37 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +894/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1137 on: August 12, 2014, 06:42:19 PM »
nogodsforme, I am waiting for you :
BTW, you have said that miracles are scientific, because they can be predicted.
I don't remember saying that.
Detected yes, predicted...I don't know what was the context? Could you quote me so I could read it back?
I might have made a mistake and want to correct it as soon as possible.

I am not sure where you said it. I am willing to retract my statement rather than go through all of your posts looking for it. If I thought it would make a difference in the discussion, I would take the time and do it. But I doubt it will add anything. You have not shown any sign of being willing to take in what other people say and change your mind.

So, I retract my statement about you saying that miracles can be predicted. I was mistaken.
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 Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1138 on: August 12, 2014, 07:04:36 PM »
So, I retract my statement about you saying that miracles can be predicted. I was mistaken.

1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain
1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain

What "things" are we observing and how are we observing them?  That matters.  If someone suddenly gets sick, or suddenly gets healthy, people often attribute that to gods.
That is not that simple. These healings have been predicted. Just like the black holes.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

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 #1139 on: August 12, 2014, 07:11:57 PM »
nogodsforme, I am waiting for you :
BTW, you have said that miracles are scientific, because they can be predicted.
I don't remember saying that.
Detected yes, predicted...I don't know what was the context? Could you quote me so I could read it back?
I might have made a mistake and want to correct it as soon as possible.

I am not sure where you said it. I am willing to retract my statement rather than go through all of your posts looking for it. If I thought it would make a difference in the discussion, I would take the time and do it. But I doubt it will add anything. You have not shown any sign of being willing to take in what other people say and change your mind.

So, I retract my statement about you saying that miracles can be predicted. I was mistaken.

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.
"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 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 #1140 on: August 12, 2014, 07:13:29 PM »
Whoa, hold on here a second, I missed this.  I realized no such thing, nor did I have to lie through my teeth.  I simply used your arguments.  Do you have any supporting evidence that I lied?  No, you don't, and you know that I realized no such thing since you have no supporting evidence for that either.  YOU, Lukvance, are lying.
You assume that I am lying when I use your arguments because you know that you yourself are lying. 
You said and I quote "there are schools for toothfairyology." If this is not a lie, I don't know what is.

Do you have any support for your claim that it is a lie?  Or is that just your opinion based on your imagination because you have run out of counter arguments?
"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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +894/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1141 on: August 12, 2014, 07:23:09 PM »
Lukvance, now that the two kind posters above have given examples of where you said that miracle healings could be predicted, will you retract the spite smite you gave me?

I don't expect you to do it, but it does not hurt to ask. Also, it might even increase the already huge amount of respect folks here have for 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 jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2103
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1142 on: August 12, 2014, 07:29:19 PM »
Do you have any support for your claim that it is a lie?  Or is that just your opinion based on your imagination because you have run out of counter arguments?

Yes, he has support for his claim.  It is as scientific as the Higgs Boson.  Because of love and math.  Your counter argument is off subject.  Do you believe that Love exists?  How can you say god (who exists outside human brains, as conclusively proved because it is a word that is defined) not exist?  It is as scientific as Miracles and Higgs Boson.

See, your lie was predicated, just like black holes.  So that is the evidence of the lie.  Math and Love - of course god exists!  This is closed from the other thread.  It really is that easy.  You are going off subject because you don't have a counter argument to 4 + 7 = pancakes.  You think that you can save Love exist but not god?  What are you misunderstanding about biscuits?  Is it because you run out of counter arguments that you have to resort to this?

You should go to ask the experts about lies.  They'll tell you the evidence of your lie.  The evidence is right in front of you, but you refuse to ask the experts, so you go off subject.  Gravity and love, because they are both words and have definition, therefore god exists.

----------------------------------------------

Just replace the word lie with some random word in a post to Lukvance, jumble up the sentences, do some slight tweaking (maybe remove a few sentences or add a bit of extra color...I dunno - mix it up!) and *BAM* instant Lukvance-response!  No need to wait for him to post anything...just run your post through this process and you will have a pretty close approximation of what he would have said to you.
"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 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 #1143 on: August 12, 2014, 07:37:03 PM »
God is not a thing like chair. I have my own definition of God. Since I believe that he is infinite and that we are not, I believe that we won't be able to understand God the way you wish to. We can only aproximate. My definition of God is the GPB. I do not know if he's made of matter or not, I do know that he can interact with the world (as Jesus or as miracles) so that he has the capacity to be material.
Each and every definition of the dictionary (perfected by Graybeard) is a "logically coherent definition for the term "God"".
I believe that since you have not yet find a definition that accommodate you, you are saying that this definition is not logical nor coherent. Once you find a definition that will satisfy you, you will then be able to compare it with the dictionary definition(s) and maybe adjust it if necessary. This is how people usually proceed when they want to define something.

