Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:My response was not directed at you.

K

I got that news flash, I have been wondering if this solves other ironies...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFPdnIw ... wzlWmVGirr

*just for laughs*

I could not pull up the video so I have no idea what it said.

Now I realize my position doesn’t make sense to you, but have you ever thought that maybe your position don’t make sense to me either?
Lets look at what you said in your last response;

It seems you hold to some form of materialistic skepticism (ie: empiricism). It also seems you believe objective physical laws exist and then deny objective moral values.

If you do believe that the physical laws exist, then that should tell you that there is more to reality then just the physical.

Here you conclude I hold to materialism (that of the material world) and empiricism (knowlege through sensory experience) then you somehow conclude if I recognize the existence of physical laws (motion, gravity, energy, etc. Stuff that can be experienced via 5 senses) that I should believe there is more to existence than the physical!

Now this makes no sense to me at all ! It makes sense for a person of empiricism to accept physical laws because they can be experienced via 5 sences; but why would that mean I should also believe in that which is not physical? If I did I wouldn’t be a person of empiricism as you concluded. Then you say I am contradictory? Sorry I am just not getting this; maybe someone else who shares your POV can explain it to me 'cause it sounds to me like your position is contridictory.

Ken

Kenny the physical describes the laws. The laws themselves are immaterial, therefore they are not spatio-temporal.

Also the laws also do not tell you about the existence of the physical itself.
Perhaps ponder on it.

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:My response was not directed at you.

K

I got that news flash, I have been wondering if this solves other ironies...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFPdnIw ... wzlWmVGirr

*just for laughs*

I could not pull up the video so I have no idea what it said.

Now I realize my position doesn’t make sense to you, but have you ever thought that maybe your position don’t make sense to me either?
Lets look at what you said in your last response;

It seems you hold to some form of materialistic skepticism (ie: empiricism). It also seems you believe objective physical laws exist and then deny objective moral values.

If you do believe that the physical laws exist, then that should tell you that there is more to reality then just the physical.

Here you conclude I hold to materialism (that of the material world) and empiricism (knowlege through sensory experience) then you somehow conclude if I recognize the existence of physical laws (motion, gravity, energy, etc. Stuff that can be experienced via 5 senses) that I should believe there is more to existence than the physical!

Now this makes no sense to me at all ! It makes sense for a person of empiricism to accept physical laws because they can be experienced via 5 sences; but why would that mean I should also believe in that which is not physical? If I did I wouldn’t be a person of empiricism as you concluded. Then you say I am contradictory? Sorry I am just not getting this; maybe someone else who shares your POV can explain it to me 'cause it sounds to me like your position is contridictory.

Ken

Kenny the physical describes the laws. The laws themselves are immaterial.

Also the laws also do not tell you about the existence of the physical itself.

Ponder on it.

Empiricism doesn't require that which can be observed via 5 sences to be material

K

Kenny wrote: Empiricism doesn't require that which can be observed via 5 sences to be material

K

*sigh*

Kenny,

Under your view do you consider the mind/consciousness to be immaterial?

I'm not talking about the brain.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Did Kenny say logic?

And reason.

Does that surprise you?

K

Kenny,

It doesn't really surprise me that you think you've used logic and reason here. It's nothing new. I've basically said this all the way back to when you first got here. You're not grasping basic things. And everyone that has attempted to dialogue with you has come to the same conclusion.
I see the whole thing unfolding with each member that talks with you. It goes something like this:

1) ok, I'll show Kenny some basic logical reasons why such and such is true. He will see the basics, and I can move on.

2) ok, maybe I'm not doing a good job of explaining. I'll try something else.

3) hey wait, why isn't Kenny grasping the basics...

4) now why am I going to continue talking to him?

5) this is getting frustrating!!!

6)

7) I think I'll go kick my dog!

Kenny,

I like you. I really do. I hope you stick around, and learn as much as you can. This is a great place to learn. I've learned more in the four years I've been here, than I have at any other time in my life. And please don't take my teasing personally. I do it to everyone I like.

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Under your view do you consider the mind/consciousness to be immaterial?

I'm not talking about the brain.

First of all, I never claimed to be a materialist, that was your claim. I was just making the point under the assumption that everything you said about me was actually true. But to answer your question; yes.

K

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:Did Kenny say logic?

And reason.

Does that surprise you?

K

Kenny,

It doesn't really surprise me that you think you've used logic and reason here. It's nothing new. I've basically said this all the way back to when you first got here. You're not grasping basic things. And everyone that has attempted to dialogue with you has come to the same conclusion.
I see the whole thing unfolding with each member that talks with you. It goes something like this:

1) ok, I'll show Kenny some basic logical reasons why such and such is true. He will see the basics, and I can move on.

2) ok, maybe I'm not doing a good job of explaining. I'll try something else.

3) hey wait, why isn't Kenny grasping the basics...

4) now why am I going to continue talking to him?

5) this is getting frustrating!!!

6)

7) I think I'll go kick my dog!

Kenny,

I like you. I really do. I hope you stick around, and learn as much as you can. This is a great place to learn. I've learned more in the four years I've been here, than I have at any other time in my life. And please don't take my teasing personally. I do it to everyone I like.

I believe the last time you and I had a discussion was on 10/21/14 at 5:44pm. You were trying to make a point that I disagreed with. I answered your question, then I asked you a question requiring an explanation; which I was going to use to show the flaws in your argument. I believe the question was something like:

If you are flawed, and God is perfect, how does a flawed person like yourself verify God is perfect if we assume you are not using blind faith?

