Does God exist?

[modest]

MoontanmanI am quoting Modest, so you can see he was attacking the knowledge of the people of which I speak, and their life accomplishments.

 

Mostly their methods. I was questioning their methods and pointing out the lack of results. I think that is valid; but, It's off topic and it has pulled this thread off topic. I'll follow your lead and concentrate on the topic.

 

I see an incongruence between two of your points (edit, I think INow originally pointed this out). Paraphrasing:

• 'God' is unknowable
  
• 'God' exists, is singular in existence, is bound by reason, is not the Abrahamic God, etc.
  

You seem to give God a lot of properties for being something completely unknowable. I find your agnostic statements agreeable and your conclusions about the existence of God and the qualities of that God incompatible with those agnostic statements.

 

-modest

[nutronjon]

What are you talking about? Nothing was distorted, that claim of yours was precisely what the issue was about. Don't try to make a strawman out of the other side. We are attacking your claims and ideas, and so far you have failed miserably in defending them.

 

 

 

Oh get over yourself, this is exactly the kind thing you hear from a total quack once they realize they are in way over their head. Rather than dealing directly with criticism and taking responsibility for one's claims, you decide to instead shift the argument about a person's character or about "psychology" or about some other trivial insignificant bullshit. Of course, what all this tells me is that your argument is obviously so laughably weak it cannot possibly stand on it's own merits, among other things.

 

I see no logic your argument.

[InfiniteNow]

I see no logic your argument.

 

A well reasoned, well articulated, and strongly argued response. Thank you for showing each of us readers the respect to explain how you arrived at your conclusion, and also to demonstrate clearly the points which support it. It really is too bad that more members here don't use such eloquence to argue their perspective and such detail to support their assertions.

 

Well done, sir. Well done, indeed. :eek:

[nutronjon]

Mostly their methods. I was questioning their methods and pointing out the lack of results. I think that is valid; but, It's off topic and it has pulled this thread off topic. I'll follow your lead and concentrate on the topic.

 

I see an incongruence between two of your points (edit, I think INow originally pointed this out). Paraphrasing:

• 'God' is unknowable
  
• 'God' exists, is singular in existence, is bound by reason, is not the Abrahamic God, etc.
  

You seem to give God a lot of properties for being something completely unknowable. I find your agnostic statements agreeable and your conclusions about the existence of God and the qualities of that God incompatible with those agnostic statements.

 

-modest

 

 

But that is it, there is no lack of results. All of the men have been productive and effective. And hum, do you want to describe their "method"? Do you want to explain what you know of Fritjof Capra's reseach work, to correct my opinion that you know nothing about it? Do you want to argue the Greek mathematical archetpyes have nothing to do with the developing sciences? Go for it,if this is an argument you want to make. That would be much more productive than the polar argument about the existence of God, that so far is, attacking my arguments while ignoring what I am saying.

 

Okay, back to the difference between what is abstract and what is tangible, and Cicero's quote. Please, I do not want to repeat myself again and again in the same thread. The inference of the properties of God are made by studying our experience on earth. Did you read the Cicero quote?

 

Is time a tangible reality or an abstract reality? What does it feel like, smell like, taste like, look like? How do we know time is any more real than God? How do I prove it is now 8:30 AM where I live? Am I totally deluded for operating as though time were a reality? It sure as blazes is not a tangible reality! When we set clocks forwards and backwards, it real messes up my experience of life, until I adjust to the change. If we insist on being the most precise we can be, why aren't we using the Aztec calander that is more precise? Have we blinded ourselves to some aspects of reality, with our systems of time and how we manage time? What is real?

 

Back to God and science, Newton is hugely important in our acceptence of democracy, and the argument that God exist common to Diest. What Newton did was prove what the Greek philosophy said, that there is a cause and effect relationship. Things fall to the earth not because a God holds birds in the sky and other animals on earth, but because of this force we call gravity. Which leads us to know of air flow and how to make airplanes fly. Mostly, this argument is saying, things are ordered, and don't happen because of a God's changable will. The biblical God rules by whim, depending on if he is pleased or displeased. The Greek concept of reason, is that even the Gods were subject to rule by reason. I do not understand the difficulty in grasping this concept, nor the deisre to destroy my argument? From the gases and dust that are forming into solar systems, to our ability to cure disease and build bridges, all things are ordered, and what orders all things is God. An abstract concept of universal order that is useful.

