You may feel that this is a clever analogy, but it isn’t. A body existing within your backyard is present and can be recorded and verified. It would be a good analogy to use against Zagadka’s theories, but not mine.
Sound does not pass through air selectively. Living things give off heat, they take in energy and produce waste. The influence of a being is not dependent on belief. Sean has mass, and is made of matter of some sort, he reflects in some manner, and is altered by and influenced by his surroundings. You may have to bouce a hundred different things off of him, but eventually you would find that some form of radiation, some form of sound, some degree of temperature, some environmental change will effect him and produce a verifyable result.
Shaolinrabbit, I think I’m clear on your theories now (and I’m willing to give up on the Leprechaun analagy), but can you tell me why you believe your theories to be true? Or do you just believe that they can’t be proven false? And if you only think they can’t be proven false, why do you think they warrent consideration side-by-side with non-god theories that basically explain the same thing?
Maybe I’m not so clear on your theories after all.
It’s not that I believe that they are true, or that there is a god. I’m saying that if there were a god, there is a very specific niche that he must occupy in order to exist.
Most theists try to define god in all manner of crazy ways. My point is that if this concept is going to be discussed seriously, we need to be working on firm ground, and some assumptions can be made as to the nature of the deity if there is one.
In other words, Zagadka’s god wave force is easily shot down. That doesn’t shoot down theism itself, however.
Leprechauns are not “living creatures” in the organic sense of the word. they are magical creatures and as such, they do not possess the normal physical properties of organic creatures. They have no mass or body heat except that which they wish to express through magic.
See, the thing about magical creatures is that we can continue to add ad hoc qualifications and tautological properties ad infinitum just as you can do with God. There is no detectable property which a magical creature must posess in order to exist. We can just keep saying “it’s magic” until the cows come home. Assigning supernatural qualities to God is no more informative or scientifically valid than saying “it’s magic.”
I understand what you’re saying there SentientMeat, and while it cannot be expressed in terms of “time”, it is my understanding that such existance is theoretically possible, although not testable. I specified time as we know it to indicate the measurement of time relative to our perception of our universe.
Except that magical or supernatural properties are not what I stated. Nothing can prevent something within our frame of existance from being observable, even magic.
It’s my understanding that time flows outward like a cone from the singularity, making anything outside of that cone unobservable and in fact not pertinent to our existance within. I had thought that modern cosmology had not denied anything aside from this cone, but instead made anything aside from it irrelevant. In addition, once you reach the singularity in theory, it was also my understanding that we could not determine the applicable physical laws any longer.
As I said before, I’m not trying to defend how god does exist, I’m simply defining how he must exist if he does.
Hmm, not really - it sounds like you’re describing a standard light cone but getting rather the wrong end of the stick.
In any case, are you actually contending that God is somehow constrained by physical laws? That only physical things exist, and so if God exists He must be physical, and that that is how He is distinguished from magic beings?
But it sounds like that specific niche is “lacking the properties which make up existance”. What am I missing here? In other words, what about this specific niche would differentiate “god” from “things that don’t exist”?
No, that’s not what I was saying at all. A finite universe without boundaries which is self contained and has no beginning or end. My fault, I was working with outdated material.
I cede the point. At least until after I’ve made the rounds at Borders. BTW, did Hawking ever grok a quantum theory of gravity?
Shaolinrabbit, you may have missed this question earlier, but I am genuinly curious. What is it about the specific niche that god would occupy (if he/she existed) would differentiate “god” from “things that don’t exist”?
Well, “things that don’t exist” don’t exist. What I was trying to do was demonstrate that the existance of god was theoretically possible. It appears however that I’ve missed some of the higher avenues of physics and am unable to present that at the moment. Until I’ve brought myself up to date I can’t work up a decent hypothesis. In many ways, leprecauns and unicorns are easier to work with
I’ve got the scientific proof that theism is false. In my possession is a dated photograph of God not existing. I don’t have a scanner, but you can take my word for it.
There is actually some scientific evidence that God does not exist, I’ll try to dig up the cite for it, but I think Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) talked about it in one of his non-cartoon books. The idea is as follows:
The condition of epilepsy causes a chemical “malfunction” in the brain. This can lead to seizure and blackouts. In a very famous case, a Canadian woman experienced the sensation of “burning toast” before she’d have a seizure. His name escapes me at the moment but the doctor (also Canadian) used that trigger to map her brain. He was able to stimulate regions in her brain and elicit a response. In one spot she would smell burned toast, in another she saw bright lights.
What does this have to do with God? Well, the Bible was written by, and contains stories about, people who “experienced” God in one form or another. For the most part, it’s the Bible that tends to make people believe in a Judeo-Christian God. As it turns out, people who have seizures in the left frontal lobe (I think its left) have a tendency to experience “religious” episodes, much like the burnt toast but instead it involves God (e.g. Joan of Arc). A doctor was actually able to induce those seizures using a magnetic field applied to the frontal lobe (you can also do it with an electrical stimulation). After inducing those seizures, patients reported feeling a “religious” experience that usually involved God in some way.
This was a scientifically observed event, which I present as evidence. In this situation, the perception of God resulted from artificially stimulating a region in the brain.
So my conclusion here is that what you “experience” as God is littler more than a chemical malfunction in your brain, which in part resulted from the stories you read in the Bible, which was written by people suffering also from a similar malfunction.
Or its possible that this is proof of God, that He purposely put this “malfunction” in our brain so that we could experience Him, whereas animals cannot…
I read that today in a news article, can’t remember where. It was the result of one experment on one person.
Below is a quote from another study.
“This is a project born of frustration, basically. For many years, all of us who study brain structure and function have struggled with the fact that no two brains are the same — not in shape or size and certainly not in function,” said Dr. John Mazziotta of the International Consortium for Brain Mapping, based at the University of California, Los Angeles. “But how different they were and how to compare them was not known.”