If I was to be as crazy as you seem to me right now I would have said "no the definition you gave to "chair" is not a logical and coherent one because you need to define "seat" "persons" and "legs". " Good thing I'm not like that...right?

The definition of "chair" that I gave was coherent and sufficient b/c it actually points (refers) to 'some-thing', and the reference it makes is rational and meaningful in denoting it's reference (not to mention the fact that chairs are demonstrable!).
Is it true because you just said so or is it true for some other reason than your own intellect?
I understand and agree with you on the definition of chair being sufficient. Could you imagine how someone could disagree with you? would your explanation alone should suffice?
If so do I have to spell it out like you do and tell the world what I think without supporting it with evidence?

Your attempted definitions of the term "God" do not refer to anything specifically unique to that term (especially since you already admitted that your term refers to "no form" and "no composition"). So you keep giving negative definitions instead of positive ones. Again, what is this "thing"?? I want you to state what it IS, not what it is NOT.
I think I answered that already :
I have my own definition of God. Since I believe that he is infinite and that we are not, I believe that we won't be able to understand God the way you wish to. We can only aproximate. My definition of God is the GPB. I do not know if he's made of matter or not, I do know that he can interact with the world (as Jesus or as miracles) so that he has the capacity to be material.

Now, you keep referring to "God" as a "him"; as if we don't notice the direct contradiction in your thinking. If this alleged thing you call "God" is a "him" (i.e. - a male) then it must have some form (i.e. - be composed of something(s) - not no form) like you tried to assert earlier. This is what you need to provide in order to be rational. And this is exactly why I am pointing this out. You have an irrational definition of that word, and you keep jumping around with your terms to avoid it (which you've been doing for pages now).
I believe that I am not jumping around. I am trying my best to understand what you are looking for. I think that you don't know yet what you are looking for. You keep wanting me to define God as an object when you know (I hope) that he is infinite. And infinite objects do not have a "thing related" definition. (I think)
Anyway, I am doing my best here to please your thirst of knowledge. I do not have all the answers so sometime I refer to books like the dictionary to help me answer questions about definition of words.
I am not a theologian, I am a computer guy. Your question seems to be one of the kind. And maybe only a theologian could answer it as you see fit. Maybe you should ask one, he has more knowledge than me on matters of God.


I am not shifting definitions. I'm sorry if you feel that way. In fact I gave you the definition from the dictionary pretty quickly. Graybeard corrected me with a better definition. You should have by now the answer you seek. I really don't understand the argument here.

Yes you are shifting definitions. You've given multiple attempted definitions - some of which are self contradictory (such as trying to refer to a 'thing' that has no form and no composition).
So? Giving multiple definition is shifting definitions? All of them are correct. I am not saying that one is better than the other. You are the one rejecting each of them aren't you? Saying that they don't say anything about what God is really.


You tried this same tactic with the word "miracle". Once I pointed out your fallacy you attempted to assert another definition (i.e. - "the things that happen at Lourdes" instead of "God interacting in the world"). Each of your attempted definitions have been rebutted and you have not responded to those rebuttals. You have ignored them.
I disagree. Rebuttal of what? The definition of miracles? Why do you want to redefine the words that are already defined in the dictionary?
I understood why I couldn't say that "miracles that happen at Lourdes are the proof of God" so I changed it to "the things that happen at Lourdes  are the proof of God existing outside our body" Then I changed it again, in the course of the discussion so it could be more precise each time.
What you have to realize is that the idea is the same median. since the first phrase I wrote about miracles and through all the changed that has been made so it sounds better to your ears. the basic idea is the same.

You didn't give a proof. You gave an ASSERTION (affirmation in French) and we asked you to backup that assertion with actual evidence of direct causation.

This is the claim/Assertion : "God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Why? Because we can see him acting directly in this world."
The links for the miracles of Lourdes, the book, the video, the papers and all theses links that I shared with you are all there to support/prove that claim as true.

you keep attempting to draw causation from correlation. That is fallacious.
I keep amassing clues about the one responsible of the event. Isn't it different than drawing causation from correlation?
Could explain to me with an example of your own (please do not use God) what is "drawing causation from correlation"?
I might be able to understand where the parralel is with this demonstration of the existence of God. Where I made the mistake and how I could correct it.

Here's an example. What if I took the definition of "chair" and replaced the word "chair" with the word "God"? Is that a sufficient definition of the "thing" that caused the people at Lourdes to get better? It's not, is it?
No it is not. Could you make an example with the definition of you?
How would you demonstrate your existence without involving anyone using their senses to detect you directly?
There was this part were someone told me that he could send a picture or make an hangout with me. Thus proving him his existence. But that would require me to see him, hence using one of my 5 senses to detect him directly. Even then he could have just send a computer generated image of himself via his webcam.
I concluded on that part that at one point I have to agree that he exist even if I can't see touch ear smell sense him directly.
I wish that you guys understood that it is relatively the same process with God. At one point we have enough evidence that it is him who is responsible for the event. That he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Ps : The use of "He" when I talk about God comes from the fact that "IL" in french is used as a non gender pronoun. I do not believe that God is a male or a female. I don't like using "IT" to describe God because I respect him more than a father. I'm sorry that it bothers you.
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 #1144 on: August 12, 2014, 07:45:54 PM »
Lukvance, now that the two kind posters above have given examples of where you said that miracle healings could be predicted, will you retract the spite smite you gave me?

