Does God exist?

[C1ay]

It would really be nice if we could discuss these things, without irritating discussion blockers, preventing discussions from progressing.

 

You could get your own copy of vBulletin, find your own host, start your own community and have full control over such alleged irritating discussion blockers by making your own rules.

[nutronjon]

Maybe you guys could exchange addresses and start writing each other.

 

Meanwhile, nutron, these are public fora, and your efforts to dictate the conversation with your "irritating" backhanded comments will only incite the kind of replies that you don't like. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.

 

For someone who speaks so highly of Democracy, you sure seem to have a problem with Freedom of Speech. But maybe Freedom of Speech isn't part of the Democracy you advocate.

 

In response to your attack on where I stand regarding freedom of speech..

There are rules for the forums, rules of good manners, rules for debates, and rules for argumentation. The reason for these rules is to enhance the freedom of speech that is productive, and avoid problems. Such freedom of speech is not license to do as one pleases, because this can lead to bad things, such as bad feelings that hurt forums.

 

The subject of religion is perhaps the most important subject for freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and it would be very nice this were respected in here, and if people who want to do nothing but attack, were encouraged to stay out of a subject they care nothing about, but only want to prevent others from enjoying freedom of thought and discussion. I suppose not realizing how the thoughts can change if the discussion is allowed to progress, and thinking perhaps the greatest evil is the consideration of the possibility of a God existing.

 

More important than these discussions is our relationships in this country and the world, and I hope the owners of these forums realize the important role they can play in improving our condition on earth. That would be a Godly thing to do, because it would increase the attraction that the anceints refered to as love, and get good results. That which is destructive is ungodly, because ultimately that which is destructive destroys everything, until only itself is left to detroy. I believe this is how Socrates reasoned the distinction between good and evil.

 

What good is it to be rich, if people's hearts are hostile, angry and intolerant? Science has its value, but it is not the end all. Theology and philosophy deal with those things that are outside of the realm of science. Insisting nothing can be outside the realm of science, is deadly. How we treat each other is very important, and pulling away for that which generates bad feelings, to restablish balance, is also important to avoiding being sucked into the negative.

[nutronjon]

You could get your own copy of vBulletin, find your own host, start your own community and have full control over such alleged irritating discussion blockers by making your own rules.

 

It is my understanding that Jesus associated with the wrong people. That is those who were not pure Jews. Personally I believe much of what is said of Jesus is mythology, but it is mythology with a purpose, and we might do well to attempt to understand that purpose. Those who follow this mythology do so believing the human condition can be improved. I also believe the human condition can be improved with these simple rules:

 

We respect all people, because we are respectful.

We protect the dignity of others.

We act with integrity.

 

Sharing my thoughts with a close group who already live by the rules, has its benefits, but what drives me is caring about my grown children, their children and the children of their children. That means reaching out to as many people as I can reach with these three rules and the reasoning that goes with them. And that is how God works.

[nutronjon]

Howdy.

 

Can you maybe open a new thread (lest we be accused of threade-jacking) and once and for all define "democracy" as you see it?

 

Because when we discuss topics in which you raise the concept of "democracy", you're definitely talking about another "democracy" than the one I know.

 

And once we've determined what it is you understand under that term, we might have a better idea of what you're on about. But I don't think we're talking about the same concept, here.

 

 

This is not the place to define democracy, only to say an understanding of God as universal laws, which we can know by studying nature is, important to democracy.

 

I started several threads about democracy and they were ignored, that is why I reluctantly moved to theology. When it comes to understanding the philosophy behind democracy and discussing all the things important our relationships, people go silent. It is only when we discuss God that people don't shut up, but voice their opinion again and again.

[InfiniteNow]

The reason for these rules is to enhance the freedom of speech that is productive, and avoid problems.

 

<...>

 

The subject of religion is perhaps the most important subject for freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and it would be very nice this were respected in here, and if people who want to do nothing but attack, were encouraged to stay out of a subject they care nothing about...

Ignoring for a moment your strawman about people not caring about this subject (they wouldn't respond if they didn't care), I'd like to point out to you AGAIN that nobody here has restricted your freedom to say or think what you wish.

 

You have not been censored. You have not been muzzled. You have not been silenced or forced into anything whatsoever.

 

 

You have been granted you freedom of speech.

 

But, you know what? So have we.