 

PS. arguing for this understanding of God, will do more to end ignroance and superstition than the annoying polar argument that God doesn't exist, which only reinforces the belief in a supernatural God. Come on, get a grip on what you are doing when insist on the polar argument of God, instead of accepting the abstract concept of God and then arguing the nature of this God. Stoopppp! reforecing ignorance and superstition by insisting the only concept of God we can disucss is the supernatural one in the bible.

[InfiniteNow]

Why use the term at all, then? Why call it god?

 

It's as if you're arguing against the use of cars, but trying to get each of us to accept that when you say "cars" you actually mean "heroine."

[HydrogenBond]

Back to God and science, Newton is hugely important in our acceptence of democracy, and the argument that God exist common to Diest. What Newton did was prove what the Greek philosophy said, that there is a cause and effect relationship. Things fall to the earth not because a God holds birds in the sky and other animals on earth, but because of this force we call gravity. Which leads us to know of air flow and how to make airplanes fly. Mostly, this argument is saying, things are ordered, and don't happen because of a God's changable will. The biblical God rules by whim, depending on if he is pleased or displeased. The Greek concept of reason, is that even the Gods were subject to rule by reason. I do not understand the difficulty in grasping this concept, nor the deisre to destroy my argument?

 

I agree with this. That is why I have a problem with physics and other areas of science are going backwards, i.e., pre-rational, to the middle ages orientations of chaos, virtual, statistics, etc.. The science is all practical, but it is moving rational reality back to before the age of reason. Cause and affect now include the possibility that something, like the entire universe, can appear from another dimension, even without proof. If you look at history, religion was getting more rational, able to co-exist with science while retaining parts of its tradition. The ID backlash was made possible by physics getting off the rational track. It is a metaphysical approach where cause and affect are able to break down. If this non rational science is valid, than other irrational things have a science justification.

 

I have done this example elsewhere, but I will do it again. There is an abstract artist called Escher. One of his art works is called the stairway to nowhere. It is a drawing of a staircase in a loop. If you follow the loop it appears to keep going up even though you repeat the loop. This is an illusion that can not happen in the real world.

 

YouTube - Stairway to Nowhere http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yrg5oeiXKw

 

What Escher has done is plot some abstract math on a piece of paper. If one was good at math they could translate his plot into a set of related equations. The math will add up and be valid math. Just because the math is valid does this mean this illusion is now real due to math support? What has happened in metaphysics is the math is so complicated very few can even follow it, never mind determine if it is an illusion. It is not easy to see if this is reality or clever abstract math art. But modern metaphysics assumes real because the math is solid. So we accept the stairway to nowhere and build on that. That is why now we need to fudge cause and effect with chaos because rational reality has broken down. Once this abstract reality took root other types of abstractions are also possible. The only difference is one set of abstract art has valid math support. The analogy is one group has the stairway to nowhere plot, and the other the math equations. The plot is easier to criticize.

[REASON]

I do not understand the difficulty in grasping this concept, nor the deisre to destroy my argument? From the gases and dust that are forming into solar systems, to our ability to cure disease and build bridges, all things are ordered, and what orders all things is God. An abstract concept of universal order that is useful.

 

I understand what you have been trying to get across, nutron, but I really don't see the significance of establishing that the order that is detectable in nature should be defined as God. Okay, now what? Is chaos the Devil?

 

I imagine the problem for those who are religious would be that such a concept is unsatisfactory. It doesn't give them a sense of hope, which is why many people believe in God. What are they hoping for? Safety, health, prosperity, goodness, joy, success, longevity, (death to those who do not share their beliefs in some instances), but most of all, that the promise of the afterlife will be fullfilled.

 

Identifying the natural order of the physical universe as the true God does nothing to satisfy these desires in people, and essentially, you are just giving a label to something that doesn't really deserve that type of characterization. I mean, if I put a handfull of dirt in a glass of water and stir it up in a chaotic blend of dissolved particulate matter, over time as I watch the heavier elements settle to the bottom of the glass in an orderly reaction to the force of gravity, am I therefore witnessing an act of God? What would be the significance of such a designation?