I don't expect you to do it, but it does not hurt to ask. Also, it might even increase the already huge amount of respect folks here have for you.  &)
How do you do that?
If taken in context I don't understand, how could you think that it was the miracle that was predicted and not the clues that followed the event?
I can predict that you will open your mouth the next time you eat. I cannot predict when you will eat the next time. There is a huge difference between the two, no?
The same way we can predict how the event will unfold (the cure will be immediate, the cure will be permanent) but we cannot predict the when.
I'd like to use that chance to underline the fact that we can predict the "how" but only to a certain degree. The more we learn about God, the more we can know how he will manifest himself in the world.
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 #1145 on: August 12, 2014, 07:54:44 PM »
Whoa, hold on here a second, I missed this.  I realized no such thing, nor did I have to lie through my teeth.  I simply used your arguments.  Do you have any supporting evidence that I lied?  No, you don't, and you know that I realized no such thing since you have no supporting evidence for that either.  YOU, Lukvance, are lying.
You assume that I am lying when I use your arguments because you know that you yourself are lying. 
You said and I quote "there are schools for toothfairyology." If this is not a lie, I don't know what is.
Do you have any support for your claim that it is a lie?  Or is that just your opinion based on your imagination because you have run out of counter arguments?
You want me to support what exactly? you said "there are schools for toothfairyology". Are you saying that this is not a lie? That there are indeed there schools for toothfairyology? Are you making fun of us or what? There isn't a definition for "toothfairyology" in the Oxford English Dictionary?
There are many ways I could support my claim.
I can support the claim by asking you for an address so I could visit the school.
I can support the claim by asking you for the definition for "toothfairyology" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
You're worth more than my time

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 #1146 on: August 12, 2014, 08:01:50 PM »
I can support the claim by asking you for an address so I could visit the school.

This information has been given to you several times.  Why do you keep asking for something you already have?

I can support the claim by asking you for the definition for "toothfairyology" in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Who said it was English?
"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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +894/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1147 on: August 12, 2014, 08:10:06 PM »
Lukvance, I know enough statistics to predict that some tiny percentage of people who go to Lourdes will get better. Some will even be immediately and permanently cured[1] of their illness. I can also predict that the exact same tiny percentage of people will be immediately and permanently cured by staying away from all holy sites and never praying to any gods. Some people will just get better. We can predict that.

Nobody knows why some people are "miraculously" healed of various conditions when other people are not. If there is a scientific reason, it is not known at this time. If it was known, we might be able to make it happen to more people. It is a mystery that science may someday be able to figure out. Then it would be a cure. Because as you have said, miracle healings are not cures.

But religious people like you are asserting that you do know why some people are healed. God. But you do not know which god, or why or how this god does it. And you can't say how you know it is not a friendly alien or a demon in disguise. So, it is useless information. It is even less than useless. It is harmful information.

As we have pointed out, telling people that god heals an occasional sick person at Lourdes encourages many millions of sick people to go there. I would assume that many of these people are not independently wealthy. That is time and money (maybe even borrowed money) spent on something that will not help their cancer or paralysis. Some people will get worse from the trip, and will suffer from not having any money left. Other people will get sick from being exposed at Lourdes to people with contagious diseases like TB.

One person every few million will get better and it will be examined by the miracle experts and declared a miracle. A useless miracle that will not help anyone else with the same condition. But it will be publicized so that more sick people go there. And almost nobody who goes to Lourdes will be healed.[2]

I asked you before and I will ask you again. Do you think that people with ebola should get on planes and go to Lourdes? Knowing the odds are one in many millions will get healed of that highly contagious and deadly disease, should they all be flown to Lourdes? Is that what god wants?

If yes, give your rationale. If not, give your reasons why not.
 1. Since there are apparently no longitudinal studies of former miraculously cured patients, I don't know how the church can say the cure was permanent. If they go home to their tiny village in Mexico and drop dead, does anyone keep track?
 2. No, don't change the subject to "spiritual healing" when we are talking about TB, paralyzed hands or cancer--unless yu can show me a "spiritual healing" on an x-ray.
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 #1148 on: August 12, 2014, 08:18:40 PM »
Lukvance, now that the two kind posters above have given examples of where you said that miracle healings could be predicted, will you retract the spite smite you gave me?

