What would convince me that God exists

[Pepin]

I have been thinking for quite some time about would convince me of a god's existence. It is a difficult question to answer as it is difficult to come up with anything that would convince me.

 

For instance, even when I was "religious" and "believed" in a god, I had a vivid experience which seem intended to convince me that god was speaking to me. This is similar to how you just kind of know things in dreams, like it was sort of self evident that it was god and that he was communicating with me.

 

I ignored it with the presumption that I was overtired. I can imagine anyone having such an experience, even strong atheists, being convinced by it.

 

The fact that I for whatever reason could just shrug off a religious experience likely indicates that no experience could convince me, as I could always interpret it as a hallucination, or aliens, and so on. Of course I ought to be more tentative, as there may be some sort of experience that would push me in a certain direction, such as thousands of walruses break dancing to the beat of hissing snakes, but I really doubt that there is anything that could put me out of my atheism...

 

Yet recently I came up with an idea which proves this wrong. It is one in which would certainly convince me of the existence of god, and I would not just see it as a crazed hallucination.

 

You see, if god is all powerful, and we accept that there is nothing conceivable that could convince me of god's existence, then god could convince me of his own existence through his power and override any sort of doubt of insanity by arranging certain parts of my brain and leaving the rest intact.

 

Yes, this sounds really dumb, but it is true, not just because god forced me to believe in him, but because I would take the sign of change in belief as a proof for god.

 

Now of course it isn't an actual proof for god as it could be aliens, a bump on the head, or some strange experiment gone wrong, yet it doesn't exactly matter because I am already convinced. It might be true that in objective reality, there is no proof for god, but god's indoctrination of myself would be good enough proof for me.

 

For anyone who doesn't speak english normally, I am not exactly being serious in this thread, though I do think it is a proper answer to the question "what would convince you that god exists?". Seriously, brainwashing seems to be the only answer.

[Lars]

A definition where the concept is not self-contradictory would be a good start.

[NotDarkYet]

How WOULD a square convince you it was a circle?

[dsayers]

How do I know this couch exists? Because it can be measured (validated) independent of my own consciousness.

[Libertus]

If there was a god, and he wanted you to believe in him, and he was almighty... he could just upload that belief into your brain. He wouldn't even have to snip his fingers. Just like that, bam, you're a believer.

[MrCapitalism]

I've been thinking about how much of our world would be considered magic and superstitious to the people of ancient Greece/ Rome. How would I convince Socrates that electricity exists? I would think the foundational idea would be making a prediction which would rely on the existence of electricity. If my prediction came true, they may claim it being the work of the gods, or something else. I would have to repeat my demonstration multiple times and in probably different ways, preferably showing an ability to use electricity on command.

 

How would you convince them that sickness was caused by bacteria and virus's? That's an idea that we take for granted and yet about 99% of use have never seen a disease causing bacteria or virus. But we know it's true, with a certainty that if any deity could match it would cease to be spiritual and take it's place in the world of scientific fact.

[Ansedar]

God exist because human created it, to explain how life is possible, and then God created humans... (I know! It makes no sense, hope you get the idea.)

 

I don't think I can make you believe in God, but it's easy to actually know why some individuals have strong believe in "magic": simply they don't have the ability to create values for themselves and usually rely on other's words, and the more people have the same opinions the more is difficult to change the mind of those peoples, this explains why is difficult for religious communities to accept the non existence of God and why an irrational idea is appreciated among a community.

Read here for a description of such people's personality (scroll down) -> http://www.typefinder.com/personality-type/esfj

If you read the description of an INTP it would be a lot different (I'm an INTP by the way).

 

If you learned to be skeptical, and you are able to some critical thinking and stuff... you will never think God as an existing entity.

I used to believe in God as an idea or concept, not actually something that affects the real world. 

 

P.S.: For grammar errors please forgive me, I'm still learning the 3rd language I know (English).

[tasmlab]

I think Libertus' answer is probably the easiest, but the Dude could also fly down on his chariot and show Himself.  Turn some water into wine and get the party started.

