Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

our minds are rigged to seek meaning, reasoning, purpose.

I would say programmed. And yes we have a programmer.

Atoms are merely energy. I believe there is only one thing, one energy force, it is sort of an organism. This is why i think the universe exists, its a part of this super life form. This is why I think the universe is filled with life forms, in my view everything on a small scale is very basic life.

You realize that is a religious philosophy?

I wouldn't call it religious, but yes it is purely based on my feelings in the universe and not in any way on facts.

As for programming, wouldn't that defeat free will, or make it limp if god made our circuits in our brains point to a higher force?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

cslewislover wrote:If nothing is permanent.

Also I believe everything is permanent, I don't believe the multiverse system had a begining, all the energy and matter(which is made of energy) has been around forever, and will never die, but simply change constantly.

...and the evidence that there actually is a multiverse system?

cslewislover wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Yeah, it's really amazing. Compared to the universe, our planet seems like nothing, and we're less than nothing. But we're not . . . Sagan sure is sentimental in his writing. Why cherish it and why act so kindly to each other, just because we're alone (according to Sagan) and puny? Those things don't go together to me, certainly not necessarily.

Well compared to the universe we're just a speck in a speck in a speck with specks on it. But thats not nothing or less than nothing.

Why cerish our planet because its the only one we can use at the moment? Why act kindly if we have to share this speck? Are you serious?

Lol, I am totally serious. I'm asking you, why do you attribute meaning to our actions when there is no basis for it (according to you)? We are animals, so why don't we just act like it (well, a whole lot of us do, LOL, and there are animals that act better than some humans)? Why do we consciously seek higher things? When there is no basis for behavior, one behavior is just as "good" as another. The fact that I'm arguing for a basis in meaning means something, that I want some logic out of this. I know how I feel and think about it, I know where my meaning comes from and where it's going, for the most part, but I don't see that you do. You seem like you have youthful exuberance and that's where you're at, basically. You could explain more so we understand, since you've complained that we don't understand you.

>When and how did i say there are no basis for meaning that we attribe to things?
>We are animals and we do act like it and function like it, psychology has a firm grasp on why we act the way we do.
>We seek higher anwsers because we live in a hostile world that doesn't seem to give a damn about us. Most of us feel we are some sort of conscienceness stuck in this skin bag we call a body. We say "My hand" or "My foot" as if they are possetions and not us. It gives us the impression we are a sort of driver and this body is just a 'car.' It breaks down, it gets tired, it needs refueling; so we seperate ourselves from what we are, our bodies.
>Why not blow up the planet now and get rid of all the pain and suffering? So without god you'd be an emo kid?
>Outside of human experience i believe all actions are equally nuetral, it is only because of our conscious judging minds that we consider actions better than others.
>I wasn't complaining that you don't understand me, I don't expect you to, and I don't expect that I will understand you, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

touchingcloth wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

cslewislover wrote:If nothing is permanent.

Also I believe everything is permanent, I don't believe the multiverse system had a begining, all the energy and matter(which is made of energy) has been around forever, and will never die, but simply change constantly.

...and the evidence that there actually is a multiverse system?

purely based on how i feel.

Ah, good. Nothing like peer-review to solidify a position eh.

touchingcloth wrote:Ah, good. Nothing like peer-review to solidify a position eh.

Is there anything wrong with believe things that can not be proven?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Ah, good. Nothing like peer-review to solidify a position eh.

Is there anything wrong with believe things that can not be proven?

Nothing at all. Just wondering what your evidence base was.

touchingcloth wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Ah, good. Nothing like peer-review to solidify a position eh.

Is there anything wrong with believe things that can not be proven?

Nothing at all. Just wondering what your evidence base was.

We're talking about my personal beliefs, the evidence base is it makes sense to me, just like every other person in this world. Its not Truth, its personal truth, for each of us, or rather thats my personal truth.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:We're talking about my personal beliefs, the evidence base is it makes sense to me, just like every other person in this world. Its not Truth, its personal truth, for each of us, or rather thats my personal truth.

I have to commend you on your honesty, but I wonder if it is a good idea to go around admitting that you are in favor of torturing children for fun. I mean, seems a bit twisted to me . . . anybody else here have a problem with that?

qqMOARpewpew wrote: >When and how did i say there are no basis for meaning that we attribe to things?

Then what IS the basis for meaning?

>We are animals and we do act like it and function like it, psychology has a firm grasp on why we act the way we do.

Psychology is a science, like any other science. The "why" of things could change next week, depending on research findings.

>We seek higher anwsers because we live in a hostile world that doesn't seem to give a damn about us. Most of us feel we are some sort of conscienceness stuck in this skin bag we call a body. We say "My hand" or "My foot" as if they are possetions and not us. It gives us the impression we are a sort of driver and this body is just a 'car.' It breaks down, it gets tired, it needs refueling; so we seperate ourselves from what we are, our bodies.