I don't expect you to do it, but it does not hurt to ask. Also, it might even increase the already huge amount of respect folks here have for you.  &)
How do you do that?
If taken in context I don't understand, how could you think that it was the miracle that was predicted and not the clues that followed the event?
I can predict that you will open your mouth the next time you eat. I cannot predict when you will eat the next time. There is a huge difference between the two, no?
The same way we can predict how the event will unfold (the cure will be immediate, the cure will be permanent) but we cannot predict the when.
I'd like to use that chance to underline the fact that we can predict the "how" but only to a certain degree. The more we learn about God, the more we can know how he will manifest himself in the world.

Can you show us where nogodsforme uses the word "when"?

For your reference, here is the entire origingal post:

Lukvance, your use of the dictionary only adds confusion, because several of the definitions contradict your previous description of god. You keep expanding the definition of god until it includes the entire universe, including suicide bombers, serial rapists, Satan, Hitler and the ebola virus. I don't think you are trying to say that face-eating bacteria, and the militants who kidnapped those schoolgirls in Africa are god. Or are you? You have said that evil leads to good. You are so all over the place it is hard to tell.

But, I think you have given us a new sig option, Lukvance:

"...you think that only what is scientific is real."

Well, yeah.

If it works and is real, it is scientific. If it is not scientific, then it is not real and it does not work.  It is made up, imaginary, useless foolishness. As Richard Dawkins said, "Science works, beeyatches." And religion does not. That is why people invented science.

BTW, you have said that miracles are scientific, because they can be predicted. Do tell, how can anyone predict a miracle healing? Which patients who arrives at Lourdes will be miraculously healed? If that could be predicted in advance, wouldn't it be better if the rest of the several million yearly visitors just saved their money and stayed home?

That is something you still have not addressed; since, as you have attested,  godly miracles are as unlikely as a Timex watch on a prosperity gospel minister. Miracles are definitely not medical treatments, so, the vast majority of the pilgrims to holy sites would actually be much healthier if they stayed home. And if they are contagious, they would also make the rest of the visitors healthier by staying home. 

So, if over 99% of people who go to Lourdes will not get a miracle healing, why would any church approve of large groups of very sick people traveling there in search of a miracle healing? If indeed, anyone can predict a miracle healing, please tell everyone in advance so only the people who are going to get healed will spend their time and money going to Lourdes.

Otherwise the whole Lourdes thing starts to look, feel and smell like a scam preying on the weak, desperate and vulnerable.  >:(

As a kid who grew up around con artistry, I have very little sympathy for bastards who rip off the sick and elderly.  So, Lukvance, convince me that the Catholic Church is not running a con on people by encouraging them to go to Lourdes, knowing that hardly anyone will ever get miraculously healed.
"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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1149 on: August 12, 2014, 08:35:21 PM »
I have my own definition of God. Since I believe that he is infinite and that we are not, I believe that we won't be able to understand God the way you wish to. We can only aproximate. My definition of God is the GPB. I do not know if he's made of matter or not, I do know that he can interact with the world (as Jesus or as miracles) so that he has the capacity to be material.
[/quote]

Just for your information (and you can smite me if I'm changing the subject, assuming you are still the thread police), god is clearly material. Otherwise he could not have produced the sperm necessary to father jesus. Otherwise he was just a biologist doing artificial insemination, which would make jc somewhat lesser a character than the bible plays him up to be. Besides that, we're all made in his image, which is hard to do if one is an immaterial deity.

In other words, if he just made jc the way he made adam, his role was minimal and the dead kid shouldn't be such a big deal.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +894/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1150 on: August 12, 2014, 09:27:22 PM »
^^^Good point. "Mary had a baby, my lord", as the gospel song goes. Baby Jesus was a material kid, who presumably emerged form Mary's teenaged body in the usual material way, pooped material poop, puked material puke and cried salty material tears. The baby must have come from material sperm meeting a material egg at some point.

Does the Vatican explain how Mary got pregnant by an invisible immaterial non-being? Can anyone explain how an invisible immaterial non-being interacts with physical matter, like human egg cells? Does any church have a sample of magical immaterial invisible relic sperm in a bottle that it wants people to pay money to see? I smell con artistry at work....
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1151 on: August 12, 2014, 09:58:23 PM »
Clarifying for Luk. Your god had to biologically produce the sperm for the tweenage Mary or he wasn't really the dad. So he must have the ability to take a biological form.

Of course, unless he isn't real, in which case this discussion is moot.

Added: Without male sperm, any spontaneous pregnancy for Mary would have produced a daughter. Jessica instead of jesus.

Too bad it wasn't a she.That would make the crackers taste better, I'm sure.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 10:04:18 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

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 #1152 on: August 12, 2014, 10:27:06 PM »
Do you think that you exist? Is your existence provable scientifically? Are you THAT predictable? Does your actions need to be predictable for us to determine that you exist?
Do you seriously think that whether my actions are scientifically predictable and whether my existence is scientifically provable have anything to do with each other, Lukvance?  Did you misread my post that much?  Or are you just trying to play word games with me so you can try to conflate your god's supposed existence and your god's supposed actions together?  Because you cannot prove that your god exists from actions you attribute to him, and even if your god does exist, it doesn't prove that actions you think are his doing actually are.

