GOD & PROOF

If that isn't an open plea to some sort of circular logic, it's dangerously close.

My question is simple: If you can't even give a good reason for believing it, why consider it?

 

The gases in the air will liquify at different temperatures/pressures. There will be point at which only one gas is condensing. Done in steps, it can be made so that only oxygen is produced. If you want to deny that the puddle there is oxygen, feel free, but all you're proving is that you're an idiot.

Ok thanks. Changing definitions and denying science only gets you the same place as I mentioned above.

Different compounds will have different reactions. What MAKES the air smell funny is O2 being formed into O3.

Try and rust stuff with any other gas. If it rusts at all, it'll be a different kind of rust.

The difference between chemistry and god is that there is a huge objective mound of evidence for chemistry, while any "proof" of god that might exist can only be subjective, until the day he decides to poke his head through the clouds and give us a shout out. Here's my support for chemistry: the laws of chemistry and chemical reactions, combined with biology built on many of the same "assumptions" have been used to make pharmeceuticals, bombs, genetically modified bacteria, solar energy, batteries, knowledge of carcinogens and dangers of radiation, plastic, and tons of other stuff that runs your world. It is objectively true that chemistry has done that. What has god done? Nothing that there's objective evidence for.

 

Right on. Hope you get some reason (pun intended, but I actually do believe you are intelligent).

 

Ok. So I was a wrong to put the argument about oxygen forward without expecting a scientific answer.

Answer me this then : You have a way of manipulating oxygen, proving its existance to me by changing it's properties into a solid/liquid form. But would you still believe in 'oxygen' in a time when there was no known way of manipulating it? If I walked up to you 5000 years ago and said, you're breathing in a gas, it's everywhere and it makes up all parts of you, would you believe that when I had no proof, even though it undoubtedly still existed even then? How would I even go about proving it to you? Is it wrong to say that in 5000 years from now the technology may be available to prove that a god (a creator/being much more powerful than us) exists?

 

Simple unrefined answer. We want too

 

Well, that settles that.

 

humans try to split God into little boxes so their tiny minds can understand her.

 

And your evidence for that is?

 

I suppose. Although way back when, oxygen was not even concieved of. It wasn't even a theory. There were many other theories of chemistry and alchemy and general state-of-the-world stuff that people believed that turned out to be completely backwards. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a good majority of their science was completely wrong. So out of all the things these people believed that turned out to be wrong, the truth was something nobody had thought about. I would consider it likely that if in 5000 years the technology exists to detect the divine, it will not be anything like the prevailing religious dieties. Then again, if this god is powerful enough, he/she/it could just not want to be found, so the whole technology thing wouldn't work.

There is a possibility of god. There is no proof of god, however, and that's what this discussion is all about.

 

You didn't see the point. Oxygen is still only perceivable indirectly, by its effect on other matter/energy. When it is condensed, it interacts with light (and other matter), which interacts with your eyes, which interacts with your brain, which interacts with your soul....

This isn't a violation of logic. It's a 'violation' of validity.

Instead of looking at something as not useful to God, find out the reason it is useful to God.

God works through reality (everything around you) to show you evidence of God's existence. The book you refer to is only a small part, and it is hearsay, not direct evidence. Without direct evidence to corroborate the hearsay, you would not have a logical reason to believe the hearsay, or even a way to understand the hearsay.

God is not imperceivable. You just have to know what to look for.

 

Take a cow spend, I don't know, 2 weeks with it, call it scientific observation if you will. Take a day or two to get to know another cow but then go back to the first.

Take a tree watch it grow for about 20 years. Water it protect it from fungal growth and insect infestation. More scientific observation if you will.

At the end of your experiment shoot the cow in the head with a high caliber revolver, watch it kick and such if you are a bad shot.

Chop the tree down and cut it into chords of wood for burning.

Now observe the cow or the tree. There is something that is gone that is more than life. The thing that made the being strive to cintinue life is gone. That spur that catalyst (in my opinion) is a part of the "GOD" thing.

Yes God is love, peace, and sharing but perhaps God is also hate, chaos and greed.

