Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange Jan 12, 2005
Think and Reason is offering $1,000,000 if you can prove that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: "All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"
Is there really this money sitting waiting?
Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
I do,actually ,know at least 4 good hearted lawyers.
David B. Member
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 | 05:06 AM
I knew a lawyer with a good heart once. The previous owner failed had to read the small print.
David B. Member
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 | 05:22 AM
If you want to characterise atheism as a belief system, I've no objection. I would argue that my lack of belief in gods is a consequence of my world-view (i.e. the filtering out unproven/unprovable concepts), rather than the world-view itself.
As I've said before, yes it is possible that there is a god, klingons and a Hogwart's School for WIzardry; but I don't see a lot of basis for wasting time praying to or searching for any of them.
I'm 'a-' a lot of things (he says, setting himself up for the obvious comeback), a-psychics, a-hauntings, even a bit a-string-theory; a-theist is just one more default position.
samba
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 | 10:54 AM
I tend to think string theory is all tangled up in adding dimensions.I think of dimensions as descriptive of our perceptual,and mental funtioning,I doubt that dimensions exist except as thinking tools-extremely useful ones,but human creations. a model is just a model.The incomesurability problem which string theoory attempts to resolve (I like David Bohm's approach ) the dark matter,and acclerating expansion problems seem to me to show that we are lacking information.I'm sure that when we have sufficient data the current models will seem as naive as the medievel idea that the orbits of the planets exactly describe the platonic solids.
So I wonder what you think about Bell's theorem,the nonlocality issue etc.
I find it useful to make distinctions between worldview,beliefs and ideals. I find it fairly common for people to express ideals,something one aspires to,as beleifs.But when push comes to shove they don't act on those beliefs,this could include the professed christian who doesn't really love his brother as himself but puts his own interest first,ignoring the consequences,or the professed atheist who starts praying when the car goes off a cliff.
I do think identifying conclusions as provisional,as you do w/ "default position" is,in general the wise approach.For the same reason I attempt to use qualifying terms ,such as seems;appears to me etc.
Worldview I take quite literally as what one sees. I observe human vision involves the eyes scanning about the sensory field picking up various bits ,which we then assemble into a continuous,steady,coherent picture.A process that includes filling in the blanks where the blind spots are to make it all make sense.Sometimes (typically in low light,and/or viewing distant objects) after we get a better look at something it becomes clear that it is quite different than the image the mind originally selected from the empirical file
I posit this filling in the blanks/continuous image process as isomorphic to other thinking processes,it becomes habitual,but when projecting to broad philosophical views of the nature of existence,there isn't the fast feedback loop from the sensory wolrd available for correction.
Then there is also the problem of grammar,we arrange our interior models in the syntax,if you will ,of our learned language. Math,with it's vast capacity for precision is a way to try and counteract this distortion,but then we're faced with various discontinuities between our models and our ,processed experiential imprints.It's easy to show the outer world as vibrating spinning energy fields ,mathmatically,but that's not necessarily the way we experience it.
Akabilk
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 | 12:21 PM
Anyone claiming that their atheism is only a result of their experience or understanding of life and therefore 'not really' a belief system, is hedging away from the meaning of the word atheist.
Can anyone imagine a believer saying their belief in God is 'not really' a belief system for the same reasons? Only by default perhaps?
David B. Member
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 | 02:10 PM
I do not believe in things I have no evidence to the existence of, and gods are a minor subset of these things; therefore I am, by definition, an atheist. I do not, however, grant gods any more special consideration than witches, wizards, ghosts, vampires or rigellian love-slaves.
Should I constantly refer to myself as an a-witchcraft, a-wizardry, a-spiritualist, a-vampirist, a-rigellian-love-slaveist, atheist because you think your imaginary friend is somehow deserving of special attention?
David B. Member
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 | 02:28 PM
@Samba:
A good case in point is the many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, which came up on the new forums quite recently.
With decoherence, many-worlds and the Copenhagan interpretation to choose between, we're not exactly short of explanations for what we see as 'illogical' quantum effects. But, as Neils Bohr puts it, “Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience. In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefor objective in the sense that it can be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language.”
To many physicists (David Deutch in particular), this is copping-out, the maths works like that because the universe works like that. But I think that is too strong an argument, before special relativity, the universe worked by the more you pushed something the faster it went, then more sophisticated experiments revealed shortcomings in the maths of classical mechanics and new formulae were arrived at.