[luxfelix]

Without empirical evidence, the following may fall into the same "god of the gap" problem that was touched on in the recent Determinism vs. Free Will video (

):

 

That there is no separate deity except what one discovers of the sublime and claims to be distinct from nature; the supernatural has always been natural, and receives such designation when insight meets experience.

 

That, though mirage in concept, claims of superior divinity distract from the genuine source of soothsayer magic... will (be it, even in the beginning, betwixt binary options).

 

That, as through the sundering of Science, the logos; through the gestalt of Art, the pathos; and through the synergy of Philosophy, the ethos; we find truth in the trinity: the father, the mother, and the child (to be parented peacefully).

 

That this resulting triquetra reveals, at its center, what is known to be known; within the three mandorla is found the insular knowledge of the respective fields; at its edges and cusps is where we reach twilight of unanswered questions (whether they be between adjacent Vesica Pisces or amidst the contemporary contour); beyond lies the realm of unknown unknowns.

 

That one, through will, engages in the economy of various capital archetypes; the resulting mutual responsibilities, specialized proficiencies, and wealth serves each individual and, in turn, develops the invisible hand of the market; when powers attributed to god are atomized, amalgamated, and transmuted anew into each individual; then we have a living god (now misnomer) that gazes back upon us from each mirror, from the fruits of works and experiences, and likewise from the eyes of those we love.

[J. D. Stembal]

That there is no separate deity except what one discovers of the sublime and claims to be distinct from nature; the supernatural has always been natural, and receives such designation when insight meets experience.

 

That, though mirage in concept, claims of superior divinity distract from the genuine source of soothsayer magic... will (be it, even in the beginning, betwixt binary options).

 

That, as through the sundering of Science, the logos; through the gestalt of Art, the pathos; and through the synergy of Philosophy, the ethos; we find truth in the trinity: the father, the mother, and the child (to be parented peacefully).

 

That this resulting triquetra reveals, at its center, what is known to be known; within the three mandorla is found the insular knowledge of the respective fields; at its edges and cusps is where we reach twilight of unanswered questions (whether they be between adjacent Vesica Pisces or amidst the contemporary contour); beyond lies the realm of unknown unknowns.

 

That one, through will, engages in the economy of various capital archetypes; the resulting mutual responsibilities, specialized proficiencies, and wealth serves each individual and, in turn, develops the invisible hand of the market; when powers attributed to god are atomized, amalgamated, and transmuted anew into each individual; then we have a living god (now misnomer) that gazes back upon us from each mirror, from the fruits of works and experiences, and likewise from the eyes of those we love.

 

I do believe the myelin sheath on my neurons is melting. Did you just say that god is a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment? It's setting my sophist alarm bells off right now, but otherwise I find what you wrote truly poetic. We will have to break this one down later when I have some sleep behind me.

 

To Pepin, here's a little outline I posted in the Tom Woods thread that may be of some use here.

 

 

 

The biblical definition of "God" cannot not logically exist because the very definition is self-detonating in every respect. God is described as a consciousness that is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, and ethereal.

 

1. The universe is made up of matter, which has mass and volume, so God cannot be ethereal if we are to prove that he exists empirically. He can never be detected.
2. If God existed before the universe began (LET THERE BE STUFF!), he cannot be part of the universe, by definition. He existed before anything could possibly exist. See point one.
3. Putting point one and two aside, if we assume God really does exist in the universe with all the stuff, we have to deal with the paradox of omnipotence. Can an all-powerful deity create an impossible task, like creating a mountain that he cannot erode? If so, then he's not really omnipotent. If not, then again, he's not infinitely powerful.
4. Omniscience, or all-knowing, is also a self-detonating concept and cannot be applied to any consciousness. For example, if God knew everything, he would also be aware of ignorance. To be aware of ignorance, you have to admit there are limits to your knowledge. Therefore, God cannot know everything and is not omniscient.

In summary, if you can't apply logic, physics, or any rational definition to God, he is synonymous with non-existence. Therefore, no one can ever objectively prove God exists. No possibility of God is the default position.