 

 

The fact that we show where your assunmptions are false and unfounded does not mean that you are not being allowed to speak freely. It simply means that you appear incapable of supporting your worldview in the face of those challenges, and instead of arguing your points logically and based on solid premises, you make some false claim of censorship.

 

 

You can say nearly anything you want.

We can say nearly anything we want.

 

It's your problem that you are too incompetent to defend your ideas against valid and intelligent criticisms.

[freeztar]

It's your problem that you are too incompetent to defend your ideas against valid and intelligent criticisms.

 

Rather than insult someone's intelligence, why not stick to arguing against the ideas. ok? Thanks.

 

You know better than this.

[REASON]

Rather than insult someone's intelligence, why not stick to arguing against the ideas. ok? Thanks.

 

You know better than this.

 

I've tried that, only to be accused of being offensive, irritating, attacking, and a member of the thought police.

 

I understand your responsibilities, and your efforts to maintain dignity in these threads. I'm not questioning that.

 

Just noting the irony.

[Pyrotex]

Hey Guys! :)

Well, I've read the last dozen posts, and I have to say everybody is right.

Nutron wants free speech, and he is actually getting it. That's a good thing.

And everyone else wants free speech, and they're getting it, too. That's a good thing.

 

And Nutron wants a little respect and civility, and I'm sure that we all agree that we can give that freely, out of courtesy and integrity. We all want that from time to time. That's a good thing.

 

But it would appear that Nutron wants a little more. He wants his opinions respected. As do we all, right?

 

However, respect for one's opinions is NOT guaranteed by the freedom of speech, NOR by the rules of civility. Opinions and their underlying logic (if any) MUST stand on their own in the Grand Marketplace of Ideas. And if others disagree with you... well... then... it's strictly up to you to address that disagreement to everyone's satisfaction. Preaching to the choir is a LOT of fun because nobody interrupts, disagrees or casts dispersion.

Preaching in the Grand Marketplace of Ideas is risky and difficult. It's a level playing field and you don't get to make the rules. When you demand that your opinions deserve a special level of respect because they are "godly", you are trying to make the rules.

 

As Bill Moyers once said: "Our democratic values are imperiled because too many people of reason are willing to appease irrational people just because they are pious."

 

As H. L. Mencken once said: "One of the most irrational of all conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected... There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas."

 

Just because you get your feelings hurt (HEY!!! This applies to all of us!!!) doesn't mean that those who disagreed with you, owe you some kind of logical favor. Sometimes people insult your opinions, NOT because they are unkind or uncivil, but because the opinions are obviously invalid, parochial, or based on faulty premises.

 

I wish you peace, Nutron, but if you can't stand the heat... sorry. :)

[Pyrotex]

Here's another quote from Bill Moyers:

"As I look back on the conflicts and clamor of our boisterous past, one lesson about democracy stands above all others: Bullies -- political bullies, economic bullies and religious bullies -- cannot be appeased; they have to be opposed with a stubbornness to match their own. This is never easy. These guys don't fight fair; 'Robert's Rules of Order' is not one of their holy texts."

[InfiniteNow]

Rather than insult someone's intelligence, why not stick to arguing against the ideas. ok? Thanks.

 

You know better than this.

 

To be clear, I challenged her competence at defending her assertions, not her intelligence.

 

Would you guys please stop trying to shame me into something I'm not? If something is dumb, I will call it as I see it, and 97 times out of 100, I'll be able to justify that position with example and logic. These comments from Tormod about his disappointment in me that I've suggested improvements in the staff level permissions and from you that I know better are, frankly, growing tiresome.

 

Clearly, I do not know better. I'm being authentic with my thoughts and feelings, and I'm doing so within the parameters of the site rules.

 

 

Nothing personal, Freezy, but you wouldn't be telling me such things like "you know better" if I were disassembling someone's attempts to post about a perpetual motion machine or some ****tard who thinks relativity is wrong but can't even do basic algebra...

 

To Pyro's point, quit defending people who are religious or have some steadfast belief in god (of whatever definition). I'm treating them equally as I would any other topic. If they cannot defend themselves or their ideas, then it warrants mention. IMO, I'd be disrespecting them MORE if I held them to a different standard.

 

 

Just venting. I have a lot going on right now. :)

[freeztar]

To be clear, I challenged her competence at defending her assertions, not her intelligence.

 

Correct, you did not directly say intelligence, you said, "It's your problem that you are too incompetent to defend your ideas against valid and intelligent criticisms." Please explain how this is not the equivalent of calling someone dumb.