Too much for our little human minds to rap around just yet. Just find the biggest piece of the "GOD" thing you can understand and leave everyone elses alone.

If your "GOD" piece is logic, reason or science, take your piece and make your life sound and fulfilling on that piece you have. But doen't rip the piece away from the foundation of others just so your foundation looks stronger.

 

I agree that the catalyst of destruction is a part of the G-d thing... All things come to an end eventually. That's just the nature of existence.

I think I should point out that I don't agree that G-d does anything negative for the sheer pleasure of His Will. In killing the cow or cutting down the tree, we generally have good reasons for doing so, and don't do it "just because we feel like it." Unless we really have that much extra energy to chop down a tree for no good reason, or we're just so flippin' demented that we're killing cows just for sport.

I mean, COME ON. It's a cow. That's like shooting fish in a barrel. Where's the sportsmanship in that?

Only if you allow hate and greed to be your god, my friend. I certainly hope that you won't. I've been there, and it's good for a while, but eventually it mutates into a positively miserable existence.

I like this thought. Respect the G-d given free will all of our brothers and sisters on the planet were created with.

Does this rule out peaceful discussion and conversation, though...? It's getting to a point that no one (not even a nice gal like me) can say anything even remotely Christian without getting blasted. I said, "G-d bless you" the other day to some girl who sneezed at the bus stop, and got chewed out. I really didn't mean anything by it! I thought I was being polite!!

This is an interesting thought, but I'm afraid I can't see how logic, reason and science make suitable gods. That's just me though... I get little joy or elation out of logic - Don't get me wrong, logic is utterly necessary, but it seems to be a very dull drab focus or highlight of existence.

Our foundation is made up of our ideologies based upon our observations. An ideology is still not an absolute truth... Rather, it is our opinions based upon what we have seen as evidence, or more often still, what we have been told by a third party. This can leave some room for error.

The key to having a steady, stable foundation is to maintain and renovate it regularly, in case we should find any of the materials lacking.

 

The catalyst I was talking about wasn't the actual killing but the thing that makes all living things strive to be alive. Everythings unique personality or way of being.

Quote:
Yes God is love, peace, and sharing but perhaps God is also hate, chaos and greed.

What I meant was GOD is more inclusive than we understand. Hate, chaos, and greed automaticaly make people think of negative things. Humans are too imperfect to handle these aspects of existence. Toddlers with machetes. GOD being perfect can handle these. She Hates evil, She's Chaos to us because we can't understand it, and She greedily wants us all in our intended state.

Logic is an aspect of GOD, as is science and reason. Without these things it becomes hard to understand what little of GOD we can. I'm not saying that any of those ARE GOD but they are all faces that GOD can present to us.

It is sorta like the blind men and the elephant. One grabs the trunk and says an elephant is like a strong python, the next feels the side and says it is wide and smooth like a piece of an earthen wall with a bulge in it, the last grabs the tail and says it is a rope with strings fraying at the end.

GOD is like the elephant and we are like blind men. The atheist says GOD is reason and logic and science, the buhdist says GOD is living life so that peace can be had in all your actions, The muslim and the Jew say GOD is living life by the rules he prescribed, Christians SHOULD say GOD is serving all in the spirit of true love, The Mystic simply says GOD is an intangible that must simply be felt and needs not follow the rules of nature.

We are all correct just shouting loud about the one part of GOD we can concieve.

 

Whatever. It's generally accepted that direct vision is direct perception. Perception is only done through sensation, and vision is a sensation.

Of the bible, I assume? If that's your case, I agree.

If god wanted to show evidence of his existence, he could do so in an unmistakable way. The closest feeling I have to a closeness with god is looking at clouds, trees, autumn leaves, mountain ranges, and nature in general. If there is a god, I believe it is most evident in those things, nothing like the bible describes (I have no evidence to corroborate the hearsay), and I also believe he doesn't really care if we are aware of his presence or not. If he wanted us to know, we would.

What you percieve as evidence of god is your interpretation of that phenomena. There is nothing that everyone can look for that will reveal proof of the existence of god.

 

You don't get it. Everything is perceived by its effect. Oxygen is perceivable because of the effects it has on stuff. God is perceivable by God's action upon stuff.