Now that is a very simple question that is not illogical; but instead of answering my question, you refrained from answering and began discussing with everyone else.

It sems to me, the reason it is fustrating when you debate with me is because the logic you insist on using doesn’t work against the questions I ask, and the points I make. Now if there were something wrong with my question, you would have been able to use logic to show why my question was illogical, but you didn’t; you just basically walked away. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

Ken

Kenny,

Posting the date and time doesn't help me because you live in a different time zone. If you show me the post, then I can explain why I didn't answer you. Most likely it was because you were going off on a rabbit trail. You've made it a habit of not sticking to the issue, and then asking questions about something else. I'm not chasing you down bunny trails.

But I don't know for sure, so if you want me to address your concern, quote the question you asked me, and I'll explain.

Ok, you edited your post to include your question.
Or I just missed it the first time.
I will go back to where you posted it, and see why I didn't answer you.

This:

If you are flawed, and God is perfect, how does a flawed person like yourself verify God is perfect if we assume you are not using blind faith?

Is not the same question you asked before. It was worded a little differently. You asked:

unless you are perfect, (I am assuming you are not) how would you recognize perfection when you see it? In other words; how does a flawed person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)

The reason I didn't answer you is because you were not sticking with the topic. Nevertheless, I'll answer you.
Asking how to recognize God is perfect, is different than recognizing if a person is perfect.

Logically, we don't have to see God to know He's perfect. If God is not perfect, He's not God. God, by definition is perfect. He lacks nothing. Otherwise He wouldn't be God.
So, we know by logic, God is perfect.
We've discussed this before, and you can't grasp it. It's really basic stuff.

RickD wrote:This:

If you are flawed, and God is perfect, how does a flawed person like yourself verify God is perfect if we assume you are not using blind faith?

Is not the same question you asked before. It was worded a little differently. You asked:

unless you are perfect, (I am assuming you are not) how would you recognize perfection when you see it? In other words; how does a flawed person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)

The reason I didn't answer you is because you were not sticking with the topic. Nevertheless, I'll answer you.
Asking how to recognize God is perfect, is different than recognizing if a person is perfect.

Logically, we don't have to see God to know He's perfect. If God is not perfect, He's not God. God, by definition is perfect. He lacks nothing. Otherwise He wouldn't be God.
So, we know by logic, God is perfect.
We've discussed this before, and you can't grasp it. It's really basic stuff.

Ahh! So were going with the ole circular argument huh? If that's the game you wanna play; lemme see if I can top that one.

I don't have to actually see "Joe Blow" preform magic tricks in order to know he is a able to do magic; Joe blow is a magician and by definition magicians are capable of magic. Other wise he wouldn't be a magician. So we know by logic that Joe Blow is capable of magic! It's really basic stuff.

Now I know my argument wasn't quite a circular as yours, but I'm a little rusty with my circular logic; its not quite as polished as yours. (LOL)

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:This:

If you are flawed, and God is perfect, how does a flawed person like yourself verify God is perfect if we assume you are not using blind faith?

Is not the same question you asked before. It was worded a little differently. You asked:

unless you are perfect, (I am assuming you are not) how would you recognize perfection when you see it? In other words; how does a flawed person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)

The reason I didn't answer you is because you were not sticking with the topic. Nevertheless, I'll answer you.
Asking how to recognize God is perfect, is different than recognizing if a person is perfect.

Logically, we don't have to see God to know He's perfect. If God is not perfect, He's not God. God, by definition is perfect. He lacks nothing. Otherwise He wouldn't be God.
So, we know by logic, God is perfect.
We've discussed this before, and you can't grasp it. It's really basic stuff.

Ahh! So were going with the ole circular argument huh? If that's the game you wanna play; lemme see if I can top that one.

I don't have to actually see "Joe Blow" preform magic tricks in order to know he is a able to do magic; Joe blow is a magician and by definition magicians are capable of magic. Other wise he wouldn't be a magician. So we know by logic that Joe Blow is capable of magic! It's really basic stuff.

Now I know my argument wasn't quite a circular as yours, but I'm a little rusty with my circular logic; its not quite as polished as yours. (LOL)

Ken

Circular logic Kenny? Seriously? This is why people get frustrated and give up talking to you.

Here Kenny. This explains God's perfection. Don't return to this thread until you understand it enough to have a proper discussion about it.

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Under your view do you consider the mind/consciousness to be immaterial?

I'm not talking about the brain.

First of all, I never claimed to be a materialist, that was your claim. I was just making the point under the assumption that everything you said about me was actually true. But to answer your question; yes.

K

I didn't say you were an outright materialist Kenny. In any case I was loosely generalising because you seem to hold to a number of positions to some point that I can't put my finger on.

But anyway let's drop that I've given up trying to work you out.

Okay so based on the mind being immaterial do you think it is logically possible for the mind to be disembodied?

Two fascinating articles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... study.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ences.html

Kurieuo wrote:Two fascinating articles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... study.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ences.html

They are about perception of moving.
My close family member claims it is only perception. There were experiments in which they placed numbers above high furniture and nobody who claimed having nde could say the numbers.
So, I am curios about such article.

On the other hand, B.W. experienced that and could see a certain spot which could be seen only from a ladder.

Edit: link to b.w.'s post