When you say hostile world, do you mean human social world? Or the natural world? The natural world of course wouldn't care about us. As far as the language . . . how else should we talk about the body that we inhabit? It's a short-cut way of saying something, just like saying "the sun is setting" instead of "the earth is traveling around the sun and now it will get dark." Besides that, our brain is conscious and controls the body - the body doesn't protest at us calling the stuff that falls down from the top of our head "hair."

>Why not blow up the planet now and get rid of all the pain and suffering? So without god you'd be an emo kid?

I'm asking YOU about this. You're just as emo, like "precious moments." Ha ha ha. Just kidding. But you're saying we should be one way, we should behave in a "nice" way, when a selfish way might make us feel just as well and even benefit us and our families more. You don't seem to have a basis for your own version of emo.

To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Sagan just got done saying how awful we are, killing each other, etc. And now, for some reason, all the violent people in the world are going to look at our speck of a planet, and go, "Ohhhh, we're so significant for being insignificant . . . ohhhh, it just makes me want to save the planet . . . " I DO NOT see the logical connection.

>Outside of human experience i believe all actions are equally nuetral, it is only because of our conscious judging minds that we consider actions better than others.

"Outside of human experience"; so, what animals do and what happens in nature is neutral (I think so, pretty much)? When it comes down to it, is what we do neutral also; is this what you're saying? A lot of people think that selfish behavior is better. Making money off of inexperienced, ignorant people, say. Why would they listen to you, or even Carl Sagan? There's no reason to, if it's all up to each individual. And would you care if they do or not?

>I wasn't complaining that you don't understand me, I don't expect you to, and I don't expect that I will understand you, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Sure we should try, but you needed to explain things more for us to understand you . . . still need to. But I would hope that you would grow in your life, and that your understanding that you have now will change and become better.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Ah, good. Nothing like peer-review to solidify a position eh.

Is there anything wrong with believe things that can not be proven?

Nothing at all. Just wondering what your evidence base was.

We're talking about my personal beliefs, the evidence base is it makes sense to me, just like every other person in this world. Its not Truth, its personal truth, for each of us, or rather thats my personal truth.

I know a severely mentally retarded man down the way that babbles all sorts of nonsense and swears it's all true... even though it's not. You've fallen into the error of relativism.

If your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, how can we be certain about anything? Let us say that your truth happens to be that Einstein was wrong in the theory of relativity and the unified field theories, whereas myself and objective truth in both mathematics and physics confirm that he was right. Does it make any difference whether the truth, is based on empirical observable repeatable facts or just your subjective feelings at the moment you open your mouth? Was Einstein wrong because you might feel at a given moment that he was? Relativism produces no truth and the undeniable law of noncontradiction refutes it.

The Nazis' argument for killing Jews is a position that could not be refuted in a world of relative morality and ethics. But the Christian ethic certainly judges such actions as wrong (even if not everyone that ever claimed to be a Christian adhered to it). Using your logic; however, anyone who feels Hitler was right for murdering six million Jews is displaying exactly as much truth as those that feel he was wrong. To argue that he was wrong, if you are a relativist, is fallacious because your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours. Would a murderer be "wrong" to murder you because he feels like it? Should we get out of the way and let him? Probably not.

ageofknowledge wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Ah, good. Nothing like peer-review to solidify a position eh.

Is there anything wrong with believe things that can not be proven?

Nothing at all. Just wondering what your evidence base was.

We're talking about my personal beliefs, the evidence base is it makes sense to me, just like every other person in this world. Its not Truth, its personal truth, for each of us, or rather thats my personal truth.

I know a severely mentally retarded man down the way that babbles all sorts of nonsense and swears it's all true... even though it's not. You've fallen into the error of relativism.

If your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, how can we be certain about anything? Let us say that your truth happens to be that Einstein was wrong in the theory of relativity and the unified field theories, whereas myself and objective truth in both mathematics and physics confirm that he was right. Does it make any difference whether the truth, is based on empirical observable repeatable facts or just your subjective feelings at the moment you open your mouth? Was Einstein wrong because you might feel at a given moment that he was? Relativism produces no truth and the undeniable law of noncontradiction refutes it.

The Nazis' argument for killing Jews is a position that could not be refuted in a world of relative morality and ethics. But the Christian ethic certainly judges such actions as wrong (even if not everyone that ever claimed to be a Christian adhered to it). Using your logic; however, anyone who feels Hitler was right for murdering six million Jews is displaying exactly as much truth as those that feel he was wrong. To argue that he was wrong, if you are a relativist, is fallacious because your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours. Would a murderer be "wrong" to murder you because he feels like it? Should we get out of the way and let him? Probably not.

My best friends sister is retarded, as far as i can tell she has a kinder heart than anyone I've talked to on this forum.

Your whole two paragraph thing is just evidence for me that there is an ultimate truth and you and I and bob quency gearge the retard will all never know it, which is all that I said by saying I have my personal truths and I don't claim them to be TRUTH.