On the chance that you simply misunderstood, let me elaborate on the point I was trying to make.  It is possible to prove that someone exists, but you need physical evidence that is unique to them in order to do so.  For example, if you found a fingerprint, you would not be able to prove who's fingerprint it was unless you could perform a comparison with existing fingerprints or fingerprint records and find a match.  The same goes with any other such physical evidence; you need a physical record that can be compared and directly identifies that person.  And that's exactly what you don't have from your god.

Instead, you have supposed miracles and other things which you're attributing to your god.  But you cannot use those as evidence for your god because they aren't unique to him.  Some other god could have done them instead, for example.  Or no god could have performed them at all.  First you must show that your god actually exists in the real world by finding something that uniquely identifies him.  With humans, we use fingerprints, retinas, and DNA, among other things, and other identifying information is tied to them.  What can we use to identify your god and prove his existence?  Then, and only then, can you attempt to show that your god was responsible for various things.  You cannot point to various things that happen and claim that they're caused by your god when your gods existence is in question, because that's putting the cart before the horse.



As far as scientific predictability goes, my actions have no bearing whatsoever on my existence (except on the off chance that I do something which terminates my existence, such as jumping off a cliff).  My actions - what I choose to do - do not have to be scientifically predictable in order for me to exist.  However, you cannot scientifically predict my actions from the mere fact that I exist and my physical properties which I have no control over.  And you certainly cannot scientifically predict my actions if I am aware of your prediction, because I might act to thwart it, or I might act to aid it, or I might ignore it.  That was the point I was trying to make with this; your god's actions are not scientifically predictable unless he has no choice but to act in that fashion and cannot change the way he acts.  And if that's the case, your god isn't an entity, but an object.  It would be like if someone worshiped the sun; they could certainly prove that the sun existed, and even predict what the sun would do for the most part (although their ability to predict would be limited by what they could observe).  But the only reason that would work is because the sun cannot change its actions based on what humans do or don't do.  It cannot choose to stop shining, for example.  And thus, it is an object, not an entity; a thing, not a being.

Presuming your god exists for the sake of this specific point.  If your god's actions are scientifically predictable, then it is an object which will act as it does regardless of anything you do or don't do.  If your gods actions are not scientifically predictable, then he is a being who might change his actions based on things you do or don't do.  So which is it?  You can't have it both ways, Lukvance.

Quote from: Lukvance
That would be interpreting me wrong. I am saying that we don't know enough to have it each time we "look for it". We have it enough times to be sure that it is real.
Actually, we don't.  Science isn't something you can be certain about.  There's no guarantee that when we do more tests, we won't find something that disqualifies what we currently think of as the Higgs boson from actually being one.  Or that something wasn't messed up with the LHC and caused those two teams to get skewed info, and when they resume testing in 2015 or whenever it is, that they'll be able to reproduce their findings.

Quote from: Lukvance
You got it wrong about God. He is not the one "making a miracle recognizable or not recognizable". You have to remember that we don't know everything about God. We learn more everyday. I believe we will never "fully understand" God because he is infinite. And this infinity makes him "always more". It doesn't mean that we cannot find his interactions based on what we know.
Not trying to be rude, but that's not very meaningful, especially since we have no way to show that an infinity actually exists in reality.

Quote from: Lukvance
The following works in both cases :
"Once it interact with the world (if it does) it will leave basically the same clues."
So can we make your god appear, the way we can smash particles together to cause a Higgs boson reaction?  Or do we just have to have faith that he exists and count things which may or may not be him as 'evidence', because of what theologians have come up with?

Quote from: Lukvance
Not in that particular way but in a similar one we can define a clear cause-effect relationship. As clear as your fingerprint has a clear cause-effect relationship to you.
Sure, you can define a cause-effect relationship.  You can do that for things that don't exist as well as for things that do.  So you can't use the cause-effect relationship as proof of anything, at least not proof that would convince a skeptic.

Quote from: Lukvance
I shared with these people some links that would allow them to understand without taking my word for it. My assertions are supported by a huge community. They are not product of my imagination. Unlike some of the claims I've read presented as counter argument.
Providing links to other people's work only works if people accept that those people are authorities on the subject, otherwise it's an argument from authority fallacy.  The number of people who agree with you is irrelevant; that's an argument from numbers fallacy.  The fact that you, yourself, didn't dream up this stuff doesn't prove it's real.

Quote from: Lukvance
Some people have seen God (people who lived with Jesus).
This assumes Jesus was an actual person who actually lived.

