The best reasons to believe that there is a God

[handsofdoom]

Why can't you imagine the lack of these instruments? Seems the more science you're taught the less imagination you have. A shame in my mind.

 

this is absurd. why SHOULD I imagine a lack of instruments when there is no lack of them? this is a practical debate, not one where we cover our eyes and pretend certain factors do or don't exist.

 

Have you ever considered that the perfection of mathematics or the mere fact that our universe sprang forth from a tiny pinpoint of energy smaller than a grain of sand, creating everything we see (and don't see) is God?

 

no, fundamentally wrong. that "tiny pinpoint of energy smaller than a grain of sand" takes up mass. this mass is what gives it a physical existence. physical existence is not a property of omnipotence, and omnipotence is a property of god.

[lord_casek]

this is absurd. why SHOULD I imagine a lack of instruments when there is no lack of them? this is a practical debate, not one where we cover our eyes and pretend certain factors do or don't exist.

 

 

 

no, fundamentally wrong. that "tiny pinpoint of energy smaller than a grain of sand" takes up mass. this mass is what gives it a physical existence. physical existence is not a property of omnipotence, and omnipotence is a property of god.

 

 

You weren't liked as a child, eh? You're still misunderstanding what I'm getting at and going in a different direction. Omnipotence, huh? Perhaps I am not saying it quite well enough for someone like you to understand. I'll take some time and try to think of another way to say it.

[lord_casek]

handsofdoom: you may enjoy some of this, particularly the one on God and metaphysics.

http://www.jeffersonhour.org/?id=16

[handsofdoom]

You weren't liked as a child, eh?

 

EXCELLENT IDEA! instead of discussing the topic at hand, let's insult each other! what a fabulously well developed and intellectual argument you make!

 

 

You're still misunderstanding what I'm getting at and going in a different direction.

 

and you are not understanding me. it is impossible for a god to exist. therefore any argument you make is irrelevant and false, so anything you're "getting at" does not even deserve to be had at.

 

 

Perhaps I am not saying it quite well enough for someone like you to understand.

 

it's true. i'm attending the university of minnesota for a high degree in physics. you could say i'm not particularly bright.

[lord_casek]

EXCELLENT IDEA! instead of discussing the topic at hand, let's insult each other! what a fabulously well developed and intellectual argument you make!

 

 

 

 

and you are not understanding me. it is impossible for a god to exist. therefore any argument you make is irrelevant and false, so anything you're "getting at" does not even deserve to be had at.

 

 

 

 

it's true. i'm attending the university of minnesota for a high degree in physics. you could say i'm not particularly bright.

 

I didn't mean it as an insult like you're taking it. I meant having no imagination must have made you somewhat dull.

 

That is your belief.

 

Good for you. Physics interests me a lot. I hope that you are able to contribute to the furthering development of our species enabling us to one day touch the stars.

[twonpoo]

What a great time to drop in a Richard Dawkins clip

 

[handsofdoom]

what a great time to go read god Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

 

have your eyes opened nice and wide.

[lord_casek]

what a great time to go read god Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

 

have your eyes opened nice and wide.

 

 

Just because a man professes to know the truth does not mean he does indeed know the truth.

 

It's all really just a leap of faith. Even for atheists. We have to wait until we die to find out

the truth and not many come back to tell about what they saw.

[handsofdoom]

What the atheists don't seem to realize is that science will NEVER fully understand everything.

 

this is not true. "to understand mathematics is to know the mind of God." (if a belief in god is your persuasion this holds true anyhow.) if we assume that human capacity for understanding and knowledge is limitless (which i'm convinced it is) then it's only a matter of time. Stephen Hawking (the source for the above quote) one of the greatest minds to exist, the man who taught me to disprove the existence of god believes this will be by the end of the century.

[twonpoo]

holla!

 

or

 

 

Challah!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

depending on what you believe.....

[lord_casek]

To me, the beauty of mathematics is the proof that there is a creator.

[lord_casek]

the brain is like a 168,0000 MHz Pentium computer

[handsofdoom]

So you are saying that if man lives long enough, one day we will be omniscient? Sounds awfully religious to me. On the contrary, I know that man's capacity for knowledge is finite, as evinced by our own feeble memories. The brain rivals the universe in its vastness but it is still finite like the universe, as vast as it is. We will continue to grow and amass more knowledge, but as anyone who has done a little learning realizes, the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know. Everything else becomes an abstraction.... only understood as an abstraction. That is mystery.

 

first, i'd like to compliment you on your argument. definitely rational and well developed, i dig it. we have a ton in common concerning the way we think.

 

human memory is no longer relevant in my opinion because of collective memory through teh interwebz, books, et cetera. what one human knows, all do. our memories are becoming increasingly collective because of our technological advancements. to say that man's capacity for knowledge is finite due to the fact of our faulty memories is not particularly correct, because of the reason i just listed.

 

"but as anyone who has done a little learning realizes, the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know."