 

Would you guys please stop trying to shame me into something I'm not? If something is dumb, I will call it as I see it, and 97 times out of 100, I'll be able to justify that position with example and logic.

 

Which is fine. OTOH, if you replace the bolded word above with "one", then it is not ok. Do you see the difference?

 

These comments from Tormod about his disappointment in me that I've suggested improvements in the staff level permissions and from you that I know better are, frankly, growing tiresome.

I'm just calling it like I see it. If you have problems with the staff, I recommend taking it up with us directly.

Clearly, I do not know better.

 

In that case, I retract my prior statement to that effect. Now you do though. :)

 

I'm being authentic with my thoughts and feelings, and I'm doing so within the parameters of the site rules.

I'm glad that you are authentic with your thoughts and feelings, but all I'm saying is to censor those thoughts and feelings that result in ad-hominems, or those that may be seen as such.

 

Nothing personal, Freezy, but you wouldn't be telling me such things like "you know better" if I were disassembling someone's attempts to post about a perpetual motion machine or some ****tard who thinks relativity is wrong but can't even do basic algebra...

I would encourage you to argue against such ideas. To make clear, your content is great, but the tone...not so much at times. I'd like to see that change and I hope that you will consider that.

Just venting. I have a lot going on right now. :doh:

 

No worries.

 

In order to keep the thread on track, let's keep further correspondence on this issue in PMs.

[nutronjon]

Ignoring for a moment your strawman about people not caring about this subject (they wouldn't respond if they didn't care), I'd like to point out to you AGAIN that nobody here has restricted your freedom to say or think what you wish.

 

You have not been censored. You have not been muzzled. You have not been silenced or forced into anything whatsoever.

 

 

You have been granted you freedom of speech.

 

But, you know what? So have we.

 

 

The fact that we show where your assunmptions are false and unfounded does not mean that you are not being allowed to speak freely. It simply means that you appear incapable of supporting your worldview in the face of those challenges, and instead of arguing your points logically and based on solid premises, you make some false claim of censorship.

 

 

You can say nearly anything you want.

We can say nearly anything we want.

 

It's your problem that you are too incompetent to defend your ideas against valid and intelligent criticisms.

 

I was responding to this:

 

Originally Posted by REASON

Maybe you guys could exchange addresses and start writing each other.

 

Meanwhile, nutron, these are public fora, and your efforts to dictate the conversation with your "irritating" backhanded comments will only incite the kind of replies that you don't like. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.

 

For someone who speaks so highly of Democracy, you sure seem to have a problem with Freedom of Speech. But maybe Freedom of Speech isn't part of the Democracy you advocate.

 

I thought it necessary to clarify my position on freedom of speech. Freedom to make a rationale argument and is not the freedom to be rude and insulting. I love a good argument. I just haven't found a good one yet, only personal attacks that take the thread off topic.

 

I was not complaining about beind denied freedom of speech. And I have not found your argument to my last statement that God is the force that organizes universe, and really I am most curious. I don't have a clue how you can show where my assumptions are false and unfounded. I will keep looking for your argument.

[nutronjon]

I've tried that, only to be accused of being offensive, irritating, attacking, and a member of the thought police.

 

I understand your responsibilities, and your efforts to maintain dignity in these threads. I'm not questioning that.

 

Just noting the irony.

 

I am sorry, perhaps we have a misunderstanding. Please, direct me to the offensive post? I know I responded to all of you who are completely intolerant of any concept of God, as thought police, but I don't think I directed this personally to you, and what is your argument against what I said about the intolerance to any concept of God? The group of you who insist everything said must hold up to scientific examine, are not intolerate of all concepts of God? Which concept of God do you accept?

 

I missed your good argument that God can not be the organizing force of the universe, because__________. And we can not learn of God by studying nature, because__________. If God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force, then God can be studied scientifically. May be the problem is, there are just too many post to catch all of them. But I honestly don't remember any argument that proves what I have said wrong. Sorry:shrug:

[REASON]

I am sorry, perhaps we have a misunderstanding. Please, direct me to the offensive post? I know I responded to all of you who are completely intolerant of any concept of God, as thought police, but I don't think I directed this personally to you, and what is your argument against what I said about the intolerance to any concept of God? The group of you who insist everything said must hold up to scientific examine, are not intolerate of all concepts of God? Which concept of God do you accept?