 

Personally, I have not found it necessary to hold a belief in God, or to even infer God's existance by observing nature. I am responsible for me, and if I am going to experience the worldly things that people generally hope for as I mentioned above, it's going to primarily be as a result of the decisions I make. Ultimately, belief in a God does not change this fact for people, even as they assert that their belief in God gives them the strengh to press on.

 

Does God exist? No one knows. And unless God is willing to reveal itself as such, that will continue to be the truth.

 

Next question?

[Moontanman]

I understand what you have been trying to get across, nutron, but I really don't see the significance of establishing that the order that is detectable in nature should be defined as God. Okay, now what? Is chaos the Devil?

 

I imagine the problem for those who are religious would be that such a concept is unsatisfactory. It doesn't give them a sense of hope, which is why many people believe in God. What are they hoping for? Safety, health, prosperity, goodness, joy, success, longevity, (death to those who do not share their beliefs in some instances), but most of all, that the promise of the afterlife will be fullfilled.

 

Identifying the natural order of the physical universe as the true God does nothing to satisfy these desires in people, and essentially, you are just giving a label to something that doesn't really deserve that type of characterization. I mean, if I put a handfull of dirt in a glass of water and stir it up in a chaotic blend of dissolved particulate matter, over time as I watch the heavier elements settle to the bottom of the glass in an orderly reaction to the force of gravity, am I therefore witnessing an act of God? What would be the significance of such a designation?

 

Personally, I have not found it necessary to hold a belief in God, or to even infer God's existance by observing nature. I am responsible for me, and if I am going to experience the worldly things that people generally hope for as I mentioned above, it's going to primarily be as a result of the decisions I make. Ultimately, belief in a God does not change this fact for people, even as they assert that their belief in God gives them the strengh to press on.

 

Does God exist? No one knows. And unless God is willing to reveal itself as such, that will continue to be the truth.

 

Next question?

 

Well said Reason, one of the best if not the best explantion of why the concept of "Does God Exist" is beyond confirmation or even the need for confirmation.

[nutronjon]

I agree with this. That is why I have a problem with physics and other areas of science are going backwards, i.e., pre-rational, to the middle ages orientations of chaos, virtual, statistics, etc.. The science is all practical, but it is moving rational reality back to before the age of reason. Cause and affect now include the possibility that something, like the entire universe, can appear from another dimension, even without proof. If you look at history, religion was getting more rational, able to co-exist with science while retaining parts of its tradition. The ID backlash was made possible by physics getting off the rational track. It is a metaphysical approach where cause and affect are able to break down. If this non rational science is valid, than other irrational things have a science justification.

 

I have done this example elsewhere, but I will do it again. There is an abstract artist called Escher. One of his art works is called the stairway to nowhere. It is a drawing of a staircase in a loop. If you follow the loop it appears to keep going up even though you repeat the loop. This is an illusion that can not happen in the real world.

 

 

What Escher has done is plot some abstract math on a piece of paper. If one was good at math they could translate his plot into a set of related equations. The math will add up and be valid math. Just because the math is valid does this mean this illusion is now real due to math support? What has happened in metaphysics is the math is so complicated very few can even follow it, never mind determine if it is an illusion. It is not easy to see if this is reality or clever abstract math art. But modern metaphysics assumes real because the math is solid. So we accept the stairway to nowhere and build on that. That is why now we need to fudge cause and effect with chaos because rational reality has broken down. Once this abstract reality took root other types of abstractions are also possible. The only difference is one set of abstract art has valid math support. The analogy is one group has the stairway to nowhere plot, and the other the math equations. The plot is easier to criticize.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have long questioned the value of math that goes to extremes and seems to prove something we can not know from exerience, and can not test with the scientific method. But I was totally confused by this popular faith in chaos, and why my arguement has been such a hard sell. You are so right, we have returned to the middle ages, before the Age of Reason. Thank you for bringing some sanity into what has been an almost insane argument.

[nutronjon]

I understand what you have been trying to get across, nutron, but I really don't see the significance of establishing that the order that is detectable in nature should be defined as God. Okay, now what? Is chaos the Devil?