Clearly the universe didn't change, just the maths, and the old maths was afterwards referred to as an approximation to the truth. But the same possibility is not ruled out for today's science either, what today is "how the universe works", might tomorrow be "a pretty good try". Bell's theorem, and its confirmation, is a recent example, with New Scientist in the UK recently reporting that a physicist was claiming to have demonstrated a theory of locality that is consistent with the Bell experiment results by using quaternions (i.e. doubly imaginary numbers). Actually, I don't believe that for a minute as I can't see how his approach would work for several other quantum experiments, particularly ones involving causative interaction with entangled pairs.
samba
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 | 08:24 PM
Well maybe the math works like that cause the universe does,or maybe not. Maybe the universe did change as the models became more precise. The copenhagen exception among others seems to me be an attempt to grapple with the nature of consciousness and it's place in this circus.There had been a tendency in socalled hard sciences to assume that only what is quantifiable is real. As far as I know there is,as yet, no way prove or disprove the notion that we are effecting out comes by what we do with attention.Apparently some cosmologists have recently suggested our studies are accelerating entropy.I haven't read the stuff,I don't know that they have a case,perhaps it's just absurd paranpia ,or grandstanding,but such questions are unresolved. and while they are assertions as to what's real'possible,probable are seem unresolvable.Certainly reputable scientists entertain the notion that consciuosness is fundamental.Apprently Roger Penrose has also flirted with PanPSychic type views.Perhaps such notions are solipsistic,but I think the jury is still out.
Seems odd that we would figure out this math that's key to understanding how everything works.If we didn't invent it,did math came into existence at the moment of the big bang ( the big bang,btw was first proposed by a christian trying to reconcile science and faith)Was it inherent in the seed that exploded to become the sensible universe? Does it become more complex as the universe does?Is it emergent? If the math arose whole,then are the probabilities of the expanding universe predictable ?
David B. Member
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 | 09:12 AM
Okay, that's more philosophy than I want to attempt on an empty stomache (it's 5PM here and I've yet to have brunch).
David B. Member
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 | 09:46 AM
"If we didn't invent it,did math came into existence at the moment of the big bang ( the big bang,btw was first proposed by a christian trying to reconcile science and faith)Was it inherent in the seed that exploded to become the sensible universe? Does it become more complex as the universe does?Is it emergent? If the math arose whole,then are the probabilities of the expanding universe predictable ?"
You're referring to Georges Lemaitre, I believe, though I don't know that he was religiously motivated in his suggestion. The expansion of the universe had been observed and predicted before Lemaitre, though most scientists, when presented with the obvious conclusion that if we are a finite distance from neighboring galaxies and they are receding from us due to expansion, then at some point in the past they were either (a) not receding, or (b) intimately close to our own galaxy, plumped for (a) (if they accepted expansion at all).
As a philosophical aside, would we know if maths was becoming more intricate over time? If we consider that maths is based on set theory, but there are other topoi where set theory's 'axiom of choice' is invalid. If the universe were originally based on a mathematics without the AoC, but later gained it, could we ever know?
akabilk@internode.on.net
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 | 02:27 PM
Interestingly, the expansion of the universe and the big bang [and a few other bits of science] were referred to 1400yrs ago in the Muslim text the Koran:
21:30 (big bang and life from water)
See not those who disbelieve that the heavens and the earth were one piece, and that We clove them asunder; and made We of water, everything alive; will they not then believe?
Note* Use of 'we' in Koran translation means God 1st. person.
51:47 (Expansion of the universe)
And the heavens, We have built with power and We are expanding it.
51:49 [recent science, everything has a pair: neutron/positron etc]
And everything we have created in pairs so that ye may reflect.
Fonzie
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 | 10:00 PM
wait,,what?
Lebbell, what happened? You turned into an insane religious crack pot, but now your o.k? I dont want to get into this 'god' thing any more, I just really want to find out how you get from God personally telling you that you've won the big internet debate, and that he'll let you throw us all into the infernal pit, to - hey ho gang! Its me! The sage old agnostic! Didnt god say this was over? Im glad your ok now though.
akabilk@internode.on.net
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 | 10:34 PM
well I like science and I also have been studying Judea-Christian religions for 30 odd years. I do find it interesting when the 2 fields cross.
We should be clear that science [generally speaking] asks different questions than religion does and it's a bit absurd to use one to dispute the other [liberal rationalism of science questioning religion and vis-a-vis].
I'll tell you another thing that raises questions of existence and that's the $1 mil.
prize money put up here[?]
aka/lebbell
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 | 10:36 PM
I think there is more chance of God existing than the $1m
David B. Member
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 | 03:06 AM
I think the point was the $1million was unwinnable (from T&R's POV), so it didn't matter if it didn't exist.