[King David]

I hadn't read all the ideas here, however I might offer this little tid bit. 97 % of the energy bound up in the universe is dark, Another 3 % of energy is dark matter. I think that leaves around .01% of the rest of everything is that which we know see, and measure.  Which  I might add in that 0.01% we cannot even see everything because it is still travelling here from the other side of the universe.   We just assume its there. 

 

Okay, so that is by no means a proof of God, however the point is that you should staggering back going "how can there possibly be so much stuff?". At the very least you have to consider that if there were a God, then what the hell does he have to bother uploading your consciousness with faith, or anything else for that matter?

 

I hadn't watched the determinism video either, because the way I look at it is that life has an ulterior from what we experience.  It doesn't matter what you do in life, your mark and impression is made. Life succeeding is what is deterministic, there is no way to stop it from occurring. Life is tenacious, it is brilliant, it is economical, it is diverse, an unstoppable force.  Life is working against entropy, the things that observably work against entropy overwhelmingly are designed implements.  Therefore life is for all intents and purpose a designed implement (pun intended).  You  fulfill the role which you are designed to do whether you accept it or not, you cannot erase the energy exchanges that you have influence on.  They have been frozen in time and will continue to influence how future energy exchanges are going to occur.  These are facts.

 

I would add to this some wisdom from the great Paul Stemets.  Whether you live, breath, shit, or die,you will be invariably feeding and moving fungi.  Fungi have been having sex longer than your mother (sorry I wouldn't resist).  1.3 billion years activity on planet earth in a measured capacity, all for the creation of a little thing called top soil.  99% of biomass on planet earth happens to occur within the top 6" of soil or muck covering rocks and minerals.  Every atom in your body was once part of a mycelial network.  Fungi and virus observably mess with dna, they lichen,and they do other absolutely marvelous things we cannot begin to comprehend since before our time, and will continue long after our time. The universe has more tricks in it than we will ever know, yet we think we can stamp our feet and claim empirically we have disproved gods existence.  I don't see it.

[shirgall]

The appellation "dark" simply means we do not understand it yet. Dark energy (and dark matter) are terms applied to energy required to drive the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. This is one of those mysteries they continue to chase down, similar to the questions of why there is more matter than antimatter in our local star cluster.

 

As you said, there is a staggering amount of things we don't know. Check out this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

 

As you point out, unanswered questions are not proof of god, only proof that we don't completely know how things work.

[J. D. Stembal]

I hadn't read all the ideas here, however I might offer this little tid bit. 97 % of the energy bound up in the universe is dark, Another 3 % of energy is dark matter. I think that leaves around .01% of the rest of everything is that which we know see, and measure.  Which  I might add in that 0.01% we cannot even see everything because it is still travelling here from the other side of the universe.   We just assume its there. 

 

Okay, so that is by no means a proof of God, however the point is that you should staggering back going "how can there possibly be so much stuff?". At the very least you have to consider that if there were a God, then what the hell does he have to bother uploading your consciousness with faith, or anything else for that matter?

 

I hadn't watched the determinism video either, because the way I look at it is that life has an ulterior from what we experience.  It doesn't matter what you do in life, your mark and impression is made. Life succeeding is what is deterministic, there is no way to stop it from occurring. Life is tenacious, it is brilliant, it is economical, it is diverse, an unstoppable force.  Life is working against entropy, the things that observably work against entropy overwhelmingly are designed implements.  Therefore life is for all intents and purpose a designed implement (pun intended).  You  fulfill the role which you are designed to do whether you accept it or not, you cannot erase the energy exchanges that you have influence on.  They have been frozen in time and will continue to influence how future energy exchanges are going to occur.  These are facts.

 

I would add to this some wisdom from the great Paul Stemets.  Whether you live, breath, shit, or die,you will be invariably feeding and moving fungi.  Fungi have been having sex longer than your mother (sorry I wouldn't resist).  1.3 billion years activity on planet earth in a measured capacity, all for the creation of a little thing called top soil.  99% of biomass on planet earth happens to occur within the top 6" of soil or muck covering rocks and minerals.  Every atom in your body was once part of a mycelial network.  Fungi and virus observably mess with dna, they lichen,and they do other absolutely marvelous things we cannot begin to comprehend since before our time, and will continue long after our time. The universe has more tricks in it than we will ever know, yet we think we can stamp our feet and claim empirically we have disproved gods existence.  I don't see it.

