StreetScooby 5 #51 January 12, 2012 Quote No I am arguing against any supernatural entity of any kind. So, superman doesn't exist? No argument there. Anytime some new measurement is made, someone has to come up with a new word for it. How hard is it to get a new word into common use? Unbelievably difficult. I'm not going to bother arguing with you that your definition of "God" doesn't exist. Personally, I think you're right. The weakness in your argument is that others don't define "God" as you're defining it.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #52 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhile Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them. And yet, you claim that lack of evidence of the existence of a Deity is perfect evidence that said Deity doesn't exist....sorry, can't have it both ways. cough cough...stand back bitches and watch this. Ok smarty pants, please develop a quantifiable system of tests and measures where by one can quantify the existence of god or unicorns. Please have your results published for peer review.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #53 January 12, 2012 Quote Would that religion would do the same. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240222.php Funny how these 'corrections' come after all the grant money is spent.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #54 January 12, 2012 >I see where you're going, but it's a silly argument, IMO. Can you think of an experiment that would prove the existence of God? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #55 January 12, 2012 Quote There has also been an enormous amount of bad done by people with the same beliefs. Claiming to have said beliefs and actually practicing them are two very different things. I'm only referring to those that practice that core set of principals identified by various cultures across the planet.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #56 January 12, 2012 Quote Can you think of an experiment that would prove the existence of God? I think the first step here would be to reach some reasonable definition of "God".We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #57 January 12, 2012 >I think the first step here would be to reach some reasonable definition of "God". OK. What's your definition? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #58 January 12, 2012 QuoteNo one has yet to provide evidence of any deity. So whether you like it or not faith in any deity is with out evidence. That is the definition of faith. If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. Zero proof. Lots of evidence. None of it is scientific, repeatable, experiemental data. It's usually anecdotal, personal and very very subjective. Kind of like eyewitness testimony in court. It has value as evidence, but isn't proof in any way, shape or form. Big difference between evidence and proof."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #59 January 12, 2012 Quote What's your definition? I don't think the English language is capable of properly describing it. That's not a cop out to your question, but let me set the tone here. What's your definition?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #60 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuote No I am arguing against any supernatural entity of any kind. So, superman doesn't exist? No argument there. Anytime some new measurement is made, someone has to come up with a new word for it. How hard is it to get a new word into common use? Unbelievably difficult. I'm not going to bother arguing with you that your definition of "God" doesn't exist. Personally, I think you're right. The weakness in your argument is that others don't define "God" as your defining it. I am using the common definition of god. If you were using your own definition then you should have made that definition known. That is why I don't like people redefining words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #61 January 12, 2012 >What's your definition? I don't know; I don't have a good one. I have a few definitions that I think God is not, but that's not that useful in trying to come up with such a test. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #62 January 12, 2012 Quote I am using the common definition of god. If you were using your own definition then you should have made that definition known. That is why I don't like people redefining words. "the common definition of god" must mean your "common definition" of god. If you reread our posts, you'll see that I was clear in saying I wasn't discussing what I perceived to be your definition of god.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhile Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them. And yet, you claim that lack of evidence of the existence of a Deity is perfect evidence that said Deity doesn't exist....sorry, can't have it both ways. Your logic is totally screwed up. That wasn't what I said or what I meant. Really? "It's not reasonable to conclude that some thing exists if there is no evidence." - beowulf, post 26 "While Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them." - beowulf, post 37 Not sure why that confuses you. I don't see the conflict that you seem to see. That doesn't surprise me.... let me rephrase to see if you can catch the dichotomy. "God doesn't exist because there's no evidence to prove it." "Neutrinos always existed, even before there was evidence to prove it."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #64 January 12, 2012 Quote >What's your definition? I don't know; I don't have a good one. I have a few definitions that I think God is not, but that's not that useful in trying to come up with such a test. Cool, I think we are on common footing here... Over a long period of time, I began to view "God" more as a verb than a noun. In practice, it became much easier for me to accept certain phenomenon with that basis. At this point in time, I see "God" as a great flow that we're all part of, whether you want to be or not. It's everything we know, everything we don't know, everything we feel, and everything we don't feel. And more. It reaches a point where the definition becomes meaningless, really. Why bother pursuing a definition of God in the first place? Clearly those that choose to do so are looking for a higher purpose in this life. It's up to the individual to pursue this "science" (...I hate using that word here), but that pursuit very much involves making personal observations and acting in accordance to a set of principles. Once one has decided to have that "faith", reproducible things begin to happen in your life. The best test is to pursue it diligently, and see for yourself.