Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Your mind lacks flexibility.
Being too logical and abstract you may be blind to all the possibilities.

Don't try to act smart. It's insulting.

Getting a little defensive are we?

You don't exist, get over it.

Do you enjoy talking to figments?

Beats talking to you.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Don't try to act smart. It's insulting.

Getting a little defensive are we?

You don't exist, get over it.

Do you enjoy talking to figments?

Beats talking to you.

I'm touched.

BAHAHAHAHA wow this is the first thread i have really laughed hard at...and i mean that says a lot given the amount of idiots on this thing(jk)[im one of them]

but seriously i was crying i was laughing so hard all this thread has been so far is a bunch of cheesy one liners, low blows, and other irrelevant insults. good stuff. well if n e body still cares ill throw some stuff around...stuff that acually pertains to the topic...w/e that was again...

If God did indeed create us, and i think he did, then we do acually exist in this universe. if bye dieing to this earth and waking up in the prescence of god and our new bodies and our new ever lasting lives are what you are referring to as the "real world" than yeah i can buy that. I believe this world to be a spring board nothing more, nothing less.

All of us are made of millions of molecules, formed by atoms, which are made from even smaller particles. One would think that these particles are tiny solid balls, but electrons, protons, and neutrons arent solid at all.








*disappears*

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I'm touched.

Are you sure? Don't you have to exist first?

puritan lad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I'm touched.

Are you sure? Don't you have to exist first?

Helena very much loved Demetrius does she exist?

I post, therefore I am.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I post, therefore I am.

What is the meaning of existance?

You are not the same person as you were 5 minutes ago. Every moment has an effect on who you will be in the next moment. Is the existence of the individual who posted this topic you only due to the continuity of actions between that individual and you at this very moment?

Liken it to a stream which sits in the quiet forest. The stream exists because of the water which flows through it. Yet the water which constitutes this stream is never constant.

So who posted above? You or the person you used to be?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I post, therefore I am.

What is the meaning of existance?

You are not the same person as you were 5 minutes ago. Every moment has an effect on who you will be in the next moment. Is the existence of the individual who posted this topic you only due to the continuity of actions between that individual and you at this very moment?

Liken it to a stream which sits in the quiet forest. The stream exists because of the water which flows through it. Yet the water which constitutes this stream is never constant.

So who posted above? You or the person you used to be?

Ah .... never can stick your foot into the same river twice kinda guy, are you?

I can only learn with a firearm pointed at my head .... that's my e"pistol"mology .....

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:You are not the same person as you were 5 minutes ago. Every moment has an effect on who you will be in the next moment. Is the existence of the individual who posted this topic you only due to the continuity of actions between that individual and you at this very moment?

Liken it to a stream which sits in the quiet forest. The stream exists because of the water which flows through it. Yet the water which constitutes this stream is never constant.

So who posted above? You or the person you used to be?

Does this mean one cannot be held accountable for anything?

August wrote: Does this mean one cannot be held accountable for anything?

No this was only a thought experiment to explore the meaning of existence.

Your application of this idea to morality is beyond the bounds of this discussion. There is no need to go off on tangents.

But let's entertain your thought. Lets apply actions and consequences of those actions on the thought experiment.

Let us suppose we drop a rock in the river. The path of the water will from that point forward on effect the flow of the river. In the same manor when we commit an action the consequences of that action will effect our behaviour from that point forward.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote: Does this mean one cannot be held accountable for anything?

No this was only a thought experiment to explore the meaning of existence.

Your application of this idea to morality is beyond the bounds of this discussion. There is no need to go off on tangents.

But let's entertain your thought. Lets apply actions and consequences of those actions on the thought experiment.

Let us suppose we drop a rock in the river. The path of the water will from that point forward on effect the flow of the river. In the same manor when we commit an action the consequences of that action will effect our behaviour from that point forward.

But can I argue that I am not guilty of a crime, for example, if I am not the same person I was when I committed the crime? Like your river example, the course was changed by an event the river had no control over. If we changed, we had no control previously, since we cannot prevent ourselves from changing, and since we changed, we are no longer the same as before. (Sounds a bit like the insanity defense )

Also, if we apply this to existence, then how do we know we existed 5 minutes ago? We have physically changed, and there is nothing but circular evidence of our previous existence. In my mind, knowing that we existed previously, and currently exist, is the strongest evidence of a soul that is independent of the physical.

