Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[ellenjanuary]

On May 15th, 2000 - Gwyneth Paltrow created me
From me, the universe.

Now what? Do you remember your origins? I remember making you, your dreams, your life before I...

Absurd. The Gwynnite ends creationism. Anytime someone wants to stick a god into an equation, someone else can stick a Gwynnie in there. Or; as what happened to me the other night, and I almost fell out of my chair - wait for the creationist to say - god is not - for the righteous rightless always do - and stick that in the equation. Come on, now. It's about growing in understanding, not restricting understanding. Keep bickering like children, my Gwynnie's going to take your toys away.

 

[Michel07]

I used the term evidence because it puts the wind up you lot. It is a dirty word, a filthy word, to the theologian who, frankly, doesn’t have any. Whenever you want to retreat to the world of theology for argument you first have to substantiate that the world of theology is complete garbage. Good luck with.

Creation is the evidence of Creator but just as the old saying goes " can't see the forest for the trees" God's footprint in your life is so big that you can't even see it but rather are lost in it. Loser.

 

[Diederick]

You will require more than mere opinions to discredit thousands of years of human experience which is the true basis of belief in God. It simply has not been your experience for whatever reason. I could not prove to a blind man that the grass is green either but so what? The grass is still green. Fact is there is more than one way to be blind and there is no scientific concurrence against the existence of God.

Are you suggesting I should provide proof that there is no God? Because you do understand that such is impossible. If something is unprovable, it also cannot be disproven. Mystery, which is what religion is made of, is incompatible with evidence. So how should one provide evidence, or counter-evidence, for mystery?
And which opinion(s) exactly would you like to see reenforced with evidence? Because such can be arranged. If you are referring to the experience of 'spirituality' then I must say I have in fact had such feelings but rendered them stupid after a while. So again, what exact 'opinion' do you want to see clarified, and I'll see what I can do. But don't expect me to provide evidence against Theism, because it simply doesn't exist.
There is evidence for the alternative to Theism, that is all I'm saying.

 

[themadhair]

Creation is the evidence of Creator but just as the old saying goes " can't see the forest for the trees" God's footprint in your life is so big that you can't even see it but rather are lost in it. Loser.

People like you really amuse me. You just berated me for a limited understanding of theology and, to another poster, cited thousands of years of human experience as your basis. And yet, when it comes to it, you really do not have anything else to offer other than the sophistic crap quoted above. The same ‘creation’ you cite seems to function perfectly happy without a creator, and yet you think it evidence. Thousands of years of theological thinking, and yet still not able to produce anything other than a semantic sleight of hand on the word ‘creation’.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Gwynnie has a tough time superceding Deist and Pantheistic notions of "God." Gwynnie superceding a personal "God" or "god" is fairly easy to do, but when one's conception of "God" amounts to little or nothing more than the totality of reality, then it becomes "problematic" to assume that there is something greater. Exactly what exists that is greater than all that exists?


And I would be careful about how you use "Gwynnie" as the same thing can be said about anything which has very little evidence beyond interpretation. I can insert Gwynnie in just beyond Big Bang since we have no way of comprehending anything that happens at the moment of the Big Bang (assuming the Big Bang even happened). Cosmology is a very difficult and time consuming discipline that is as much art and philosophy as it is science. Progress in this field will be tiring, taxing, and trying (not necessarily in that order) and will require constant revision across the inexorable progress of time.

MTF

 

[ManTimeForgot]

People like you really amuse me. You just berated me for a limited understanding of theology and, to another poster, cited thousands of years of human experience as your basis. And yet, when it comes to it, you really do not have anything else to offer other than the sophistic crap quoted above. The same ‘creation’ you cite seems to function perfectly happy without a creator, and yet you think it evidence. Thousands of years of theological thinking, and yet still not able to produce anything other than a semantic sleight of hand on the word ‘creation’.

Functioning and existing are not the same thing, so you must be careful. It is certainly true that the universe seems to function without interference by a separate entity, but therein lay the rub. Exactly, how do we know that some greater entity than the universe does not toy with the universe? We don't.