No, I was just pointing out that your statement is incorrect:

Saying one thing and doing another isn't a violation of logic.

Not if you do not have sufficient wisdom to interprete the evidence correctly.

There is. Take a long hard look at reality.

 

I can directly view oxygen. I know my hand exists because I can see it. I know oxygen exists for the same reason. I cannot directly view god. If I could, I would have subjective (maybe objective, I dunno 'cause it hasn't happened) proof for his existence. If no other people saw it, I would have either proof of god or disproof of my sanity, depending on my interpretation.

If god is free of sin and murder is a sin, then god doesn't murder. But it's clearly stated all over the bible that he does.

You just said it. Interpretation. In this instance, meaning to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance, synonymous with construe. Which means that there is no correct way. If you interpret the leaves blowing in the wind as an act of god, and I interpret it as an act of nature, there is nothing at all to say that one argument is better than the other. If campbell says the leaves are blowing like that because he sneezed, he's probably having a problem with the notion of causation, and he may just be wrong.

 

You do perceive God. You do not know that you are perceiving God, a little like the ancients did not know they were perceiving the effects of gravity when they watched the ordered movement of celestial objects.

I still don't see any violation of logic.

murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Is it unlawful for God to kill? God said "Thou shall not kill" not "I shall not kill."

Aren't you arguing that your interpretation 'there is no correct way' is the correct interpretation?

 

Don't forget that your senses can *lie to you* and paint a much different picture than reality. Mirages, hallucenogenic drugs, and dangerously high fevers all can trick us into thinking we are experiencing certain events - and we are - but those events are not happening on the physical plane.

Black holes in space bend light, making stars look like they're in one location when they're really in another. Won't it take a certain amount of faith to travel to it, should we receive that capability, considering that we have only theories to go on?

You cannot view G-d directly, just as we cannot view ourselves directly. Our impression of ourselves is always skewed one way or another. But consider why it is that you are able to consider these questions, anyways. I know it seems terribly obvious and it's too trite to be an epiphany, but why is it we, out of all creatures of the world, are the only ones so wrapped up and consumed by these subjects anyhow? What is the source of that which we identify as "I," or more specifically, "I AM" (meant as a declaration of being)?

The Creator has that right over the Creation... That's why it's allegedly a sin to commit suicide. It isn't our life to give - We didn't will ourselves into this world, and we shouldn't will ourselves out of it, either.

There are two different words used for killing in OT. One is murder, as in the outright, cold-blooded kind, i.e. Cain vs. Able, and the other is retribution, insofar as serving justice. Remember that OT is the time of eye-for-an-eye - Murderers were killed to maintain the balance of justice.

That's a fair argument - I just find it hard to believe that there is no G-d, when I consider the monument He created as evidence of His Existence. That would be humans, who fell short of being a proper reflection of His Likeness. Keep in mind that G-d is ineffable, according to His Own Word as recorded in the Judeo-Christian Bible, meaning that there is nothing in the world that can come close to representing Him. Nothing, except for us.

Self-awareness and selfishness go hand in hand because of human nature, making us inflict suffering on others, trying to further our own interests, getting nowhere at all. Acknowledging G-d means acknowledging a common root within all people, a unity of origin, purpose and design whose fabric is essentially the same, though their stories unfold in different ways.

But fortunately for this world, Mr. Campbell is one of a kind. When G-d made him, He broke the mold and stashed the pieces with Jimmy Swaggart's.

 

There's evidence for that. Yes, senses my lie, but most things will be consistently either percievable or not when your mind is ok.

That question provides as much evidence for evolution as god, perhaps more. Dolphins use mirrors to see how they look in the same way people do. Once we give them the mirror, of course. Some monkeys do to, I believe. We are not the only species with identity.

There are a number of places where he tells others to kill. Kill homosexuals and witches, says he. Then there's that adultery thing.

Acknowledging a common root has little to do with god. Much more to do with being a balanced human being. And I dunno if your definition of self-awareness is the same as mine, but I consider it a great thing.

 

I rest my case. When you're ready to stop pretending that I didn't present an argument, we'll continue.