Quote from: Lukvance
That proves you wrong when you say "nobody's ever actually seen this supposed clue-maker" but does it make him more real?
No, it doesn't prove me wrong, because you're assuming that what the Bible says is true, even though we have no independent verification of most of the stuff in the New Testament.  It's only once we get to the various letters written by Paul that we see actual independent verification.

Quote from: Lukvance
Or does it must have to be you who see him? Wouldn't that makes you like Zola?
It has to be independently verified.  That doesn't necessarily mean me, but it does mean people who aren't believers in your religion.

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 #1153 on: August 13, 2014, 03:40:23 AM »
Is it true because you just said so or is it true for some other reason than your own intellect?
I understand and agree with you on the definition of chair being sufficient. Could you imagine how someone could disagree with you? would your explanation alone should suffice?
If so do I have to spell it out like you do and tell the world what I think without supporting it with evidence?

You are now veering off into red-herring land again. We are talking about language and it's use; as pertaining to what specific words denote (or reference). Definitions of terms can be rational or irrational, meaningful or meaningless, useful or non-useful. That is what we are talking about. And thus far, you have not provided a rational/meaningful definition of what you are referring to when you use the term "God".

Your attempted definitions of the term "God" do not refer to anything specifically unique to that term (especially since you already admitted that your term refers to "no form" and "no composition"). So you keep giving negative definitions instead of positive ones. Again, what is this "thing"?? I want you to state what it IS, not what it is NOT.
I think I answered that already :
I have my own definition of God. Since I believe that he is infinite and that we are not, I believe that we won't be able to understand God the way you wish to. We can only aproximate. My definition of God is the GPB. I do not know if he's made of matter or not, I do know that he can interact with the world (as Jesus or as miracles) so that he has the capacity to be material.

You missed the point entirely. I asked you to provide a definition that specifically refers to the "thing" you are attempting to reference that you are choosing to call "God" (and nothing else; as sound and meaningful definitions should do in general). Telling me that you believe "he" is "infinite" doesn't tell me anything about what "he" is. You keep using irrational and misleading language and that has been my point. You cannot use "he" if this alleged thing has no form and no composition. Your attempts thus far are indistinguishable from FICTION. Furthermore, you keep trying to talk about "the greatest possible being" and that is a meaningless statement because you haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing and the ontological argument has already been refuted (b/c you cannot define something into existence using language - i.e. Harry Potter).

I believe that I am not jumping around. I am trying my best to understand what you are looking for. I think that you don't know yet what you are looking for. You keep wanting me to define God as an object when you know (I hope) that he is infinite. And infinite objects do not have a "thing related" definition. (I think)
Anyway, I am doing my best here to please your thirst of knowledge. I do not have all the answers so sometime I refer to books like the dictionary to help me answer questions about definition of words.
I am not a theologian, I am a computer guy. Your question seems to be one of the kind. And maybe only a theologian could answer it as you see fit. Maybe you should ask one, he has more knowledge than me on matters of God.

I have told you quite specifically what I am looking for (a rational, meaningful, and coherent definition that references one specific 'thing' that you are trying to call "God" - and nothing else). Are you not paying attention? Further, you keep talking about the "infinite" (as if to assume there is such a 'being' that is infinite). But you haven't shown that. It's just another assumption. I do not "know" that "he" is "infinite". I do not accept your assertion that this 'thing' is a "he". Nor do I accept your assertion of "infinite". And your assertion that this "thing" has no form and no composition is still just as logically fallacious as the first time you tried it - b/c a word that attempts to describe 'no-thing' (i.e. - no form) is not referencing a "thing" at all, b/c "its" have composition. So what the hell are you trying to reference? Please be precise with your use of language. You keep contradicting yourself and that is the point. Your definition is irrational. My questions are certainly not one of a kind. They are issues that have been commonly discussed by thinkers for centuries.


So? Giving multiple definition is shifting definitions? All of them are correct. I am not saying that one is better than the other. You are the one rejecting each of them aren't you? Saying that they don't say anything about what God is really.

YOUR FALLACIOUS DEFINITION ATTEMPT:

-Greatest possible being
-No form and no composition (not composed of anything)
-A "he" supreme ruler of the universe
-Is "love", "truth", etc

I'm sorry Luk, but "all of them" cannot be correct because these definitions are mutually exclusive when you insert the term "no form and no composition". When you try to use a word to denote an alleged "thing" that has "no form and no composition" you have just contradicted yourself because it makes no sense whatsoever to attempt to talk about 'some-thing' which is not a particular thing (a 'some-thing') at all. If it has no composition then it is not an "it" at all - and therefore you are NOT talking about any-thing! "Beings" have form. Rulers have form. "Hes" have form. So you are literally talking nonsense.