 

You are still holding to a supernatural concept God if you think having a God requires a supernatural being of evil. This polarity is not helpful in understanding reality. For whatever reason polarity has invading our thinking in a constant- it is or isn't, either/or, good or bad, alive or dead. Reality is not a series of either/or but is much more complex than that.

 

I imagine the problem for those who are religious would be that such a concept is unsatisfactory. It doesn't give them a sense of hope, which is why many people believe in God. What are they hoping for? Safety, health, prosperity, goodness, joy, success, longevity, (death to those who do not share their beliefs in some instances), but most of all, that the promise of the afterlife will be fullfilled.

 

Try a little Zen or Hinduism

 

Identifying the natural order of the physical universe as the true God does nothing to satisfy these desires in people, and essentially, you are just giving a label to something that doesn't really deserve that type of characterization. I mean, if I put a handfull of dirt in a glass of water and stir it up in a chaotic blend of dissolved particulate matter, over time as I watch the heavier elements settle to the bottom of the glass in an orderly reaction to the force of gravity, am I therefore witnessing an act of God? What would be the significance of such a designation?

 

Hum, how do I say, the science and understanding of the laws, is unimportant why? The blender is not chaotic is it? doesn't it spin in one direction at the speed you set, and doesn't it have form? How about that hand full of dirt? Where did you get it and what are the actual contends of that dirt? Why isn't this studying God? Cicero said, by such studies we can infer something about the properties of a God. I think when people get their heads around this concept, they will be okay with it.

 

 

Personally, I have not found it necessary to hold a belief in God, or to even infer God's existance by observing nature. I am responsible for me, and if I am going to experience the worldly things that people generally hope for as I mentioned above, it's going to primarily be as a result of the decisions I make. Ultimately, belief in a God does not change this fact for people, even as they assert that their belief in God gives them the strengh to press on.

 

Those who believe they can know absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous. A belief in God is a belief in the unknown and it is humbling and also liberating.

A belief in God is important because trying to see things from God's point of view, instead of our own, expands our minds, is humbling and liberating. This is not only a benefit personally, but it is socially very important!

 

What we should fear most is not a God, but man made laws without a belief in a God. That is tyranny. I am out of time, but if you don't understanding what I am saying, please refer to Cicero. He explains all this.

 

Does God exist? No one knows. And unless God is willing to reveal itself as such, that will continue to be the truth.

 

Next question?

Please, refer to Cicero, and Newton and Jefferson- the truth is self evident.

 

Oh and lastly- as I said before- as long as people insist there is no God, rather than argue the nature of this God, they are reinforcing the superstitious notion of God. You are agruing the superstitious notion of God is the right one. Just for fun try, "yes, there is a God, now let's see what we can know of this God" and proceed with science. I think your arguments with fundamentalist will go much more in your favor with this approach. :cup: throw in some of the information coming up in the "what is life" thread and ask "why do you suppose a chicken has the DNA for teeth and fangs, and is it possible dinasours had feathers"? I am late:clock::eek_big:

[Thunderbird]

The problem, nutronjon, with this kind of mysticism... Well, let me quote you from another thread first...

 

 

 

Now, the problem is that these mystics and this mysticism don't produce science - they only "use" the science that others can create using the scientific method. Chopra "uses" quantum mechanics and other mystics whom you quote use science as a grab-bag of concepts to shape into whatever it is they're selling. But, when it comes to discovering the science and doing the science - where are they?

 

As you are a fan of mysticism let me put this in a language you'll take to better:

等着兔子跑过来撞死在树桩上。

These mystics are "waiting for the rabbit to hit the stump."

 

Other scientists (real scientists) are out hunting the rabbit or farming the field. They are capable of discovering the useful things that mystics then claim as their own. But, when it comes to killing the rabbit, all the mystic is able to do is wait by the stump.

 

That's my problem with pseudoscience. I understand if it isn't a problem you share. To each his own. But, It shouldn't escape notice that no one expects Deepak Chopra to advance the field of QM.

 

If the tree is so prosperous - where the hell is the fruit?