Actually, Think & Reason now appears to be offering his soul as the grand prize for proving your personal god. I suppose on the grounds that anyone willing to take the challenge is pretty much guaranteed to believe his soul exists.
Or maybe he just spent the million dollars?
David B. Member
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 | 04:08 AM
"Interestingly, the expansion of the universe and the big bang [and a few other bits of science] were referred to 1400yrs ago in the Muslim text the Koran:"
Well, not really. That's just a shoehorned-in interpretation. Also, there are various translations of the Koran, but the only text considered authentic is the original Arabic.
The original arabic "Ves semae beneynaha bi eydiv ve inna le musiun. Vel erda feraşnaha fe nı'mel mahidun." is variously translated to English as:
"With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace. And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!"
"We built the heaven with might, and We widely extended it. And We cradled the earth. And We are the Best of Cradlers."
and
"We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!"
It's also pre-dated by the bible, Isaiah 42:5(KJV), "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein."
Interestingly, I remember reading an old article that argued that this passage predicted the 'steady-state' universe that was the current model at the time.
Similarly, 51:49 is often interpreted as referring to the two sexes as in "male and female he created them". Particle interpretations immediately run into difficulty with quarks, which come in 3 varieties. While particle/anti-particle interpretaions would appear to contradict the observation that there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe.
David B. Member
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 | 04:26 AM
"The original arabic "Ves semae beneynaha bi eydiv ve inna le musiun. Vel erda feraşnaha fe nı'mel mahidun." is variously translated to English as:"
Er, obviously that's not the original arabic, but a latinization of the text.
Interestingly, the latinization of the arabic for sperm is "nutfun"!
john
in ny
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 | 02:04 PM
PROOF GOD EXISTS
To the point.
You are half-God, half-human. A split
personality. A polarity. Two
states of being. God and human.
The God aspect of you
functions through the right
hemisphere of your brain, which
processes creativity (Gods create).
The human aspect of you
functions through the left
hemisphere of your brain, which
processes logic (Humans judge).
The God aspect of you, or
greater self, views your life from
a greater perspective that is
unlimited. (Visualize the view of
the Earth as seen by an astronaut
from the space shuttle orbiting
around the planet).
The human aspect of you
or lesser self, views your life from
a lesser perspective that is
limited. (Visualize the view of
the Earth, as seen by the
astronaut, upon departing the
space shuttle at ground level).
The perception of the
greater self is of a general nature.
The perception of the
lesser self is of a specific nature.
Both views are true and
valid, even though they may be
opposed and contradict each other.
A view of an object from
afar and up close may reveal
different features, but both are
correct from their vantage point.
Back to the point. The
greater self provides four
functions from its distant vantage
point:
The greater self's will
provided the impetus that placed
you in Earth life in the first place
(Thy will be done).
It sets up an agenda or life
plan, for the lesser self to enact.
The greater self also
provides protection and guidance
to carry out the plan.
Communication is by intuition
and telepathy. It regulates the
proper time for events to occur,
at the proper moment known as
Synchronicity, as it can see from
afar, events and time coming
together. Things do not happen
before their appointed time
(Destiny).
The greater self also
determines when the life journey
is through. The greater will has
precedence over the will of the
lesser self. It knows better.
The functions of the lesser
self, (the conscious ego) are to
follow and execute the will of the
greater self. The plan or its
reason for being here in the first
place. And to follow Its guidance.
It is the will of God that
places us here. We are here to
follow God's plan. God provides
protection and guidance. God
oversees the timing of events in
our lives. God removes us from
our existence here.
We are as much God as
we are human. God is not
different and separate from us.
We are God. We always have
been. As we always will be.
The relationship is like the
mother to the daughter and the
father to the son. A parent/child
relationship (Our Father who art
in Heaven).
The Time Line: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
If you notice the polarity
of time, (past, present, future),
we exist, at the balance point, or
midpoint in the present.
Mental Exercise:
Trace back through your
past and see if you can pick out
times when:
1. Guidance was provided.
2. Protection was provided.
3. Planning was recognized.
4.Timing of events was
recognized.
If you see these effects in
your life as real events, then you
can see the greater self or God
interacting in your life.
If these interactions took
place in the past, they will
continue to occur in your future.
This is faith based on proof, from
your past, extending into your
future. It is based on real events
and experiences.
The greater self will
continue to guide, protect, plan,
and time your experience after
this life runs its course.
You can acknowledge
that the greater self has interacted
with you since your first day on
Earth and is part of what you call
yourself, even if you were not
fully aware of Its presence in
your life 'til now.
A new faith for you,
based on proof, based on
understanding who you really are.
God and Human as One.
