Oh, I get it. You’re trying to hijack the thread.
No, I’m arguing in refutation of Ex Machina’s attempt at an argument. Not for or against any particular flavor of divinity. Like I said, that’d be a different thread.
CandidGamera
Seems like this being or object is pretty much useless then. When can we expect to develop the means by which to observe this being?
NC: “That effect on Neptune is not because of Pluto’s gravitational influence. It’s the hand of God. I say so. Now prove I’m wrong.” Does it add anything at all to the debate to insist that the hand-of-god theory cannot be disproven?
Ahh… it’s times like this I wish there was an “Are you sure?” that appears when you click the submit button.
This was rashly written, and I apologize in advance for it’s snarky tone.
The point is simply: some see physical manifestations and conclude “God.” This was my attempt to do so in a way that is patently unfair - i.e. The physical manifestation of Neptune’s orbital perturbations clearly has a more direct explanation than God’s hand. But if one took that stance, what does it add to insist the stance cannot be disproven?
Now extrapolate that to all “proofs” of God’s existence. For each one there is often a more prosaic explanation.
Don’t go saying therefore nothing can be “proven.” If I drop a hammer on my toe, we don’t question “what kind of God would allow such pain to exist.” We don’t reach to God at all for the explanation of my pain. Gravity, in this context, is a phenomenon that is well understood.
But encounter something that is not so readily understood - it’s a cop-out to say “God!” At one time mental illness was “demon infestation” until it was understood. At one time it was believed the earth was created 6000 years ago - we now understand better (although there are hold-outs).
(employing future tense) At one time people thought Christ died for my sins, until <insert some future discovery that disproves it> was discovered.
As far as we can prove? No overt usefulness. Might be incredibly vital, though, just unobserved. For example, the various arcane components of Earth’s upper atmosphere.
Travel back in time, speak to a man in 1600, explain the ozone layer. Assuming you can convince him that it’s up there, he’ll consider that knowledge useless trivia and the layer itself pointless unless you point out it shields him from the harmful portion of the sun’s output, and is therefore vital. And assuming he believes that as well, it’s still not knowledge that’s terribly important to him. “It’s there, that’s nice, it’d still be there if I didn’t know about it, so who cares?”
As for when? Pfft. They weren’t aware they’d be able to predict the existence of the ninth planet until their observational anomalies suggested there was one. Why should this situation be any different?
Who here is trying to prove God’s existence, exactly? Show of hands?
Are you in the right thread? Are you on the right messageboard?
jimpatro, Nature’s Call,
Okay, we all believe in something called gravity, right. Yet, we don’t know what it is–what causes it. We know it’s associated with mass, but that’s it. So, I say gravity is the pulse of God. Prove me wrong.
Now can this inane, illogical thread end? PLEASE!
Hey NC, I used your statement as an example but I wasnt singling you out and didn’t want to come across as attacking you. I see that statement, or something akin to it, very often in these discussions. As for:
Sigh, I think you put my point better than I could. Yes, gravity sits on something we don’t know. Some day we may understand the next level, only to find there’s something under that that remains unexplained.
The best definition of God, then, is “placeholder for the unknown.”
I’m content.
magellan01
Can’t do it. I say God is imaginary. Prove me wrong.
Now we can end this thread.
Good. Just in time for your play date.
God is the Force behind/of existence. You are confusing unsupported beliefs about God with the truth and reality of God and existence. If you wish to argue that you don’t really exist, that you only imagine your existence, please forward your bank accounts to me. A cashiers check will do.
Let us end this argument. Let us Trust in the God of our Existence.
I Am
r~
And you know this how?
Through revelation? Or because it makes sense to you?
Sorry, I tried not to.
If God is perfect and always was perfect, then why did He suddenly, at some point in His eternal existence, desire company or worship. This sounds like an imperfect being to me.
Loneliness, or vanity, or even whimsy, doesn’t sound like the trait of a perfect entity to me. They sound like the projected traits of imperfect human beings.
So why?
The real question is: How is it you do not see the truth in this definition?
Or maybe: Why do you resist this definition?
Do you have a more accurate or better definition of God?
Suspend your disbelief for the time being, and follow this one for a while and see where it leads. You can always go back.
Try again to trust with this understanding: The laws of nature hold true. They can be reproduced; they can be used for prediction. It is just a matter of understanding them.
I Am
r~
Why not? Just because you cannot conceive of something does not mean it is not true. And why would a perfect entity not show all these traits, and more? A perfect being would contain everything not just those qualities you found admirable.
Including evil? I’m betting you’ll think not. Only what is convenient of course.
Your “If” is based conjecture. Some do not know the difference between belief and truth. They tend to force their beliefs on others through their religion. That is not reason to reject the greater truth.
The truth is: we exist; there is a force behind existence. That force is God. The rest is belief and conjecture.
I am
r~
Since you cannot prove what you assert, you are engaged in “belief” also.
Why don’t we stop it? 9/11 and the trouble in the middle east didn’t just happen for no reason. It’s the result of people’s choices.
As I said. If certain concepts of God don’t make sense to you then ask questions. Seek answers. If it still doesn’t make sense then abandon that concept of God. I abandoned lots of traditional beliefs because they conflicted with each other and my own concept of God. I don’t believe God wrote any books. The so called holy books are just man’s invention. The word of God lives within each of us and we find it by learning how to listen. I asked “if God *is * ,then what are the qualities of God?” Love and truth. Then I asked “can I look at the world and find any rational reason to believe in a God who’s qualities are love and truth?” It isn’t easy.
Two things to keep in mind. 1, Our own free will. If I protect my children from the consequences of their choices than they will never grow up.
2, This world, our bodies, and all of the drama that goes along with that, is fleeting. The blink of an eye in the face of eternity. If we are indeed immortal spirits then everything that happens here, as awful as it seems sometimes, is just an experience that can in no way bring any harm to who and what we truly are.
If my relationship with my invisible dragon is valuble to me then what do I care if I can prove it to anyone else or not?