-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reason why proof of God will not get Nobel Prize
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- proof for god truth
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
How does a person who doesn’t exist lie?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There is expression: "John, are not existing for me." this means that person John is present there, but another person Bob is cutting any tides with him. That has God said to satan. But God is Absolute Truth. Hence, satan has lost gift of Existence and Life. Similar to fictional vampire: he is there and walking, but he is dead.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
There absolutely is room for both, even given the convoluted cosmology that Christianity tries to set up. I think that you (and others) simply don't like what it would mean or require.
The ID people tried unsuccessfully. If you think you have a better approach for detecting that which is described as necessarily undetectable (as opposed to contingently undetectable awaiting the invention of the right device), perhaps you should do the science yourself and claim that Nobel prize. One problem. There's nothing for you to study if what you seek is undetectable.
Do you know what other realms are undetectable? The infranatural, the extranatural, the juxtanatural, the transnatural, the micronatural, the hypernatural, the holonatural, and the quasinatural. Maybe God is in one of those.
Of these, only the natural is detectable. Why? The rest are also just words like supernatural with prefixes added to natural. Of course they're undetectable.
The concept of the supernatural is incoherent upon closer examination. If something can interact with nature, it's another aspect of nature. If it can't be detected, it means it has no effect on matter whether that is because it doesn't exist, or is causally disconnected from nature. That's the incoherence in the claim - it's real, it can affect nature, but it's not nature, and is in principle undetectable. Claims about the purely metaphysical (no phenomenal projection into the natural) are always unscientific (unfalsifiable), and Popper's Razor (his idea, my term for it, since like all razors, it orders possibilities and identifies those that can be ignored or considered last) says we need not bother ourselves with such ideas, as they can never be shown to be correct or incorrect.
More likely, gods as you imagine them cannot exist. Omniscience - or the collection of all truth in one mind - seems to me to violate Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Gödel wrote Gödel's mathematical proof of God.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Nature is defined (in my research) as that what Standard Instruments are measuring.
This means, that Standard Instruments (like amper-meter, thermo-meter) are not part of nature. They do not grow on trees.
Like all the other arguments from pure reason, it doesn't prove the existence of any deity, and certainly not any named and described deity such as yours.
You seem to be using a different definition of nature and natural than I am. You're using the one that is the opposite of artificial, as in natural diamond versus industrial diamond.
When I used the terms, it was in the sense of being the opposite of supernatural. By that reckoning, everything we see is part of nature, including ourselves and our inventions. Nature, reality, and existence are all coextensive - refer to the same thing: the collection of objects and processes that occupy space and time and are capable of interacting with one another. Things that meet those criteria exist, are real, and collectively are called reality or nature. Things lacking one of them lack all three (nothing meets only one or two), and such things can be treated as nonexistent, not real, and not a part of nature.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Which is why it is only a hypothesis and not a theory
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
All is natural?? So, we must not fight Carbon Dioxide emission, because it is natural gas, hence, beneficial for nature?
Yes. Everything that exists is an aspect of nature, and nature comprises all that exists, existence meaning having a place in space and time and able to affect and be affected by other existents.
No. Being a part of nature does not necessarily make a thing desirable, just natural, just real, just in existence. The poliovirus is natural because it exists as a part of nature, but that does not make it desirable or beneficial for man.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Spirits influence on physical world via Dark Matter.
Don't just make silly claims... PROVE it.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Trust me, I am smart.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Yet another claim for which you've provided no evidence. In fact, based upon much of what you've posted you've been providing evidence for the exact opposite.
Altfish
Veteran Member
That is why it is not a theory, just a hypothesis.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
You cannot learn from genius, whom you do not respect.