 

None of your statements are facts. If an asteroid collided with the planet, or a global nuclear catastrophe occurred, most, if not all, life would end. Remember the dinosaurs?

 

If you talk about the wonderment of nature and the universe, and use it to invoke the existence of God, the ultimate unknowable, people stop seeking the truth. That is the danger. We already know that, logically, no god can possibly exist. This is akin why the government is so dangerous to human progress. The more institutions that are controlled by the power of the state, the more people believe that without the government, these wonderful institutions would not exist,never mind that most of them are destructive and costly and confer no benefits whatsoever.

 

When people like yourself muse over unanswered questions about dark matter or fungi, why is there a tendency to speculate in the supernatural? Don't you want to look for the real answers?

[King David]

None of your statements are facts. If an asteroid collided with the planet, or a global nuclear catastrophe occurred, most, if not all, life would end. Remember the dinosaurs?

 

If you talk about the wonderment of nature and the universe, and use it to invoke the existence of God, the ultimate unknowable, people stop seeking the truth. That is the danger. We already know that, logically, no god can possibly exist. This is akin why the government is so dangerous to human progress. The more institutions that are controlled by the power of the state, the more people believe that without the government, these wonderful institutions would not exist,never mind that most of them are destructive and costly and confer no benefits whatsoever.

 

When people like yourself muse over unanswered questions about dark matter or fungi, why is there a tendency to speculate in the supernatural? Don't you want to look for the real answers?

Fact # 1:

 

Life has been spawned out of celestial events of magnitudes far greater than that of solar fusion.

 

Fact# 2:

 

Life on earth has survived epic catastrophe innumerable times and still maintains a similar disposition.  The ediacaran fauna being the only exception.  You know circa 500 000 000 years ago.

 

Fact # 3:

 

The resulting impact from your actions will affect the future course of events on precisely how entropy will increase. A non-trivial solution with respect to time.

 

This is not wunderlust.  No one touched on how that life seems to slow the increase of entropy, just like the majority of our highly specialized and designed engineering processes (fact # 4 if your're counting).    Fungi is interesting to me because 1: it is entirely pervasive, 2: it seems to be linked to your basic instincts and therefore affects your consciousness.  If it and virus are linked to your consciousness then you can play with a little Descartes and see how that goes for you.  This is new to science and the evidence to suggest this is case is growing.

 

I can tell you from experience that during my religious rituals I have come to filter out immensely powerful carbohydrate craving (fungi jet fuel), as well as sexual desire and anxiety. I have conquered it on my own skin.  It can build a ruthless network comprising your skin and guts, leading to the grandmother of all illness in immune system disorder.  Heck, the poster child of western medicine (antibiotics) is derived from fungi.  Speculate? I dare say "why the hell not".

[J. D. Stembal]

I am confused now. I'm looking yes/no answers. Did the universe and life begin at the behest of a divine consciousness? Does entropy empirically prove determinism and disprove free will?

 

I am a big fan of eating mushrooms myself, but I don't eat them often due to the high cost relative to caloric value. I can understand why they wouldn't affect your insulin levels as they effectively have no glycemic index value despite being mostly carbohydrate. In my personal experience, much of carbohydrate craving is simply a physiological addiction to wheat. There is a chemical byproduct of digesting wheat stimulates the opioid receptors in the brain. This bears out empirically. No one spazzes out over a carrot or a head of lettuce, but if you put a doughnut in front of someone... oh, dear. This is why grocery stores often have the bakery in close proximity to the entrance. Simply the sight or smell of freshly baked bread or pastries sets people's cravings off. For a very long time, I had to run past the bakery to get to the meat coolers in order to not think about breads and cakes.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about sexual desire and anxiety. Does eating fungus limit sexual desire? What use is this effect? I could see that lowering anxiety could be beneficial, but it's probably more productive to discover the cause.