"How can we be certain of anything?" In my opinion (Another word for personal truth) we can not be sure of anything, this is why I consider myself agnostic.
Well if lets say you believe in fairies, you say you can feel them when you think really hard about them. Sometimes good things happen and you see signs that point to the fairies causing the good things. I say, I don't believe in fairies. You say, YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY DONT EXIST. And then I walk away. (See how dumb these metaphorical little stories are?)

What is a world of relative morallity and ethics? I think you have absolute truth on the brain because this is the most ironic thing i have seen all night.


" your own definition of truth entitles Hitler as much right to his view as you to yours" No. It doesn't. It means Hitler thought he was right, and I think I'm right, and you think you're right and no one is right.

cslewislover wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote: >When and how did i say there are no basis for meaning that we attribe to things?

Then what IS the basis for meaning?

>We are animals and we do act like it and function like it, psychology has a firm grasp on why we act the way we do.

Psychology is a science, like any other science. The "why" of things could change next week, depending on research findings.

>We seek higher anwsers because we live in a hostile world that doesn't seem to give a damn about us. Most of us feel we are some sort of conscienceness stuck in this skin bag we call a body. We say "My hand" or "My foot" as if they are possetions and not us. It gives us the impression we are a sort of driver and this body is just a 'car.' It breaks down, it gets tired, it needs refueling; so we seperate ourselves from what we are, our bodies.

When you say hostile world, do you mean human social world? Or the natural world? The natural world of course wouldn't care about us. As far as the language . . . how else should we talk about the body that we inhabit? It's a short-cut way of saying something, just like saying "the sun is setting" instead of "the earth is traveling around the sun and now it will get dark." Besides that, our brain is conscious and controls the body - the body doesn't protest at us calling the stuff that falls down from the top of our head "hair."

>Why not blow up the planet now and get rid of all the pain and suffering? So without god you'd be an emo kid?

I'm asking YOU about this. You're just as emo, like "precious moments." Ha ha ha. Just kidding. But you're saying we should be one way, we should behave in a "nice" way, when a selfish way might make us feel just as well and even benefit us and our families more. You don't seem to have a basis for your own version of emo.

To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Sagan just got done saying how awful we are, killing each other, etc. And now, for some reason, all the violent people in the world are going to look at our speck of a planet, and go, "Ohhhh, we're so significant for being insignificant . . . ohhhh, it just makes me want to save the planet . . . " I DO NOT see the logical connection.

>Outside of human experience i believe all actions are equally nuetral, it is only because of our conscious judging minds that we consider actions better than others.

"Outside of human experience"; so, what animals do and what happens in nature is neutral (I think so, pretty much)? When it comes down to it, is what we do neutral also; is this what you're saying? A lot of people think that selfish behavior is better. Making money off of inexperienced, ignorant people, say. Why would they listen to you, or even Carl Sagan? There's no reason to, if it's all up to each individual. And would you care if they do or not?

>I wasn't complaining that you don't understand me, I don't expect you to, and I don't expect that I will understand you, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Sure we should try, but you needed to explain things more for us to understand you . . . still need to. But I would hope that you would grow in your life, and that your understanding that you have now will change and become better.

I don't know, or claim to know, or care what the basis of meaning is. I dont think about, havent before, don't plan to. That doesnt mean you should go and assume that. Don't make a donkey out of you and me.

Cool, fo shizzle, and what not.

I mean the round thing we live upon. The natural world, which happens to have a little social gathering of people on it currently. But i also meant our bodies, they seem hostile to the individual at times.

Do you disagree with your lord and savior that we should love our enemies? Sorry I posted it because the picture is awesome, and I was curious as to how yall might respond. Good job btw.

Not seeing the logical connection? Duh, its a heart-connection not a logical one.

I am saying good and bad are illusions created by the human mind in order to understand the world.

Why would they listen to you, or even Carl Sagan? There's no reason to, if it's all up to each individual. And would you care if they do or not?
I don't expect them to listen to me and instantly get all lovey dovey for each other. I wasn't that suprised when instead of being like "Yeah humanity in its current state sucks and we should try to do something about it" started nit picking the logic of it. I would care if they listened to me, I'm used to being an average citizen though.

Tell me when I am not being clear and I will always try to clarify.

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:We're talking about my personal beliefs, the evidence base is it makes sense to me, just like every other person in this world. Its not Truth, its personal truth, for each of us, or rather thats my personal truth.

I have to commend you on your honesty, but I wonder if it is a good idea to go around admitting that you are in favor of torturing children for fun. I mean, seems a bit twisted to me . . . anybody else here have a problem with that?

This personal truth of yours is funny. To me its straight up proof for my beliefs, you feel very differently about this than I do clearly, I could even say your personal truth (and ideas about what that means) is diffrent from my own.

So the personal truth of the Nazis was truth for them....great.