 

-modest

The first of a scientist job is to measure calculate and gather information. The second is to form this information into a cohesive model that is subject to change as more information is gathered. An artist job is to do the same with information, but based on forms of symmetry, and beauty. The poets, philosophers, gurus, shaman, priest, monk, medicine man, spiritualist, when working as a sincere teacher is to gather information for utilization of perspective, compassion, common goals, to a cohesive cooperative healthy society. My responsibility is to keep abreast of information from all points, to utilize it in my paradigms of a free thinking individual.

 

Understanding that all these are necessary functions of society, all positions just as beneficial or destructive as another.

[goku]

Yes, but since your boxes are red, it's not the good kind of infamous.

 

and that was my point

[REASON]

I understand what you have been trying to get across, nutron, but I really don't see the significance of establishing that the order that is detectable in nature should be defined as God. Okay, now what? Is chaos the Devil?

 

You are still holding to a supernatural concept God if you think having a God requires a supernatural being of evil. This polarity is not helpful in understanding reality. For whatever reason polarity has invading our thinking in a constant- it is or isn't, either/or, good or bad, alive or dead. Reality is not a series of either/or but is much more complex than that.

 

I'm not holding on to anything. I was asking a question as to what you think.

 

 

Try a little Zen or Hinduism

 

I have.....great mental workout. What's the point relative to what I was saying?

 

 

Hum, how do I say, the science and understanding of the laws, is unimportant why?

 

Well I guess that's one way of saying it, but I never said that science and understanding the laws [of nature] is unimportant. I'm asking you what the significance is of defining the order found in nature as "God."

 

 

The blender is not chaotic is it? doesn't it spin in one direction at the speed you set, and doesn't it have form? How about that hand full of dirt? Where did you get it and what are the actual contends of that dirt? Why isn't this studying God? Cicero said, by such studies we can infer something about the properties of a God. I think when people get their heads around this concept, they will be okay with it.

 

Look, I don't care what Cicero said. You keep referring to him as though he is God, and what he has to say is the end-all be-all of everything. Sure, he was an important philosopher and orator of his time. So was Jesus. I don't care if you think studying dirt is the same as studying God. But just saying as much doesn't actually mean anything. How can you draw a scientific conclusion that the dirt you're studying is verifiably God? You can't. No one can. So it simply becomes a label. What is significant about labeling dirt God?

 

 

Those who believe they can know absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous.

 

Well than this is definitely a problem for religious believers, not scientists. Scientists don't claim to know the "absolute truth" about anything, no matter how factual it appears. I have issues with this concept. There are some things that I think are factual enough to be considered the absolute truth, but scientists are very clear about the fact that they won't go there. Absolute truth is not only unattainable, but unnecessary.

 

 

A belief in God is a belief in the unknown and it is humbling and also liberating.

 

A belief in the unknown - agreed. Humbling and liberating - your opinion.

 

 

A belief in God is important because trying to see things from God's point of view, instead of our own, expands our minds, is humbling and liberating. This is not only a benefit personally, but it is socially very important!

 

Having a belief in God does not allow you to see things from God's point of view since it is impossible to know what God's point of view could possibly be. It would be nothing but pure speculation. Even you said that "a belief in God is a belief in the unknown." If God is unknown, than so is God's point of view.

 

You see, I'm not really concerned about what kinds of things people choose to believe, I'm much more interested in why they choose to believe certain things. In your case, I'm interested in knowing why you tend to favor the notion that natural order, or nature in general should be defined as God. And I would prefer your opinion, not Cicero's.

 

Can you explain it?

[nutronjon]

I'm not holding on to anything. I was asking a question as to what you think.

 

 

 

 

I have.....great mental workout. What's the point relative to what I was saying?

 

 

 

 

Well I guess that's one way of saying it, but I never said that science and understanding the laws [of nature] is unimportant. I'm asking you what the significance is of defining the order found in nature as "God."

 

 

 

 

Look, I don't care what Cicero said. You keep referring to him as though he is God, and what he has to say is the end-all be-all of everything. So he was an important philosopher and orator of his time. So was Jesus. I don't care if you think studying dirt is the same as studying God. But just saying as much doesn't actually mean anything. How can you draw a scientific conclusion that the dirt you're studying is verifiably God? You can't. No one can. So it simply becomes a label. What is significant about labeling dirt God?