[King David]

I am confused now. I'm looking yes/no answers. Did the universe and life begin at the behest of a divine consciousness? Does entropy empirically prove determinism and disprove free will?

 

I am a big fan of eating mushrooms myself, but I don't eat them often due to the high cost relative to caloric value. I can understand why they wouldn't affect your insulin levels as they effectively have no glycemic index value despite being mostly carbohydrate. In my personal experience, much of carbohydrate craving is simply a physiological addiction to wheat. There is a chemical byproduct of digesting wheat stimulates the opioid receptors in the brain. This bears out empirically. No one spazzes out over a carrot or a head of lettuce, but if you put a doughnut in front of someone... oh, dear. This is why grocery stores often have the bakery in close proximity to the entrance. Simply the sight or smell of freshly baked bread or pastries sets people's cravings off. For a very long time, I had to run past the bakery to get to the meat coolers in order to not think about breads and cakes.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about sexual desire and anxiety. Does eating fungus limit sexual desire? What use is this effect? I could see that lowering anxiety could be beneficial, but it's probably more productive to discover the cause.

 

Did the universe and life begin at the behest of a divine consciousness?

 

Who the hell knows? it appears the universe is well structured, and given time and encouragement rewards intelligence.  That which it is most likely came from something that embodied that characteristic, so I say yes. The probability that a structured system that consistently rewards organization resulted from a few random molecules of deuteron in a vast sea of hydrogen plasma during the big bang is not good.

 

 

What I am referring to as "intelligent" is primarily bifurcating structures.  Bifurcation is sublime and effective, the universe rewards such organization.  Electricity does it, gravity fed streams do it, your brain neurons do it, cardiovascular, pulmonary systems, caul fat, plant, and fungi all do it.  It is peculiar, it looks the same regardless of scale.   It has the ability to work more sophisticated systems into an already valid and necessary raison d'etre. Considering that fungi inhabited the planet a good while before any thing else had this structure and that many vital plant and animal systems share it suggest they all began with fungi in common.  I bet that is why they first incorrectly categorized fungi as a plant, because the plant looks so much like it.  Truth is that fungi's metabolism resembles that of mammals most closely than anything else, which I might add were actually proliferating the land prior to reptiles and dinosaurs had their reigns.  

 

I am not talking about eating fungi (although they are good for you), I am talking about the physiological addiction to carbs that we experience being determined by candida albicans populating your gut.  Albeit, this is a modern agricultural phenomenon to be so dependent on them, it sure seems to play well to our fungi's  Modus Operandi.

 

As Stemets points out, fungi love calamity.  No matter how we behave, we are doing fungi a great service.  In fact, the worse we behave the more they are benefactors from our activity. Nothing has,or could spread fungi and the food stuffs of fungi around the planet better than humans.  We win, they win.  We loose, they win.

 

What I mean about sexual desire and anxiety relating to fungi is that I suggest they are puppet masters of many of our instincts, and as such they are benefiting by encouraging sexual desire, addiction, fear, and all the other lovely things we do as evolutionary masterpieces.  And they do this always to further their own assured proliferation.  Considering our success at this venture, it is hard to imagine this being anything but the case.

[luxfelix]

I do believe the myelin sheath on my neurons is melting. Did you just say that god is a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment? It's setting my sophist alarm bells off right now, but otherwise I find what you wrote truly poetic. We will have to break this one down later when I have some sleep behind me.

 

Thank you. 

 

It's funny that you mention sleep, because the five stanzas were a result of automatic-ish writing (more akin to dream journaling actually). God as a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment sounds like a fair interpretation (I'll come back to this). I included the stanzas as a response to the original post, that what might convince one of god's existence would be a redefining (I can see how that would also set off a sophist alarm bell).

 

(The other questions might be, "is that even necessary? Is there anything from the pantheon of history worth keeping or studying?")