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #65 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuote I am using the common definition of god. If you were using your own definition then you should have made that definition known. That is why I don't like people redefining words. "the common definition of god" must mean your "common definition" of god. If you reread our posts, you'll see that I was clear in saying I wasn't discussing what I perceived to be your definition of god. I don't have a personal definition of god. When I refer to the common definition I mean the dictionary definition. Did I really need to spell that out? I did use the word deity. Was there really any question of what I refering to when I said god? God [god] Show IPA noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #66 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all. Those pesky feelings and emotions...who needs 'em! Would that we were all robots... Emotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. Then its settled then AGWing is a religous hoax"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #67 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhile Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them. And yet, you claim that lack of evidence of the existence of a Deity is perfect evidence that said Deity doesn't exist....sorry, can't have it both ways. Your logic is totally screwed up. That wasn't what I said or what I meant. Really? "It's not reasonable to conclude that some thing exists if there is no evidence." - beowulf, post 26 "While Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them." - beowulf, post 37 Not sure why that confuses you. I don't see the conflict that you seem to see. That doesn't surprise me.... let me rephrase to see if you can catch the dichotomy. "God doesn't exist because there's no evidence to prove it." "Neutrinos always existed, even before there was evidence to prove it." You like to play word games. It's unreasonable to conclude that something exists if there is no evidence that it exists. Before we had evidence of Neutrino particles it wasn't reasonable to conclude they existed. There was a good argument that they existed, much better then there is for any deity. So it would have been much more reasonable to say you believed that Neutrinos existed before there was evidence to conclude they do. There is no evidence to reasonably conclude that any deity exists. I don't think there is a good argument to say that I believe a deity exists. Can you follow my logic and see why there is no conflict? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #68 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteNo one has yet to provide evidence of any deity. So whether you like it or not faith in any deity is with out evidence. That is the definition of faith. If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. Zero proof. Lots of evidence. None of it is scientific, repeatable, experiemental data. It's usually anecdotal, personal and very very subjective. Kind of like eyewitness testimony in court. It has value as evidence, but isn't proof in any way, shape or form. Big difference between evidence and proof. The evidence I was referring to was defined earlier as scientific. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 January 12, 2012 QuoteThere was a good argument that they existed, much better then there is for any deity. Show the argument supporting existence prior to physical evidence of neutrinos.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #70 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuote There has also been an enormous amount of bad done by people with the same beliefs. Claiming to have said beliefs and actually practicing them are two very different things. I'm only referring to those that practice that core set of principals identified by various cultures across the planet. Those principals have changed over time and location. Slavery is a good example. In the bible slavery is common and not considered immoral. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #71 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteThere was a good argument that they existed, much better then there is for any deity. Show the argument supporting existence prior to physical evidence of neutrinos. Lookup Wolfgang Pauli. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere was a good argument that they existed, much better then there is for any deity. Show the argument supporting existence prior to physical evidence of neutrinos. Lookup Wolfgang Pauli. What was the 'good argument' for the existence of neutrinos before Pauli's experiments?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #73 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere was a good argument that they existed, much better then there is for any deity. Show the argument supporting existence prior to physical evidence of neutrinos. Lookup Wolfgang Pauli. What was the 'good argument' for the existence of neutrinos before Pauli's experiments? QuoteThe neutrino[nb 1] was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum (spin) in beta decay. This was done by adding an undetected particle that Pauli termed a "neutron" to the proton and electron already known to be products of beta decay:[3][nb 2] n0 → p+ + e− + ν e He theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles Here is what was written in Wikipedia. I have no idea where to find the actual theory that he submitted for the existence of neutrinos before they were proven to exist. Are you questioning that there was a good argument for neutrinos before they were proven to exist? I think it's pretty reasonable to say that he believed they existed before they could be proven to exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #74 January 12, 2012 Quote When I refer to the common definition I mean the dictionary definition. Other dictionaries can have a different definition of God, if they're even using the same word to describe the phenomenon I personally am discussing. We're in agreement that's not a good definition of God, at least not for me. That's not to say I ridicule those who do choose to use that definition of God, especially if they adhere to that core set of principles identified by many throughout the world, as I mentioned previously.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #75 January 12, 2012 Quote You like to play word games. I don't see mnealtx playing word games. I think he's trying to make a valid argument that you're not seeing. Quote Before we had evidence of Neutrino particles it wasn't reasonable to conclude they existed. So, how would you describe that period of time when energy balances around radioactive decay didn't add up?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