 

 

 

 

Well than this is definitely a problem for religious believers, not scientists. Scientists don't claim to know the "absolute truth" about anything, no matter how factual it appears. I have issues with this concept. There are some things that I think are factual enough to be considered the absolute truth, but science is very clear about the fact that they won't go there. Absolute truth is not only unattainable, but unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

A belief in the unknown - agreed. Humbling and liberating - your opinion.

 

 

 

 

Having a belief in God does not allow you to see things from God's point of view since it is impossible to know what God's point of view could possibly be. It would be nothing but pure speculation. Even you said that "a belief in God is a belief in the unknown." If God is unknown, than so is God's point of view.

 

You see, I'm not really concerned about what kinds of things people choose to believe, I'm much more interested in why they choose to believe certain things. In your case, I'm interested in knowing why you tend to favor the notion that natural order, or nature in general should be defined as God. And I would prefer your opinion, not Cicero's.

 

Can you explain it?

 

 

Democracy comes from literacy in Greek and Roman classics, and as long as everyone chooses to remain ignornant of the classics, it is futile for me to continue participating in these discussions of God. I find what is happening here, so hard to believe. Imagine moving to any other science forum, and bragging- not only am I completely ignorant of the subject, but I also have no interest in learning anything about the subject, and then proceeding to tell people they don't know what they are talking about and arguing against everything they say.

[Boerseun]

Democracy comes from literacy in Greek and Roman classics, and as long as everyone chooses to remain ignornant of the classics, it is futile for me to continue participating in these discussions of God. I find what is happening here, so hard to believe. Imagine moving to any other science forum, and bragging- not only am I completely ignorant of the subject, but I also have no interest in learning anything about the subject, and then proceeding to tell people they don't know what they are talking about and arguing against everything they say.

Nutronjon, reading the classics is all fair and fine. But if we had to hold a debate which included me throwing lines of classical literature at you, and you throwing lines at me, we're not discussing anything, are we? We're simply regurgitating lines attributed to famous writers of old, in other words, we're appealing to authority to win our argument.

 

It says much about your memory, and access to the classics.

 

It says absolutely nothing about your interpretation thereof, however.

 

I believe you were asked why you hold the convictions you do. Not why Cicero believed what he believed.

 

And if you say "I believe what I believe because Cicero said so", then that's not very satisfactory, either.

 

We want to hear of your convictions. The whole God/no God theory is as old as humankind itself. Surely you must have your own opinion regarding this matter?

 

Besides - many of the Classics shouldn't simply be blindly quoted - a lot of them hold their titles as "classics" merely from a historical perspective - many of their arguments have been discarded by philosophers, employing cold logic to arguments that have been accepted as the Truth for thousands of years.

[clapstyx]

Wow..still preoccupied with that one. I have a theory on it. Once upon a time there was a theory that time would end if everything was resolved to a point of truth so an unresolvable was created. The other part of the theory was that if everybody created a situation that could continue endlessly into perpetuity that time would be eternal because it would be like some universal force that said "No..wait..bugger it time cant end yet because I'd like to know whether Paris Hilton did actually offer to give Clapstyx a blowjob and whether he replied "I'd love one but really I have a commitment to creating a new level of universal resolve right at the minute could you come back when I'm finished please..so of course time could not end until after he had created a universal resolve and gotten his blowjob of thanks and of course that was the follow on to the earlier big bang which caused such a disturbance amoung the elite of the divine that they said "I bet you cant do it another way .. I think I got polyharmonic nucleur reverb out of that"

[modest]

Did you read the Cicero quote?

 

sure

 

The inference of the properties of God are made by studying our experience on earth.

 

Assuming that God made the earth and gave it his properties? As I'll try to describe below, we can't use reason + observation to equal God.

 

Is time a tangible reality or an abstract reality?

 

It’s not tangible, it is real - I like the analogy.

 

How do we know time is any more real than God?

 

Real systems cannot be described without time. As for supporting the reality of time - I’d think that goes pretty far. Conversely, I don’t know of any system that cannot be real without God. This seems to me like a kind of ad infinitum proof toward one and against the other.