 

(Regarding redefinition, that there is no square circle, but we could make a square shape by lining up multiple circles might fall under the "moving the goal post" problem in an attempt to prove its possibility based on one's perspective... it's poor execution... we can do better...   )

 

The five stanzas are structured in a way that redefines god multiple times (which is likely unhelpful...) while focusing on numerical perspective:

 

(1) That the supernatural (god) is natural (phenomena i.e. Zeus's lightening) = they are one (everything is made from the same stuff/energy?) = 1/1 = cancelling out = no distinction necessary = "god" is then a misnomer for the unknown.

 

(2) Further elaborating that the split (designating something like a god that is exempt and/or separate from the world) is an illusion (mirage) that serves the conquerors (supported by sophists) whose will it is to divide and conqueror = us vs. them (or self-attack...) = 1/2, however =/= 2/1 as "bad" (male/female, night/day, etc.), just that the separate designation of an arbitrary exception with regards to universal claims is self-detonating (i.e. sending someone a letter describing how letters never get delivered...).

 

(3) Introducing a triptych perspective of viewing "god", as defined through Science/conscious (god as algorithm), Art/subconscious (god as awe), and Philosophy/collective conscious(?) (god as misnomer) = 3/3 = Red, Green, and Blue light mixing to form white light = all three needed for an accurate and complete definition of god.

 

(4) Using a three-ringed Venn diagram to describe stages of knowledge (for both individuals and society at large?) from what can be labeled "true" from all three (logos, pathos, and ethos), what can only be labeled "true" from one or two of the three, what can only be labeled "true" by one of the three, and what can not be labeled "true"/is unknown to any of the three = 4/4 = "enlightenment leads to benightedness, science entails nescience" -Philippe Verdoux = god as the unknown -or- god as man's quest to know = there is no direction on the diagram that one could go to "reach god" (the unknown) but through an expansion of the center section via expansion in the field(s) of your choosing (mixing what you discover with the discoveries of others to form more and more "white light").

 

(5) Continuing with an explanation of how that expansion can take place through exchanges within a free market = god as a manifestation of man's desire for self-fulfillment (I like the way you summed it up by the way!) = the invisible hand of the market = 5/5 (as in five fingers and also possibly for capital archetypes...?) = the will (god as will?) prerequisite to trade freely = increasing levels of complexity and entropy(?).

 

... I hope this was a helpful unpacking (I know it's long...). 

[King David]

(1) That the supernatural (god) is natural (phenomena i.e. Zeus's lightening) = they are one (everything is made from the same stuff/energy?) = 1/1 = cancelling out = no distinction necessary = "god" is then a misnomer for the unknown.

 

1/1 = 1

 

What you are talking about I think is electricity.  Yes, the electron is not"knowable".  However, there does seem to be a disproportionate capacity of recoverable energy bound up in that stubborn little sun of a bitch.  I mean, quantitatively (I know you guys like that word) the proton carries almost 100% of atomic mass, unfortunately it only carries only a measly of 1+ electromagnetic quanta for all of its bravado.  The almighty electron on the other hand, well is has no mass, tiny wavelength, temperamental disposition but all of the power.  Goddamn, you ever seen a 80 tonne panzer 5 roll up on your position powered by nothing more than than a diesel electric motor(me neither but it sounds scary)?  Hey! said electron carries some ballast in the atomic scale doesn't it?

 

lux felix, I do not know if  this was a reference to my comments but I hope you are not trying to straw man my arguments to a "this is what we do not know about the universe" deity, that is not what I am going for.   I didn't even begin you read #  4&5 points.

 

Do you see me standing on an ivory tower commanding doctrine to my local fiefdom to the benefit of my local monopoly? I have nothing to gain or loose  going against the grain, this is my intellectual pursuit of reality.  My spirit for integrity is as fierce as you will ever encounter, admittedly I am that to a fault.

 

All I can say is this: if your measured margins for errors are overwhelming your counter forces(ie gravity vs electro-magnetism), then who gives a shit about the counter forces (strong nuclear forces)? F your devil is in the details and look at the big picture.   What are the predominant process?  What is the end product of the predominant process?  Can I relate to the energy balance before process? can I relate to the energy balance after process?  How do any of these relationships relate to me and what does it mean?   These are the question that science is phenomenal at revealing but are never truly addressed.  "Oh, we need funding to figure our new quark flavor out! that will fix quantum" is the mantra.  