Also, the argument from design is very slippery. It doesn't evidence a personal "God" but it does lend some credence to the existence of a "creator being." Arguments amounting to aesthetics (beauty), harmonious interaction, and design/intent may not enter the realm of deductive reasoning (they are obviously inductive) but they are not without their use either.

Science itself is "guilty" of "argument from design" with regard to things like super symmetry. Our standard model of particles fails to incorporate all the realms of operation (high energy, low energy, high mass, low mass, etc), and this is seen as "ugly." A search for a more "elegant" solution is premised on little more than the idea that there must be something more unifying (since we are able to unify certain aspects like "electroweak interaction").


The "argument from design" fails (and I use that term liberally) because it is difficult to show design of something we exist within or as a part of, and because it is being used improperly. An inductive argument cannot provide proof it can only provide evidence. This is not something which should be appealed to as an end, but rather as a beginning.

Chinese Aphorism: "If you search for truth and stray from the self, then you are only getting further away." The most crucial thing for humans is believing what is true for you. Out of the mixing pot of individual truth, somewhere along the line we come across better and better "approximations" of real truth.

MTF

 

[McBell]

It's the difference between the physical and the spiritual.

Huh?

Are you claiming that a "spirit" went 'bang' and manifested all the physical?

 

[PureX]

Are you suggesting I should provide proof that there is no God? Because you do understand that such is impossible. If something is unprovable, it also cannot be disproven. Mystery, which is what religion is made of, is incompatible with evidence. So how should one provide evidence, or counter-evidence, for mystery?

You're confusing evidence with proof. We can find evidence both for and against the existence of God. What we can't provide is conclusive proof.

And which opinion(s) exactly would you like to see reenforced with evidence? Because such can be arranged. If you are referring to the experience of 'spirituality' then I must say I have in fact had such feelings but rendered them stupid after a while. So again, what exact 'opinion' do you want to see clarified, and I'll see what I can do. But don't expect me to provide evidence against Theism, because it simply doesn't exist.
There is evidence for the alternative to Theism, that is all I'm saying.

And there is evidence for theism, as well.

So we're left with a little evidence, a lot of opinion, and a choice.

 

[themadhair]

Functioning and existing are not the same thing, so you must be careful. It is certainly true that the universe seems to function without interference by a separate entity, but therein lay the rub. Exactly, how do we know that some greater entity than the universe does not toy with the universe? We don't.

We also don’t know that an invisible boil on my arse isn’t responsible for keeping the universe in motion by the same criteria. But, just like the god concepts that I have been presented with, I am quite happy to dismiss them for lack of evidence. Arguing that a thing is potentially possible in this way is no more an argument for the potential of god than my arse boil.

Also, the argument from design is very slippery. It doesn't evidence a personal "God" but it does lend some credence to the existence of a "creator being."

I’ve broken this comment into two sections but they are inter-related so I hope you take this comment, and the one immediately below, together. The argument from design simply doesn’t hold for the natural world because we have not observed a creation event with which to form a comparison.
We find a watch and we know it is designed because we have knowledge of watches and the human engineering that is involved therein. We find the earth and we know it was designed because….actually we do not have knowledge of earths or the engineering required to create such so the argument fails. The second point you bring ties into this and is below.

Arguments amounting to aesthetics (beauty), harmonious interaction, and design/intent may not enter the realm of deductive reasoning (they are obviously inductive) but they are not without their use either.

Simplicity and aesthetics share quite the connection. When analysing phenomena it has been the experience that the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the available evidence (and by being simplest it tends to require the fewest assumptions) tends to win out. A sort of an Occam’s razor in some ways.

Science itself is "guilty" of "argument from design" with regard to things like super symmetry. Our standard model of particles fails to incorporate all the realms of operation (high energy, low energy, high mass, low mass, etc), and this is seen as "ugly."

This is a gross mischaracterisation. You neglected to mention that by observing the symmetry in some of the known elementary particles, and by then extrapolating this symmetry to all the currently known elementary particles, testable predictions of what we would find in high-energy particle predictions could be made. So far these predictions have been holding true as more elementary particles get discovered. To neglect this relevant piece of hypothesising, and how it produced predictions since verified, exposes the mischaracteristion you have drawn here.

A search for a more "elegant" solution is premised on little more than the idea that there must be something more unifying (since we are able to unify certain aspects like "electroweak interaction").