 

How do I prove it is now 8:30 AM where I live?

 

How do you prove where you live?

 

It sure as blazes is not a tangible reality!

 

No, not by any definition of tangible I know.

 

When we set clocks forwards and backwards, it real messes up my experience of life, until I adjust to the change

 

If you’re making an analogy between a clock and a device that measures God then I don’t follow. I think I’d have a hard time agreeing to any way of measuring God that you might propose.

 

If we insist on being the most precise we can be, why aren't we using the Aztec calander that is more precise?

 

I don’t want to start another tangent, but no Native American calendar known is as precise as the Gregorian calendar at tracking yearly events.

 

Have we blinded ourselves to some aspects of reality, with our systems of time and how we manage time? What is real?

 

Just because I don’t agree doesn’t make me blind.

 

Back to God and science, Newton is hugely important in our acceptence of democracy, and the argument that God exist common to Diest.

 

I understand Deism and the Rationalist philosophy that conquers God with logic and reason. My problem (as was Kant’s) is that you have not properly used any rationalist system to get to the existence of God. Deism claims proof through reason but that reason is lacking. I’d agree with Kant that our knowledge cannot breach the realm of the empirical. Since this is my philosophy then I clearly reject the Deist viewpoint. I don't reject it out of hand. My beliefs were long in the making and I think well-informed.

 

What Newton did was prove what the Greek philosophy said, that there is a cause and effect relationship. Things fall to the earth not because a God holds birds in the sky and other animals on earth, but because of this force we call gravity. Which leads us to know of air flow and how to make airplanes fly.

 

You are only comparing analytic proofs between empirical things like gravity (or time) and something that by your own admission has no empirical value. They are not the same and cannot be reasoned with the same logic. Until I can measure God I won’t accept the analogy between him/she/it; and time, gravity, or air.

 

Mostly, this argument is saying, things are ordered, and don't happen because of a God's changable will.

 

Order is synthetic to God. Which is not a good argument on my part. You could say movement is synthetic to time which may be the case. However, time is precisely defined in movement with an equation and everything. Observing movement without time seems impossible. Can there be order without God? I’ve yet to see the argument that successfully answers, No.

 

The biblical God rules by whim, depending on if he is pleased or displeased. The Greek concept of reason, is that even the Gods were subject to rule by reason. I do not understand the difficulty in grasping this concept, nor the deisre to destroy my argument?

 

I really hope you understand I’m not trying to destroy your argument - nor do I fail to grasp it. I disagree is all. I’m apparently in the minority on this as something like 90% of my fellow humans disagree with me.

 

From the gases and dust that are forming into solar systems, to our ability to cure disease and build bridges, all things are ordered, and what orders all things is God. An abstract concept of universal order that is useful.

 

The order of the universe has never been proven (that I know of) to break the rules of entropy - and I might add that you haven’t shown how breaking entropy equals God. Even if we eventually find things are more ordered than current rules of entropy allow - we may yet find those rules are wrong without bringing God into the picture at all.

 

PS. arguing for this understanding of God, will do more to end ignroance and superstition than the annoying polar argument that God doesn't exist, which only reinforces the belief in a supernatural God. Come on, get a grip on what you are doing when insist on the polar argument of God, instead of accepting the abstract concept of God and then arguing the nature of this God.

 

The title of the thread is the argument and it may be polar, but it’s also worth considering. I don’t see the benefit of accepting your answer to further the discussion - that would be rather missing the topic completely not to mention counterfeiting my own position.

 

Stoopppp! reforecing ignorance and superstition by insisting the only concept of God we can disucss is the supernatural one in the bible.

 

Never said that nor thought for a second that was your stance. You have not bound yourself to the Judeo-Christian God and some of the funny beliefs that come out of that (i.e. age of the earth). But, I reject your position on other grounds that I’ve described a bit above. Perhaps someone else treated your thoughts as Christian and you’re confusing me with them. It’s not something I’ve done. Neither have I attacked you. It’s a heated topic that involves fundamental beliefs and I honestly don’t mean to aggravate an unproductive discussion. Disagreement can be productive in any case.

 

-modest