 

Feel free to explore my content to unearth my appreciation for academic integrity.  Funny enough that seems to me to be what the whole of the modern human world (of which I have no claims to be a part of) seems to be entirely void of.

[luxfelix]

(1) That the supernatural (god) is natural (phenomena i.e. Zeus's lightening) = they are one (everything is made from the same stuff/energy?) = 1/1 = cancelling out = no distinction necessary = "god" is then a misnomer for the unknown.

 

1/1 = 1

 

What you are talking about I think is electricity.  Yes, the electron is not"knowable".  However, there does seem to be a disproportionate capacity of recoverable energy bound up in that stubborn little sun of a bitch.  I mean, quantitatively (I know you guys like that word) the proton carries almost 100% of atomic mass, unfortunately it only carries only a measly of 1+ electromagnetic quanta for all of its bravado.  The almighty electron on the other hand, well is has no mass, tiny wavelength, temperamental disposition but all of the power.  Goddamn, you ever seen a 80 tonne panzer 5 roll up on your position powered by nothing more than than a diesel electric motor(me neither but it sounds scary)?  Hey! said electron carries some ballast in the atomic scale doesn't it?

 

lux felix, I do not know if  this was a reference to my comments but I hope you are not trying to straw man my arguments to a "this is what we do not know about the universe" deity, that is not what I am going for.   I didn't even begin you read #  4&5 points.

 

Do you see me standing on an ivory tower commanding doctrine to my local fiefdom to the benefit of my local monopoly? I have nothing to gain or loose  going against the grain, this is my intellectual pursuit of reality.  My spirit for integrity is as fierce as you will ever encounter, admittedly I am that to a fault.

 

All I can say is this: if your measured margins for errors are overwhelming your counter forces(ie gravity vs electro-magnetism), then who gives a shit about the counter forces (strong nuclear forces)? F your devil is in the details and look at the big picture.   What are the predominant process?  What is the end product of the predominant process?  Can I relate to the energy balance before process? can I relate to the energy balance after process?  How do any of these relationships relate to me and what does it mean?   These are the question that science is phenomenal at revealing but are never truly addressed.  "Oh, we need funding to figure our new quark flavor out! that will fix quantum" is the mantra.  

 

Feel free to explore my content to unearth my appreciation for academic integrity.  Funny enough that seems to me to be what the whole of the modern human world (of which I have no claims to be a part of) seems to be entirely void of.

 

I think it's just a misunderstanding; That post was in response to EndTheUsurpation as an attempt to translate a series of poetic stanzas (appeals to the senses) into philosophical terms and to see if it is still of value there as well, or if it only serves as flowery language (like if it's an accurate model of a Hydrogen atom or something painted in visually appealing paints and brushstrokes  ).

 

If it does hold up well in both languages (or is at least able to be adjusted into an accurate model that is of value and interest), then I would attempt to then translate it into scientific terms; Anything that does not fit with all three languages simultaneously would then be removed from that center section of "white light" to streamline/refine an answer to the original post of this thread.

 

The criticisms are generally self-directed since I'm learning to improve my philosophical and scientific language skills, and since I find it easiest to communicate through an artistic perspective that, on its own, is at best incomplete, and at worst is sophistry.

[Livemike]

One time when I was roleplaying I announced that I wouldn't worship anything built on less than 4,000 points in that system.  From memory a power adventurer character could be built on 350.  Another player pointed out that it would be really hard to distinguish a 1,500 point "god" from a 4,000 point one.  Once they get so far ahead they seem all-powerful.  So how would you tell a real God from someone who just had some powerful abilities, like a high-tech alien?  There is no real way to distinguish between these two possibilities.  So basically anything as powerful as God is un-confirmable and un-falsifiable.  Which means that God expecting us to know what he is and distinguish him from "false gods" is absurd. 

[tasmlab]

 

As you said, there is a staggering amount of things we don't know. Check out this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

 

 

 

That's a neat page!

[shirgall]

That's a neat page!

