How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[AV1611VET]

What I find to be blasphemy is immaterial.

Maybe if people took blasphemy more seriously, this country wouldn't be in the shape it is in?

 

[partinobodycular]

Maybe if people took blasphemy more seriously, this country wouldn't be in the shape it is in?

Islam seems to take blasphemy very seriously, perhaps we should all become Muslims.

On second thought maybe you're right, Christ was trying to teach us intolerance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Islam seems to take blasphemy very seriously, perhaps we should all become Muslims.

Knock yourself out.

It's a free country.

If convert-or-die or fight-or-flight appeals to you more than love-thine-enemies -- go for it.

Just try and understand -- if you can -- if we consider you a "mission field."

On second thought maybe you're right, Christ was trying to teach us intolerance.

I was never right in that respect.

 

[partinobodycular]

If convert-or-die or fight-or-flight appeals to you more than love-thine-enemies -- go for it.

From my perspective they both seem to be preaching the same thing, convert or spend eternity in hell, I fail to see the difference. You're the one who seemed to be suggesting that a little less tolerance of blasphemy might be a good thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

From my perspective they both seem to be preaching the same thing, convert or spend eternity in hell, I fail to see the difference. You're the one who seemed to be suggesting that a little less tolerance of blasphemy might be a good thing.

If you like the shape that this country is in, and you don't think any blasphemy is going on, I'd say you have a myopic view of things.

If you don't like the shape that this country is in, and you don't think it is because of blasphemy, I'd say you have a myopic view of things.

Bottom line: Maybe if people took blasphemy more seriously, this country wouldn't be in the shape it is in.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you like the shape that this country is in, and you don't think any blasphemy is going on, I'd say you have a myopic view of things.

If you don't like the shape that this country is in, and you don't think it is because of blasphemy, I'd say you have a myopic view of things.

Bottom line: Maybe if people took blasphemy more seriously, this country wouldn't be in the shape it is in.

But I can't help but wonder, is it blasphemy that's the problem, or intolerance.

I think it's the latter. I think that it's people being intolerant of other people that's the problem.

So that leads me to ask, which do you think would garner the best results, Muslims becoming more tolerant, or Christians becoming less so?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I can't help but wonder, is it blasphemy that's the problem, or intolerance.

Blasphemy.

So that leads me to ask, which do you think would garner the best results, Muslims becoming more tolerant, or Christians becoming less so?

Obviously Muslims becoming more tolerant would garner better results, since their convert-or-die religion would have to take a backseat to tolerance.

But you know as well as I do that that is not going to happen.

 

[partinobodycular]

Obviously Muslims becoming more tolerant would garner better results, since their convert-or-die religion would have to take a backseat to tolerance.

But you know as well as I do that that is not going to happen.

Unfortunately, when I look at America today it doesn't seem to be the Muslims who are becoming more intolerant...it's the Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, when I look at America today it doesn't seem to be the Muslims who are becoming more intolerant...

They can't become more intolerant, in my opinion.

You can't get more intolerant than convert-or-die, can you?

 

[partinobodycular]

You can't get more intolerant than convert-or-die, can you?

Well we're still here, so they've got that going for them. They must not be totally intolerant.

Besides, Christians still cling to that convert-or-die philosophy, they just delay the die part a bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well we're still here, so they've got that going for them. They must not be totally intolerant.

Ya ... good point.

They're not totally intolerant, are they?

Only a couple towers out of ... how many around?

 

[partinobodycular]

Only a couple towers out of ... how many around?

My point exactly, just a couple of buildings...it's not like they nuked a couple of cities.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point exactly, just a couple of buildings...it's not like they nuked a couple of cities.

Can we get back to blasphemy now, and skip your tolerance sidetrack?

 

[partinobodycular]

Can we get back to blasphemy now, and skip your tolerance sidetrack?

You know what, it's been fun, but why don't we just drop the whole thing entirely?

 

[AV1611VET]

You know what, it's been fun, but why don't we just drop the whole thing entirely?

Negative.

Maybe if people took blasphemy more seriously, this country wouldn't be in the shape it is in?

 

[stevevw]

If a person wants to put up signs displaying the Ten Commandments or other parts of the Bible in their front yard, that's fine. I got no problem with that, and I doubt many people would. Including atheists.

But when the local court puts a tax-payer funded piece of carved stone with the ten commandments engraved on them, then there is a problem. Why? Because it violates the First Amendment.

Specifically, the First Ammendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In other words, you can't have a state-supported religion. The state can't do anything to show it supports one religion over another. And if the court has a taxpayer funded stone with the ten commandments written on it, then that is using government money to support one religion over others.

If you don't understand it, think of it like this: If your Muslim neighbour had a bumper sticker that had a quote from the Quran, say, "And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it. 8:61," I'm sure you would have no problem with it. But if your local court used taxpayer monies to fund a stone carving of a passage from the Quran, then I'm sure you and many Christians would complain.

US and western jurisprudence has clearly been based and influenced on Christian principles. We can't just pretend they don't.

 

[stevevw]

No.
The total information in the universe remains constant.

Then lets say the universe was at one stage without life and there were no living cells then how is this not new information. Does this mean that the information for intelligent life was already there from the very beginning.

Consciousness does not represent additional information, nor new dimensions for the universe.

if consciousness is said to pervade and exist beyond the physical aspect of the universe then it has to add a new dimension. A dimension to reality beyond the physical. At least to what is currently thought as far as a materialist or view is concerned.

 

[stevevw]

But there would be no conscious experience in a universe without conscious beings.

I think you have just identified the difference between a universe with consciousness and one without. We don't have to experience something to recognize that there would be a different kind of universe without consciousness. Because we are here now and we can contemplate that as rational beings. We can acknowledge that the experiences we have now in thinking of a universe without meaning would be not the same and we can acknowledge that it would be a great loss that we could not have those experiences.

I think its irrelevant that we cannot recognize this difference because in a universe without consciousness we could never acknowledge that because the fact is we are here and our universe has consciousness. We now know the difference because we have experienced one side of that possibility and we know that the opposing side will lack all that we experience now.

 

[stevevw]

Well, not really - we know what a universe with conscious beings is like. We can't know what a universe without conscious beings would be like in terms of conscious experience, because that wouldn't be a universe without conscious beings. IOW, we can only say what the experience would be like if there were conscious beings there to have experience, i.e. it is not a universe without conscious beings...

But like some scientific ideas this is mute because we can never validate this because to experience a universe with no consciousness is impossible. As soon as we arrive to experience that universe its no longer a universe without consciousness.

So we have to go off what we know now. Otherwise we cannot even contemplate this which I think should not stop us from acknowledging certain aspects that should be the case in that universe like not having beings in it that can pose these scenarios in the first place.

You may think that, but it's not a justification; for that, you need an argument. For example, in what ways is it 'better'?

I thought I already explained that. So what about love. We could not have love in a universe without consciousness.

Nobody's 'devaluing' a universe with conscious beings.

Evolution doesn't have 'pinnacles' - whether some trait or creature is 'best', or a 'pinnacle' is contingent, contextual, and subjective.

Reality is altering all the time as events occur, even in the absence of living things. Living things and humans are just part of that process, changing reality in ways that non-living and non-human things, respectively, do not. Evolution changes without human activity; but human activity can make otherwise highly improbable changes.

The point is evolution has produced something that can contemplate and enact these things which seem to go beyond evolution.

 

[ruthiesea]

Maybe if people took blasphemy more seriously, this country wouldn't be in the shape it is in?

Depends on what you consider to be blasphemous. I guarantee that some of the things that I find to be blasphemy you do not.