God discovered by Science

[TagliatelliMonster]

So then that would be a significant difference between God and unicorns.

Why is that relevant?
Both are claimed entities for which no evidence exists. Or even can exist.

 

[ratiocinator]

Any thing that is not God was created that is when I established it according to the Bible

Why should we believe an old collection of myths?

ts only a person that can create so it's a who from what I established

Obviously false, lots of things exist that people haven't created.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are just irritated that I pointed out a significant distinction, and showed the holes in your logic.

There's nothing significant about this arbitrary distinction, as the context is that both have the exact same evidence going for them: none.

There's no holes in the logic here.
Both are unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, unverifiable, unsupportable claims.

You have yet to show otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But that's the thing. People DO intuit the divine.

I don't.
Most people I know don't.

Not that it matters.

People used to "intuit" the earth being flat also.
People used to "intuit" the earth being stationary and the sun orbitting it.

Intuition is not a pathway to truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, people intuit the divine. They do not intuit unicorns.

Then why is there a word for "unicorns"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any thing that is not God was created that is when I established it according to the Bible

Ha. So your statement was just an expression of religious belief.
In that case, it's not very intellectually honest of you to posit said statement as a factual truth-claim.

Since you asserted it without evidence, I'll just reject it without evidence in that case.

Its only a person that can create so it's a who from what I established

Who creates snowflakes?
Who creates the ice in my freezer?
Who creates H2O?

You should think things through.
Stuff is created by non-personal processes all the time.
Your statement is demonstrably wrong.

Not that you care, I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that's the thing. People DO intuit the divine.

Then why can't they intuit the unicorn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the point is that many people do intuit the existence of God.

I think that may be more cultural than you realize.

 

[HonestJoe]

You are just irritated that I pointed out a significant distinction, and showed the holes in your logic.

My point is that it isn't significant. There is a distinction between whatever abstract concepts people might intuit and how they develop those abstract concepts in to more concrete idea and images.

Whatever people might be picking up on, it is undeniable that the actual concrete concepts that have been developed on the basis of such perceptions, all around the world throughout history, vary extensively and so even if there is something out there that people are actually picking up on somehow, we have no idea which interpretation (if any) is an accurate representation of reality. For all we know, your decision to write "extra-dimensional unicorns" here was a sudden burst of intuition and you're closer to the truth than anyone else.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think that may be more cultural than you realize.

It may. Or it may be innate. Either way, many people will tell you that this is their experience.

 

[chinu]

If energy cannot be created or destroyed then there can be no mass (matter) because it is all energy in gods omnipotence.

You exist as mass therefore god cannot be omnipotent because some energy has been converted to mass

You know what. We people are like a Mario in the video game of this world

Yes, the coins, the mushrooms, the track, the enemies, the stages one after the another etc. sounds mass (Matter) to that Mario, But, at the back its just a Software(Program) designed by a software developer

 

[ChristineM]

You know what. We people are like a Mario in the video game of this world

Yes, the coins, the mushrooms, the track, the enemies, the stages one after the another etc. sounds mass (Matter) to that Mario, But, at the back its just a Software(Program) designed by a software developer

 

[Sophiaa]

Ha. So your statement was just an expression of religious belief.
In that case, it's not very intellectually honest of you to posit said statement as a factual truth-claim.

Since you asserted it without evidence, I'll just reject it without evidence in that case.



Who creates snowflakes?
Who creates the ice in my freezer?
Who creates H2O?

You should think things through.
Stuff is created by non-personal processes all the time.
Your statement is demonstrably wrong.

Not that you care, I think.

You should not base your evidence on who created snow flake rather ask who created what created the snow flake
And its man, man made the fridge

So no whenever you see some things that come from non personal processes what you should ask as a thinker is what then created or manufactured the non personal process which we all know is man

Now when it comes to things that exist before man then we can absolutely Say God created it

 

[Sophiaa]

Just what springs immediately to mind: being an entirely physical property of things in the universe, only really 'existing' because of the unchanging laws of physics, not being able to think, plan, create the universe, be incarnated as a human, be morally good, or omnipotent.

Frankly, you might as well try to identify god with momentum.

But you can see I said God is many things and I actually meant energy has one type of characteristics of God

Thats what am trying to say

Now all the things energy has, does God have them?

 

[ChristineM]

Now all the things energy has, does God have them?

Dunno, have you asked him/her/it?

 

[ratiocinator]

Now when it comes to things that exist before man then we can absolutely Say God created it

You can say pretty much anything. Saying it, doesn't make it so. What you're lacking here is evidence and/or sound reasoning.

But you can see I said God is many things and I actually meant energy has one type of characteristics of God

Like what? You stated with the "energy can't be created or destroyed" version of the first law (which I assume you're comparing with god) but energy conservation depends on the universe, so no universe, no energy. It also depends on physical laws being constant, and, as I quoted before (#117), it's unclear whether we can even apply it to the whole physical universe.

Now all the things energy has, does God have them?

I see no reason to think so.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why do you think there must be a 'who' involved? Why is a 'power' necessary?

Maybe things simply have properties, which means they interact in some ways and not in others. The ways they interact are the laws of physics.

No conductor required.

Have you ever read the Upanishads?

You might find the self realising cosmos described in The Shvetashvatara Upanishad interesting. As with all ancient scripture, you don’t have to take it literally.

 

[Polymath257]

Have you ever read the Upanishads?

You might find the self realising cosmos described in The Shvetashvatara Upanishad interesting. As with all ancient scripture, you don’t have to take it literally.

Thanks for the recommendation.

In a sense, the universe is self-aware since *we* are part of the universe and are aware of it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thanks for the recommendation.

In a sense, the universe is self-aware since *we* are part of the universe and are aware of it.

Which brings to mind a line from Percy Shelley’s Song of Apollo;

“I am the eye with which the Universe
Beholds itself, and knows itself divine.”

As Shelley was expelled from Oxford for publishing a pamphlet on atheism, the use of the word divine is also open to interpretation.

 

[setarcos]

So you think the universe is an open system? I guess you best let the physicists and cosmologists at cern and the perimeter institute. I see a nobel prize for your insight.

BTW. There ain't no such thing as a free ride, over time cars and tv succumb to entopy just like everything else

That is not what I said. I believe the universe is probably a closed system with a tendency towards a net increase in entropy. Reread the post.
A closed system can have within itself open systems which are encompassed by it. Any open system which decreases the entropy within it must create this decrease by increasing the entropy in some other system. For example...we increase the entropy in the universe by processing the materials needed to decrease the entropy in a useful device such as a TV. Cars and TV's succumb to an increase in their entropy eventually rendering them unable to function as intended only in so much as they are relegated to the trash heap in a closed system. In an open system repairs can be made to keep the items functionable as intended by keeping their entropy low.
Your sarcasm is premature and unbecoming of an impartial thinker. No such thing as a free ride? Better tell that to the scientists such as hawking who've bent over backwards to try and explain the "free ride" of a creation seemingly out of nothing.