 

there is a certain point upon which there is nothing more to know. once we've hit that point, we have total knowledge, and yes, Omniscience. collective memory through computers and other such means of permanent history are just the beginning.

 

i don't see us hitting that point for so many innumerable years. if we exist long enough to hit that point because as we all know, or should know, existence is temporary.

 

but what i tried to illustrate is that sometime within the next few centuries, we will have total knowledge of the creation of the universe, and the rules which rule it. hopefully. it's obviously impossible to say. hell, in 75 years we could all be dead. in 50 years we could revert to a state of primitivism! but omniscience is a possibility.

[handsofdoom]

there is a certain point upon which there is nothing more to know. once we've hit that point, we have total knowledge, and yes, Omniscience.

 

i hadn't taken this into consideration; if omniscience is absolute knowledge, it would include knowledge of the infinite future, which would effectively destroy free will. so this isn't possible!

 

i hope you guys understand what i meant though, eventually (if we exist long enough) humans will know everything there is to know that is within our capacity to know with the help of collective memory!

 

my bad.

[lord_casek]

All good.

[twonpoo]

still no god.........

 

 

 

lol

 

with long white hair, standing behind golden gates with angles flying around with wings and lil floating gold american apparrel headbands.

[lord_casek]

still no god.........

 

 

 

lol

 

with long white hair, standing behind golden gates with angles flying around with wings and lil floating gold american apparrel headbands.

 

 

That's something that confuses me about people. Why all the anthropomorphizing of God?

Why does God have to look like an old man wearing a white robe, etc? Why can't God be the

entirety of everything?

 

It seems like when people think this way they don't really have an understanding of what they speak of. No disrespect meant to you, TP.

[twonpoo]

[twonpoo]

 

god looks like a pee stream?

[twonpoo]

[twonpoo]

[twonpoo]

[twonpoo]

[twonpoo]

[lord_casek]

Only a depiction from the imagination of man.

 

Also: Chill with the individual pics in posts.

[twonpoo]

Only a depiction from the imagination of man.

 

Also: Chill with the individual pics in posts.

 

the imagination of man was what created this thing called god, be it pictures OR words. The human mind made it up a couple thou years ago.

 

:lol:

 

Religion is actually pretty hilarious when you think about it.

[lord_casek]

the imagination of man was what created this thing called god, be it pictures OR words. The human mind made it up a couple thou years ago.

 

:lol:

 

Religion is actually pretty hilarious when you think about it.

 

 

 

What makes you right? Can you tell me without saying "because I am" or citing Dawkins?

Have you determined this through decades of study or is it just your opinion? Have you died

and seen that there is no afterlife?

 

Or, did you just read a book by Dawkins or one of his contemporaries and say "hey! that makes sense to me so it must be right!"

 

You act the same as those religious nuts we all hate that stand on the corner and pronounce you doomed to hellfire if you do not believe in the god that they believe in.

 

Do you not see that?

[handsofdoom]

Even still I don't think the sum of all human knowledge will ever be the sum of all knowledge period. Especially when dealing with enormously complex things like proteomics. The sheer number of proteins is astronomical and the amount of interactions possible would appear almost infinite. And we are talking about just one planet's proteins, not to mention all the rest in the 50 bn galaxies. The vastness and complexity of the universe is staggering! And besides, we are constantly generating new information every single day. We can never know everything because new information is always being created.

 

I truly and honestly believe with a duration of existence long enough to do so provided, that we can reach omniscience to the fullest human capacity. you aren't taking into account further technological advancement that will be made in the next few centuries that will lead to omniscience.

 

my theory for knowledge is comparable to the "snowball effect". roll a snowball down snow covered mountain of infinity and that snowball will only pick up momentum. it will go faster, and faster, and faster. growing bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

 

humans are gradually beginning to understand the scope of what mathematics and computer computation can provide for us in terms of human knowledge. discoveries, experiments, research, studies, all of this will eventually become unnecessary because our computers will be able to conduct them in split seconds with simulated reality, and other things of that nature.

 

now, i'm not a computer science major, and i hope i'm illustrating my point with clarity. it's absurd to believe that the scientific process of discovery of the last few centuries will remain relevant much longer. lab coats and clipboards will be traded in for super processors and variables and dependents and equations that will produce knowledge.

 

we will develop computers that will be able to predict information before this information exists. and so on and so forth. basically, the future of human omniscience lies not within our memories, our scientific discoveries, or anything of that nature. it's all about collective memory through computers, and the computer's ability to process information.

 

proteomics

imagine sometime in the next century, when a computer will be able to display the structure of every protein, in every galaxy in a few days of processing. genomes, brain structure, all these things of unimaginable depth and sophistication processed by computers in hours or minutes.

[russell jones]

One note: if there is an afterlife, we will not necessarily find out if God exists. Why would we?

[handsofdoom]

What makes you right? Can you tell me without saying "because I am" or citing Dawkins?

 

word. this thread is about making a claim and supporting it. unless you have evidence for any of your posts or a potential for realization of your theory, don't bother.