 

Nearly every post I have made in respose to your assertions has either been ignored or you have complained that I was was being offensive or rude, and then proceeded to restate the same things you've been reiterating since you joined this site. I've determined that your method is to avoid diffcult questions by using these tactics. Thus you find yourself facing more and more unpleasant replies.

 

 

I missed your good argument that God can not be the organizing force of the universe, because__________.

 

there's no way to verify that such a notion is true. It's just a label that can only have a personal meaning, and does nothing in reality to enhance a scientific understanding of the universe.

 

My argument has been that god can be anything you want him/her/it to be. As a free thinking individual, you can perceive of a god as you so choose. But just because you have, doesn't mean it is so to everyone else, or should be.

 

 

And we can not learn of God by studying nature, because__________.

 

there's no way to demonstrate that what is learned by studying nature tells us anything about god.

 

Again, it is a matter of choice to decide that nature is god. But there should be no expectation that the scientific community, or society in general, should adopt this position. I mean, why should we, simply because you and Cicero said so? While it may be good enough for you, others are likely to resist.

 

 

If God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force, then God can be studied scientifically.

 

Your premise here is false because there is no way scientifically to verify that "God is the stuff of the universe." If this could be proven, then your statement would be true.

 

 

May be the problem is, there are just too many post to catch all of them. But I honestly don't remember any argument that proves what I have said wrong. Sorry:shrug:

 

Well nutron, you're welcome to believe whatever you want. But the point here is that it is you who have failed to prove that what you have said is correct. It is you that is making the claim that nature is god, so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. Referring to the writings of Cicero and Jefferson do not qualify as proof of such a claim.

 

You are left with your personal beliefs. Why isn't that good enough for you?

[nutronjon]

Nearly every post I have made in respose to your assertions has either been ignored or you have complained that I was was being offensive or rude, and then proceeded to restate the same things you've been reiterating since you joined this site. I've determined that your method is to avoid diffcult questions by using these tactics. Thus you find yourself facing more and more unpleasant replies.

 

 

 

 

there's no way to verify that such a notion is true. It's just a label that can only have a personal meaning, and does nothing in reality to enhance a scientific understanding of the universe.

 

My argument has been that god can be anything you want him/her/it to be. As a free thinking individual, you can perceive of a god as you so choose. But just because you have, doesn't mean it is so to everyone else, or should be.

 

 

 

 

there's no way to demonstrate that what is learned by studying nature tells us anything about god.

 

Again, it is a matter of choice to decide that nature is god. But there should be no expectation that the scientific community, or society in general, should adopt this position. I mean, why should we, simply because you and Cicero said so? While it may be good enough for you, others are likely to resist.

 

 

 

 

Your premise here is false because there is no way scientifically to verify that "God is the stuff of the universe." If this could be proven, then your statement would be true.

 

 

 

 

Well nutron, you're welcome to believe whatever you want. But the point here is that it is you who have failed to prove that what you have said is correct. It is you that is making the calim that nature is god, so the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. Referring to the writings of Cicero and Jefferson do not qualify as proof of such a claim.

 

You are left with your personal beliefs. Why isn't that good enough for you?

 

 

Well, either I was too preoccupied with other things, or you stated your argument this better this time. Yes, God can be anything or everything. Good, now that we have established God exist, we can finally move on to the next agrument.

[REASON]

Well, either I was too preoccupied with other things, or you stated your argument this better this time. Yes, God can be anything or everything. Good, now that we have established God exist, we can finally move on to the next agrument.

 

:confused:

 

Not so fast. We have not established that god actually exists in reality. But I think we can safely say that god exists as a concept in the minds of people throughout the world as a part of their perceived reality.

 

Unfortunately, (or fortunately as it may be) there's not a shread of consistency with the god concept, even among those who share the same faith.

 

 

PS. Your photo reminds me of my mother who has passed. I believe you and she would have had much to talk about.

[Pyrotex]

...I missed your good argument that God can not be the organizing force of the universe, because__________. And we can not learn of God by studying nature, because__________. If God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force, then God can be studied scientifically....

On the surface, these statements appear quite plausible. If God is part of Nature then we can learn about God by studying Nature. Hmmm....

But this suggestion is not new, by any means. It goes back at least two hundred years that I can remember. So rather, than state the proposition in the future tense (we can learn), why don't we state it in the past tense?

 

What have we learned about God by studying Nature for the last two centuries?