You tried this same tactic with the word "miracle". Once I pointed out your fallacy you attempted to assert another definition (i.e. - "the things that happen at Lourdes" instead of "God interacting in the world"). Each of your attempted definitions have been rebutted and you have not responded to those rebuttals. You have ignored them.
I disagree. Rebuttal of what? The definition of miracles? Why do you want to redefine the words that are already defined in the dictionary?
I understood why I couldn't say that "miracles that happen at Lourdes are the proof of God" so I changed it to "the things that happen at Lourdes  are the proof of God existing outside our body" Then I changed it again, in the course of the discussion so it could be more precise each time.
What you have to realize is that the idea is the same median. since the first phrase I wrote about miracles and through all the changed that has been made so it sounds better to your ears. the basic idea is the same.


And your "basic idea" is irrational because you have attempted to assert that "miracles" are "God interacting with the world" and then argued that "miracles" (God interacting with the world) are "proof of God" (which is circular reasoning). And you have not demonstrated that there is any such thing as a "God" that did anything - nor have you even coherently defined that term in any meaningful way. Second, I have not "redefined" anything. I have asked for your definition and what you have given thus far are irrational attempts at denoting or referencing a non-thing.

This is the claim/Assertion : "God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Why? Because we can see him acting directly in this world."
The links for the miracles of Lourdes, the book, the video, the papers and all theses links that I shared with you are all there to support/prove that claim as true.

No, they are ASSERTIONS, not proof. You have not demonstrated or presented a "he" that did anything. And you keep referring to "God" as a "he" as if to imply that you are talking about a person (which you didn't use in your attempted definition). Further, your conclusions (and your churches conclusions) are not warranted b/c they are based on both the argument from ignorance and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. When you can't sufficiently explain how and why a specific event occurred then you should admit ignorance - not just assert that an alleged "God" did anything - especially since your attempted definition of this "God" thing is irrational and denotes no-thing. How can you say that a no-thing did anything? It is logically absurd.

you keep attempting to draw causation from correlation. That is fallacious.
I keep amassing clues about the one responsible of the event. Isn't it different than drawing causation from correlation?
Could explain to me with an example of your own (please do not use God) what is "drawing causation from correlation"?
I might be able to understand where the parralel is with this demonstration of the existence of God. Where I made the mistake and how I could correct it.

Your use of the word "one" here is an ASSUMPTION (begging the question fallacy). You have not demonstrated that there was a "one" (i.e. - a person 'thing') that did anything to the sick people who got better.

Here's an example. What if I took the definition of "chair" and replaced the word "chair" with the word "God"? Is that a sufficient definition of the "thing" that caused the people at Lourdes to get better? It's not, is it?
No it is not. Could you make an example with the definition of you?
How would you demonstrate your existence without involving anyone using their senses to detect you directly?
There was this part were someone told me that he could send a picture or make an hangout with me. Thus proving him his existence. But that would require me to see him, hence using one of my 5 senses to detect him directly. Even then he could have just send a computer generated image of himself via his webcam.
I concluded on that part that at one point I have to agree that he exist even if I can't see touch ear smell sense him directly.
I wish that you guys understood that it is relatively the same process with God. At one point we have enough evidence that it is him who is responsible for the event. That he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Ps : The use of "He" when I talk about God comes from the fact that "IL" in french is used as a non gender pronoun. I do not believe that God is a male or a female. I don't like using "IT" to describe God because I respect him more than a father. I'm sorry that it bothers you.

Why would I want to try to demonstrate my existence to someone without allowing anyone to use their senses? This question seems quite nonsensical b/c science does not deal with 'absolute proof'. It deals with inferences to the best (and most rational) explanation; with the least amount of assumptions and the least amount of biases. Furthermore, you are making an extraordinary claim, which requires MORE evidence than normal - not less. Demonstrating the existence of a person (i.e. - me) is not extraordinary b/c we have lots of demonstrations of people existing. You simply do not have this for an alleged "God" with "no form and no composition". So you are, once again, trying to draw a false analogy between ordinary claims and extraordinary claims (i.e. - claims to the supernatural and/or miraculous) and your arguments are logically fallacious - and therefore invalid.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 03:51:30 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6709
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1154 on: August 13, 2014, 05:15:35 AM »

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. [Edit GBMod: You say this but (i) "greatest" "possible" and "being"are terms for which there is no agreed definition and, as such the whole term is meaningless. It is meaningless as it only says what you want it to mean, which is not the same as someone else wants it to mean. (ii) There is so far nothing to say that this god is the Judeo-Christian God.]

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. [Edit GBMod: (i) I cannot see where you have shown that the Judeo-Christian God is the size of the universe. The only source of information we have about him is the Bible, and He made us in His image. (ii) So-called miracles are not proof of any gods: you see, first of all you have to assume there is a god and then attribute the miracles to him.]

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.[Edit GBMod: (i) The "disinterested independent verification." is done by a group of Catholic priests and Cardinals when they review evidence given by doctors who say, "We do not know why this happened." - the priests and cardinals are saying that our ignorance is proof of God. (ii) So-called miracles are not proof of any gods: you see, first of all you have to assume there is a god and then attribute the miracles to him.]


