Evidence for God from Science

According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?

Before man was created, God still existed.

Think of it this way, before you knew i existed, did i still exist? Yes i did

michaelh2951 wrote:According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?

No.

michaelh2951 wrote:According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?

Welcome.

Hmmmm, the ol 'If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it' theory.

Psa 103:20 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.

michaelh2951 wrote:According to Christian faith, to my knowledge, God created man. But Man is the only one capable of perceiving God. So, I believe, without man, there could be no God.

I'm not claming this to be a truth, but it is a dilemma is it not?

No

All it means is that Man is the only one capable of perceiving God.

It's faulty logic.

Pam is the only one who can chew nails.
No Pam = no nails? Nope.

Q. Whats the difference between chewing and perceiving?

A. Chewing nails is much more painful than perceiving them.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Q. Whats the difference between chewing and perceiving?

A. Chewing nails is much more painful than perceiving them.

Is this falsifiable? Prove it!

IRQ Conflict wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Q. Whats the difference between chewing and perceiving?

A. Chewing nails is much more painful than perceiving them.

Is this falsifiable? Prove it!

Well we're talking in terms of logic and philosophy here so there really is no need for me to prove it. The logic is sound.

However for your amusement.
I'll take it that you want me to prove it scientifically.

Let's set up an experiment.

We need 100 volunteers and a box of nails from the hardware store.

We split the volunteers into 4 groups.
Group 1 is shown the nails.
Group 2 is shown nothing.
Group 3 has a nail dropped on them.
And Group 4 is forced to chew on them.

Results:
Group 4 experienced much pain and reported it as such.
This result was pretty much unanimous.
Group 3 perceived the nail by feeling something drop on them. Some were injured. Some did not know what was dropped on them, never the less they did perceive something.
Group 1 most reported being shown a nail.
Group 2 perceived nothing.

The nails do in fact exist.

So in conclusion, perception is not required for the nails to exist. (Control Group 2), perception is not always painless, however analysis of subjective testimonies showed a consistent report of pain for those chewing the nails. Thus leading one to beleive that those in Group 4 shared a subjective experience.

It is likely that chewing is more painful than perceiving.
More experiments will stregthen the results.

Sorry bgood, just a lame effort on my part to make a funny is all.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Sorry bgood, just a lame effort on my part to make a funny is all.

=)
It's ok.

BGood, I've not been aware that I've been missing your humour!

Well thank you for all the replies, very interesting without a doubt. I guess I was really hinting at that God created man and man created God(for the sake of discussion), but I see your logic; existence does not equal perception. I think it still remains an interesting topic though.

kateliz wrote: BGood, I've not been aware that I've been missing your humour!

I've certainly been aware of your absence. I'm glad you're back.

BeGood,

I thought it was a funny joke

man created God

I was raised in the Unitarian church. They absolutely believe this, though you would have to change it somewhat. It should look more like:

stupid men created God.

Or more to the point, I think the official stance is more along the lines of:

Mankind is God

My Grandmother was a devout Dutch Reformed Christian. Very strict. She used to tell my mother that the church we went to (fittingly named "People's Church") was built round so the devil couldn't corner you.

Karl Marx in his book The Commuist Manifesto called religion "An opiate for the masses." Communism believed that religion was invented by the capitalist elite to keep the poor in check and thus to keep themselves rich.

I think your argument stems from these kinds of philosophies.

If you'll allow me to answer a question with a question, does mankind's position as the only creatures in creation that can percieve God detract from God's greatness? I would think that the implications that all of creation could be for our benefit would do more to put us in awe of God (more to the point - in awe of the special place we hold in His heart) than it would do to detract from His greatness. Would you not agree?

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

I thought it was a funny joke
I think your argument stems from these kinds of philosophies.

If you'll allow me to answer a question with a question, does mankind's position as the only creatures in creation that can percieve God detract from God's greatness? I would think that the implications that all of creation could be for our benefit would do more to put us in awe of God (more to the point - in awe of the special place we hold in His heart) than it would do to detract from His greatness. Would you not agree?

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, just what position do you beleive I am taking?