Are you familiar with the current clashing of general relativity and quantum mechanics? If so, why do you think it unreasonable to suppose that one, or both, of those theories are in need of tweaking/replacing in order to unify them and end the current contradiction? When the relevant history of unification is presented in its proper context your mischaracterisation of it becomes clear.

The "argument from design" fails (and I use that term liberally) because it is difficult to show design of something we exist within or as a part of, and because it is being used improperly. An inductive argument cannot provide proof it can only provide evidence. This is not something which should be appealed to as an end, but rather as a beginning.

As noted above, science does not argue from design. It looks for patterns that exist and then attempts to form testable predictions by extrapolating those patterns. If the predictions pan out then we acquire new knowledge and new areas of research, if they don’t we discard and start over.

The most crucial thing for humans is believing what is true for you.

I despise this concept. It sounds so reasonable but it really isn’t. By reframing everything in terms of subjectivity the possibility of falsification is removed. This concept is found throughout Scientology for example.

 

[richardlowellt]

Please remember that nothing can come out of nothing and so the Big Bang was also an act or event that was created.

[/QUOTE]You have created a paradox here, you say nothing can come from nothing and that something caused the big bang. Before the big bang there was nothing, but there must have been something in order to cause the big bang. That something you say was god, but remember nothing can come from nothing so god must have come from somewhere, where did god come from? And please don't steer me to the dictionary under the word eternal. By your definition nothing, not even god, can come from nothing, unless of course you use special rules to cover your belief, which happens a lot with you religious types.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Creation is the evidence of Creator but just as the old saying goes " can't see the forest for the trees" God's footprint in your life is so big that you can't even see it but rather are lost in it. Loser.

Thank u for your opinion. That and a $1 will buy a cup of coffee. In some places.

BTW, you never did correct me. And I CAN prove to a blind man grass is green. As others have already demonstrated. What CANNOT be done is to demonstrate "spirituality" or spiritual experiences actually exist outside the imagination of the those asserting they do.

There is name for such "spiritual experiences." In polite circles it is UPG. In psychiatry it is "delusional."

 

[Mr Cheese]

It is wise to question and seek answers, in fact we are commanded to do so. To that end we are given intellegence and the materials needed to find the answers we seek. It is imparative that one finds the correct source for those answers and they must not be founded in confusion, supported by fantastic illogical declarations, or hidden in a maze of smoke and mirrors like the vast majority of christian religions are.

Questions lead to Answers
Answers lead to Questions

.....

The more you look, the further you will need to look.
Stop looking and simply learn to be where you are.
There are no hills to climb, no paths to walk,
no rainbows to collect gold from
There is just this present moment.
The more I question the more answers I have
The more answers I have, the more questions I gain
The dog chases its tail all day
Yet, its food is before it.
To go beyond questions and answers
One simply has to "eat"
For one does not know how an apple tastes
Until they eat one.
............

The follower of knowledge learns as much as he can every day;
The follower of the Way forgets as much as he can every day.

By attrition he reaches a state of inaction
Wherein he does nothing, but nothing remains undone.
To conquer the world, accomplish nothing;
If you must accomplish something,
The world remains beyond conquest.

--Tao Te Ching

................

“One yin and one yang constitute what is known as Tao.” (I Ching) In “The Lau Tzu” (Tao Te Ching) the two forms of yin and yang refer to heaven and earth. This directly correlates with the concept of the Taoist trilogy, the San Ti, which postulates man is the same as heaven and earth.

1.. In Taoism, the basic, eternal principle of the universe that transcends reality and is the source of being, non-being, and change.
2.. In Confucianism, the right manner of human activity and virtuous conduct seen as stemming from universal criteria and ideals governing right, wrong, and other categories of existence. (American Heritage)

“Wu Chi creates Tai Chi, Tai Chi is the one Chi. One Chi generates Yin and Yang, and Yin and Yang can change in infinite ways.” This is also stated allegorically in the “Lau Tzu,” (”Tao Te Ching&#8221. ” Tao produced oneness. Oneness produced duality, Duality evolved into the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things support the yin, and embrace the yang. It is the blending of the breaths (of yin and yang) that their harmony depends.”