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. [EditGB: So-called miracles prove nothing about God - this much has been established.]


Lukvance,

You are simply failing to see that your arguments (see above) are ridiculous. Your failure to see this and move on is a cause of concern to the board.

You cannot simply keep saying you have proven something, when you have not, nor can you make statements as if they were true, when they are clearly not.

You must abandon the statements above because common sense says they are not logical; they have fatal flaws.

You may be unable to see that they are flawed but everybody else does. Repeating them as if we agreed with you is close to being insane.

You are wrong in your claims and you should admit that you are wrong. I give you the following quote:

No amount of belief makes something a fact. -James Randi.

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

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6709
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
« Reply #1155 on: August 13, 2014, 05:21:36 AM »
Whoa, hold on here a second, I missed this.  I realized no such thing, nor did I have to lie through my teeth.  I simply used your arguments.  Do you have any supporting evidence that I lied?  No, you don't, and you know that I realized no such thing since you have no supporting evidence for that either.  YOU, Lukvance, are lying.
You assume that I am lying when I use your arguments because you know that you yourself are lying. 
You said and I quote "there are schools for toothfairyology." If this is not a lie, I don't know what is.
Lukvance,
It is not a lie, it is a joke.

If you cannot see that, I suggest you seek qualified medical help.

GB Mod.
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 #1156 on: August 13, 2014, 03:59:17 PM »
I asked you before and I will ask you again. Do you think that people with ebola should get on planes and go to Lourdes? Knowing the odds are one in many millions will get healed of that highly contagious and deadly disease, should they all be flown to Lourdes? Is that what god wants?

If yes, give your rationale. If not, give your reasons why not.
I will quote my answer to that :
So, if over 99% of people who go to Lourdes will not get a miracle healing, why would any church approve of large groups of very sick people traveling there in search of a miracle healing?
That's because you don't count those spiritual healing. You only focus on the physical healing. I have heard many testimony of people and have lived one myself. The spiritual miracle is an experience of God that you live and afterwards you have no more doubts whatsoever of his existence. I can safely say that God "touched" me spiritually when I was 24. But these things don't count because you cannot see or test or touch or feel them yourself. You must rely on testimony.

Lukvance, convince me that the Catholic Church is not running a con on people by encouraging them to go to Lourdes, knowing that hardly anyone will ever get miraculously healed.
You have as much chance to get miraculously healed at your place than by going to Lourdes. But as you know, when you put some effort into something you generally receive something else in return.
I have a friend who is walking "The Camino de Santiago" because he wanted to live his faith more fully. I have another one who came back from that walk and testify to us that it was a lifetime experiment, that it changed his life. So why should people go to Lourdes? To change their lives for the better, to travel! Not to get physically healed.
Here is a website that might help you understand : http://www.lourdesvolunteers.org/go_to_lourdes/why.html
You immediately afterwards accused me of goal posts shifting when it is apparently a question that you really want an answer to. Since you asked it twice.
Have you read the website I shared with you?
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 #1157 on: August 13, 2014, 04:02:44 PM »
Can you show us where nogodsforme uses the word "when"?
She didn't say "when" she asked "Which patients who arrives at Lourdes will be miraculously healed? If that could be predicted in advance, wouldn't it be better if the rest of the several million yearly visitors just saved their money and stayed home? "
I hope this answer your question.
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 #1158 on: August 13, 2014, 04:06:26 PM »
^^^Good point. "Mary had a baby, my lord", as the gospel song goes. Baby Jesus was a material kid, who presumably emerged form Mary's teenaged body in the usual material way, pooped material poop, puked material puke and cried salty material tears. The baby must have come from material sperm meeting a material egg at some point.

Does the Vatican explain how Mary got pregnant by an invisible immaterial non-being? Can anyone explain how an invisible immaterial non-being interacts with physical matter, like human egg cells? Does any church have a sample of magical immaterial invisible relic sperm in a bottle that it wants people to pay money to see? I smell con artistry at work....
All of this is explained yes. But why does it matter regarded to the proof of the existence of God outside your body? Would these explanations would suffice as a proof for you?
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 #1159 on: August 13, 2014, 04:22:13 PM »
Clarifying for Luk. Your god had to biologically produce the sperm for the tweenage Mary or he wasn't really the dad. So he must have the ability to take a biological form.
Of course, unless he isn't real, in which case this discussion is moot.
Added: Without male sperm, any spontaneous pregnancy for Mary would have produced a daughter. Jessica instead of jesus.
Too bad it wasn't a she.That would make the crackers taste better, I'm sure.
Haha yes. I remember stating that God can interact with this word, so he must have some kind of power allowing him to do so. An healthy fetus back then is nothing compared to miracle healings he is doing today.
You're worth more than my time