If God lost all his powers; would you still praise him?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Oh, really?

The give me or provide for me an exact electrochemical diagram of the frustration I am feeling at having to explain this to you yet again.

Did the Big Bang only become existent when we had the means to perceive it or to posit it?

Was the world flat at one point? Did it bend into its current form the first time some ancient scholar put forth a reasonable hypothesis? Or did it become spherical when that notion became generally accepted?

How comfortable it must be, how… safe… it must be to KNOW all the things that you do. How gratifying it must be to be privy to the knowledge that we human beings now have ALL the POSSIBLE means to quantify that which we see and that which affects us.
Your argument doesn’t hold up. Your tone is even worse, but it’s to be expected I suppose.
Look, DT, clinical depression exists as an actual phenomenon, does it not?

How do we know? Because of its effects. It certainly can’t be quantified.

Or do you wish to argue against the existence of clinical depression?
[/QUOTE]

With science, you will eventually have a chance to find the answers to your questions.
With religion, not so much.

62

Good post by George Kaplin.

The more learned clergy of various churches would prefer their followers not try to dwell on the God of the gaps, or point a finger at science and taunt the establishment because they don’t understand a phenomena to their follower’s liking.

They’ve gotten burned way too many times on that one.

Certainly, using depression probably isn’t the best example, if you want to remain in a truly murky area. Remarkable progress has been made on this front, especially when you consider the state of affairs only a hundred years ago.

As for the OP, I never really praised God. So if he didn’t have all his powers I would agree with sending him to The Hague. Also, to the Christians who answered that this already happened 2000 years ago, that’s obviously not right since Jesus Christ had all sorts of magical powers.

63

The only point I’m trying to make is that what we “know” and what we can observe and quantify are not the same thing. They never have been.

Says you. How do you KNOW?

I’m certainly not taunting the establishment; far from it. Where do you get that from my post? All I’m saying is that today’s certainty is tomorrow’s fondly-remembered misconception.

64

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Says you. How do you KNOW?
[/QUOTE]

I see. You would like me to provide proof that my statement is true?

65

Ah, but my point is that everything we “know” can be described in physical terms. This means that everything is theoretically quantifiable. People like me are known as physicalists and one of the corollaries of our position is that while some things may not be quantifiable now, they will ultimately be quantifiable when we have the technology. While it’s true that that there has always been a substantial gap between what we know and what we can quantify, the physicalist observes the extent to which this gap has shrunk in recent years and confidently predicts that it will eventually be filled altogether.

66

[QUOTE= Czarcasm]
I see. You would like me to provide proof that my statement is true?
[/QUOTE]

Yes.

[QUOTE= George Kaplin]
Ah, but my point is that everything we “know” can be described in physical terms. This means that everything is theoretically quantifiable.
[/QUOTE]

Theoretically, sure. You and I are not disagreeing. It’s what we expect the answer to be and by which instruments we will be able to perceive it that is where we diverge.

67

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
The give me or provide for me an exact electrochemical diagram of the frustration I am feeling at having to explain this to you yet again.
[/quote]
I don’t own a MRI or other scanning equipment, and we aren’t good enough to provide you with an exact diagram - yet. However, A a scan of your frustration can be made, which is more than can be said for God or the soul.

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Did the Big Bang only become existent when we had the means to perceive it or to posit it?
[/quote]
Of course not.

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
How comfortable it must be, how… safe… it must be to KNOW all the things that you do. How gratifying it must be to be privy to the knowledge that we human beings now have ALL the POSSIBLE means to quantify that which we see and that which affects us.
[/quote]
We don’t. I’m not claiming that science has everything; I’m claiming religion has nothing.

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Look, DT, clinical depression exists as an actual phenomenon, does it not?

How do we know? Because of its effects. It certainly can’t be quantified.

Or do you wish to argue against the existence of clinical depression?
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t, but I do feel it’s only a matter of time, and not too much, before it is quantifiable down to the brain cells. We CAN detect it, and anylyze it to a degree. Which again is better than can be done for God.

Nor is science about quantification. It’s about proof and disproof, facts and evidence. Quantifying things is useful, but not necessary to make a bit of knowledge scientific.

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Says you. How do you KNOW?
[/QUOTE]
Because science has the tools to suceed, and a history of success at discovering the facts. Religion has neither the tools to find out, nor a history of success at discovering anything at all. Religion is factually barren.

68

I swear I’ve heard of this concept before…

69

[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
Yes.
[/QUOTE]

And you, of course, will demand proof for every claim brought forth by religionists of all stripes, and will provide proof for any religious claims you provide?
Anything less would be hypocritical.