Now compare this idea with the description of the monad from the Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster….
This sequence of from the “Oracles,” reflects a parallel to the monad and Tai Chi that is unmistakable..

25. The Monad first existed, and the Paternal Monad still subsists.
26. When the Monad is extended, the Dyad is generated.
27. And beside Him is seated the Dyad which glitters with intellectual sections,
to govern all things and to order everything not ordered.
28. The Mind of the Father said that all things should be cut into Three, whose
Will assented, and immediately all things were so divided.
29. The Mind of the Eternal Father said into Three, governing all things by Mind.
30. The Father mingled every Spirit from this Triad.
31. All things are supplied from the bosom of this Triad.
32. All things are governed and subsist in this Triad
33. For thou must know that all things bow before the Three Supernals.
34. From thence floweth forth the Form of the Triad, being preexistent; not the
first Essence, but that whereby all things are measured.
35. And there appeared in it Virtue and Wisdom, and multiscient Truth.
36. For in each World shineth the Triad, over which the Monad ruleth.”

As you can figure the two concepts are the same, although they may be stated somewhat differently. We do not have to achieve Tao, we are already part of it. All we need to do is realize its potential.

http://magdelene.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/tao/

 

[Commoner]

You're confusing evidence with proof. We can find evidence both for and against the existence of God. What we can't provide is conclusive proof.
And there is evidence for theism, as well.

So we're left with a little evidence, a lot of opinion, and a choice.

Strange that after 70 pages you still haven't presented any "evidence". Well, I'll keep my fingers crossed, maybe you just need more time.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Strange that after 70 pages you still haven't presented any "evidence". Well, I'll keep my fingers crossed, maybe you just need more time.

One cannot present evidence when one cannot define that which is beyond definition (God).

Concepts and definitions, be they of God are merely approximations, compramises. In themselves they are nothing.

People lose their way by worrying about concepts, defintions, evidence and proof.
I do not require a concept, a definition, evidence or proof to eat soup, I just eat it.

The map is not the territory, is difficult for some. Concepts help us conceive, but we fall into the trap of thinking that which is conceived is the same as the concept we give to it.

A tree is a tree, even if we call it an ostrich.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Thank u for your opinion. That and a $1 will buy a cup of coffee. In some places.

BTW, you never did correct me. And I CAN prove to a blind man grass is green. As others have already demonstrated. What CANNOT be done is to demonstrate "spirituality" or spiritual experiences actually exist outside the imagination of the those asserting they do.

There is name for such "spiritual experiences." In polite circles it is UPG. In psychiatry it is "delusional."

And let us pray...
If I hadn't been playing "love beyond understanding" in the greater reality for all this time I wouldn't be the nutbag I am today. As a former man of science, I don't like it either.

 

[ellenjanuary]

See? That's the whack in my attack -
In the Church of Gwyneth Paltrow and All Mankind she has been god beyond understanding...
For years.

 

[Willamena]

What CANNOT be done is to demonstrate "spirituality" or spiritual experiences actually exist outside the imagination of the those asserting they do.

You cannot demonstrate anything exists outside the imagination of those asserting "it is". Even this.

 

[ellenjanuary]

And you up there with the tao- traded my title as prophet of god for the asexual priestless of the tao. That's the real deal, right there. No god greater than tao... if that weren't true, I'd be stew.

 

[Mr Cheese]

And you up there with the tao- traded my title as prophet of god for the asexual priestless of the tao. That's the real deal, right there. No god greater than tao... if that weren't true, I'd be stew.

Do you have a mangina?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You cannot demonstrate anything exists outside the imagination of those asserting "it is". Even this.

Frankly, I was never impressed with this intellectualizing of reality. ( I got a "B" on my Hume paper in college. It isn't that I don't understand the argument.) It may be true as a logical argument devoid of any hard reality. But we have have built civilizations and gone to the moon based on assuming what we perceive to be out there is real.

I simply accept it as axiomatic that an external reality exists independent if me and independent of my perception of it. And as evidence I point to the fact that whatever our ideas about we can or cannot know we can agree on and define in universal terms most of what we perceive out there. If it is all imagination then we all share much the same imaginings.

So as a practical matter what difference does it make?