 

If you like that one, you'll also like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_computer_science

[Josh F]

For me, personally, even if God himself came to earth and proved beyond a reasonable doubt his existence, I still wouldn't worship the entity.  

[yagami]

For me, personally, even if God himself came to earth and proved beyond a reasonable doubt his existence, I still wouldn't worship the entity.  

If God came down to earth I would worship him. But not because he deserves it but because eternity in hell is a long time and I would much rather go to heaven.

[Josh F]

Oh if Hell was true too I'd be screwed, cause he'd see right through my pretending to worship him to avoid hell thing.   hahaha

[shirgall]

If God came down to earth I would worship him. But not because he deserves it but because eternity in hell is a long time and I would much rather go to heaven.

 

I have a problem with this. If a particular God appeared now, after all this time, he's kinda admitting to being a liar. Why would he let billions of people have alternative beliefs when it would be so easy to correct them? Why is it necessary heaven real just because God exists? After all, it could be part of his plan that I be an example for the others, but once my utility is complete, why does he need to reward me? What's in it for him? Then there's the billions of pieces of evidence that the cognitively dissonant claim are "tests of faith" rather than counterexamples to millennia-old narratives. Would he admit that all these monarchies are really in his name or would he strike them down as apostates? What on Earth would appear on the front of Canadian money, then?

 

God appearing and settling one question creates more problems than it solves.

[yagami]

I have a problem with this. If a particular God appeared now, after all this time, he's kinda admitting to being a liar. Why would he let billions of people have alternative beliefs when it would be so easy to correct them? Why is it necessary heaven real just because God exists? After all, it could be part of his plan that I be an example for the others, but once my utility is complete, why does he need to reward me? What's in it for him? Then there's the billions of pieces of evidence that the cognitively dissonant claim are "tests of faith" rather than counterexamples to millennia-old narratives. Would he admit that all these monarchies are really in his name or would he strike them down as apostates? What on Earth would appear on the front of Canadian money, then?

 

God appearing and settling one question creates more problems than it solves.

The answer to your question is assumed in the prospect of God appearing. If a particular God appeared then it would be that God along with all the aspects of that God. So if the christian God appeared we would have to assume that he be trustworthy since the christian God is trustworthy. If he were not then he would not be the "particular God" in question.

[shirgall]

The answer to your question is assumed in the prospect of God appearing. If a particular God appeared then it would be that God along with all the aspects of that God. So if the christian God appeared we would have to assume that he be trustworthy since the christian God is trustworthy. If he were not then he would not be the "particular God" in question.

 

If you feel the Christian God is trustworthy, you may have read a different translation of the Bible than I did... especially since he is omnipotent so all translations of the Bible, which are supposedly his literal word, would be exactly equivalent to prevent misunderstandings of the laws you are supposed to follow.

 

1 Corinthians 14:34

 

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/14-34.htm

[yagami]

Well I dont really want to get into a debate about the characteristics of a something that isn't real. Even if God wasn't trust worthy but existed I would still worship him in pursuit of heaven. The degree of his trustworthiness is up in the air I think but I wouldn't want to risk eternal damnation as it is eternal after all.

[shirgall]

Well I dont really want to get into a debate about the characteristics of a something that isn't real. Even if God wasn't trust worthy but existed I would still worship him in pursuit of heaven. The degree of his trustworthiness is up in the air I think but I wouldn't want to risk eternal damnation as it is eternal after all.

 

I admit that if a particular God made his presence known it would change the calculation of Pascal's wager... but if all gods were real, Pascal's wager fails, just as if all God's did not show themselves (the current case).

[luxfelix]

I now know about Pascal's Wager: 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

[shirgall]

I now know about Pascal's Wager: 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

 

Right on! I should have explained what I meant, I admit.

 

My criticism of Pascal's Wager has always been that it doesn't help us choose which religion to choose. It's not the simple matrix that the wikipedia article shows, but rather a system of equations representing a myriad of incompatible religious beliefs, even if you limit the case to just Christianity. Heck, you could limit it to just Christianity and limit it further to which of the seven sacraments you believe in and still get seven equations that must be solved simultaneously to get that infinite reward and avoid that infinite punishment.