August wrote: But can I argue that I am not guilty of a crime, for example, if I am not the same person I was when I committed the crime?

The act is no longer taking place but the results are in the present. This applies to the guilty party as well as the victim.

August wrote:Like your river example, the course was changed by an event the river had no control over. If we changed, we had no control previously, since we cannot prevent ourselves from changing, and since we changed, we are no longer the same as before. (Sounds a bit like the insanity defense )

In this example the course changed due to the activity of the river itself. The river changing courses is an illustration of the consequences of an action, which include punishment.

August wrote:Also, if we apply this to existence, then how do we know we existed 5 minutes ago? We have physically changed, and there is nothing but circular evidence of our previous existence.In my mind, knowing that we existed previously, and currently exist, is the strongest evidence of a soul that is independent of the physical.

Is this the circular argument you were speaking of?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:But can I argue that I am not guilty of a crime, for example, if I am not the same person I was when I committed the crime?

The act is no longer taking place but the results are in the present. This applies to the guilty party as well as the victim.

But the results are due to something that does not exist any more. How is it morally acceptable to punish a person for the acts of another? Hmmm, and do we then follow the other end of it too, and say that the victim really has no right to complain, since he was not the afflicted one, that was a previous version?

In this example the course changed due to the activity of the river itself. The river changing courses is an illustration of the consequences of an action, which include punishment.

No, hang on, we dropped a rock into the river which changed the flow of water. It was not due to the acvtivity of the river itself, it was due to us dropping a rock in there. We presume that the river would have continued on its present course had there not been a rock dropped in there. I don't see how the illustration works, the river changed course, which was the consequence of an outside action. Which party will get punished?

Is this the circular argument you were speaking of?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Any physical confirmation (pictures, writings, recordings, even memories etc.) that we previously existed is circular, where we assume the conclusion that we existed as proof for the premise, and that is the circular part.

As we age, and old cells get replaced by new ones, we are faced with the question of where is the essence of our existence? I do believe that we change physically, but there is something more that can be held eternally accountable. I'm not quite sure what the exact statistic is, but every cell in our body gets replaced multiple times during our life. That means that our person has to reside in something immutable, it cannot reside in the physical, there has to be something more, i.e. a soul.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:But can I argue that I am not guilty of a crime, for example, if I am not the same person I was when I committed the crime?

The act is no longer taking place but the results are in the present. This applies to the guilty party as well as the victim.

But the results are due to something that does not exist any more. How is it morally acceptable to punish a person for the acts of another? Hmmm, and do we then follow the other end of it too, and say that the victim really has no right to complain, since he was not the afflicted one, that was a previous version?

This wouldn't make sence as the "previous version" have a relationship to the "current one". As when you read these sentences the idea conveyed lives on after the words have already been read. Or when your heart beats the blood going through your limbs was not recently in your heart.

August wrote:

In this example the course changed due to the activity of the river itself. The river changing courses is an illustration of the consequences of an action, which include punishment.

No, hang on, we dropped a rock into the river which changed the flow of water. It was not due to the acvtivity of the river itself, it was due to us dropping a rock in there. We presume that the river would have continued on its present course had there not been a rock dropped in there. I don't see how the illustration works, the river changed course, which was the consequence of an outside action. Which party will get punished?

The analogy is that each seriesis analogous to the river. A river itself can effect it's own flow as well as the flow of others.

August wrote:

Is this the circular argument you were speaking of?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Any physical confirmation (pictures, writings, recordings, even memories etc.) that we previously existed is circular, where we assume the conclusion that we existed as proof for the premise, and that is the circular part.

As we age, and old cells get replaced by new ones, we are faced with the question of where is the essence of our existence? I do believe that we change physically, but there is something more that can be held eternally accountable. I'm not quite sure what the exact statistic is, but every cell in our body gets replaced multiple times during our life. That means that our person has to reside in something immutable, it cannot reside in the physical, there has to be something more, i.e. a soul.

Perhaps but that is based on circular reasoning. It is equally possible that we don't exist but as nothing more than pages in a book.

Not that I beleive this, just a thought experiment.