It's only meaningless if one chooses to lack belief that the universe is "alive". Otherwise it's not at all "meaningless". In fact I would argue that it adds physical meaning" to the term "God".
Upvote
0
The stumbling block for atheists.
- Thread starter dysert
- Start date
It's only meaningless if one chooses to lack belief that the universe is "alive". Otherwise it's not at all "meaningless". In fact I would argue that it adds physical meaning" to the term "God".
Saying the universe is "alive" IS meaningless unless you are specific with what you mean by that.
If you mean the term "God" is pretty vacuous I agree.
The first problem of religious thought concerning "God" would be to define it in a way that you could actually say you understood what you were talking about.
Upvote
0
It seems pretty self explanatory to me. The universe is essentially the most sophisticated form of life that we know of in term of interwoven circuitry and overall complexity.
Only typically in the physical sense, certainly not in an emotional or 'life effecting" sense. Seeing the universe itself as God simply adds physical substance to the term. Most theists find that 'optional' actually.
There's both a physical aspect and a personality aspect to discuss here. Two individuals might both agree on the physical existence of the current President of the US, but they might vastly disagree about his character and/or his personality. There's even a subjective personal "interpretation' aspect that adds a great deal of complexity to the topic.
Upvote
0
Monna
Well-Known Member
Is God easier to visualize accurately?
Merriam-Webster defines visualize as "to make visible."
I would very much appreciate it if you would describe what you see in a way that I could paint it, with colors and forms, even patterns if they are part of your visualisation - not personality characteristics or words that refer to emotions (love, joy, etc.). And provide the evidence that your visualisation is accurate.
Merriam-Webster defines visualize as "to make visible."
I would very much appreciate it if you would describe what you see in a way that I could paint it, with colors and forms, even patterns if they are part of your visualisation - not personality characteristics or words that refer to emotions (love, joy, etc.). And provide the evidence that your visualisation is accurate.
Upvote
0
Monna
Well-Known Member
So do so for me, please. What do you see? I would guess that your visualization is not the same as mine, even if we both base our visualization on the same set of data or information. In this context I also wish to distinguish between visualisation and conceptualisation, in which character traits are conceptual rather than visual; visual referring to what I could paint.
Upvote
0
HenryM
Well-Known Member
Give me one name, one atheist/agnostic on this forum, with let's say more than 2000 posts in their profile, who is earnestly looking to know God and accept salvation from his or her sins. Give me the best name you know that fits the criteria (searching for God and has more than 2000 posts in their profile). I would be interested to go through some of the postings of such person, to see how they are working through their path towards God. I am speaking seriously. I think I haven't seen such person here, but I could certainly be wrong since I don't frequent these sub-forums much, and I would love to see such person here. Please, provide me one name that fits criteria, one best name you can (and a link to one of their posts).
There is absolutely no controversy among Christians over the issue that brings salvation: that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born into this world from a virgin, died for the sins of the world and resurrected on the third day. Atheists deny God exist (it's in their name, a + theist). And you compare the two? Do you share the Gospel of salvation to the atheists/agnostics? Can you give me an example of your post where you specifically talk to them about Jesus Christ and salvation that Jesus Christ brings to sinners?
Putting the issue of universal salvation aside, I too don't believe hell is perpetual torment. But hell does exist, as a place where souls are destroyed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, I'm not saying that. I don't know the explanation for the universe, if it has one.
What I am saying is that your assertion that order coming from chaos is unobservable in nature is mistaken.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I'd say that Split Rock falls into that category. Variant also seems to be very nice to chat with. You are however adding a "qualifier' in there about "salvation from sin" that isn't likely to be a "given" with any agnostic or atheist as others have already noted. One first has to "believe" in the existence of God before they might choose to prefer one specific 'religion' over any other, or embrace any type of belief system related to a specific religion.
That upfront "requirement" is not likely to apply to any atheist by the way.
By all means, check it out. I think you're being premature to have expectations related to "religious belief" as opposed to simply seeking evidence of the existence of God. Atheist might be looking for evidence of God, but they're probably not seeking to "believe" in any specific religion.
I compare it to the fact that some Christians believe in young earth creationism, whereas most Catholics and most Christians in general do not. It's certainly possible to "interpret" the Bible quite differently, even among different sects of Christianity. In fact the mere existence of multiple sects of 'Christians' demonstrates that subjectivity creeps into the "interpretation" process sooner or later. I'd grant you that atheists would be in an extreme category in that sense, but often times I find that atheists know and understand the content of the Bible better than many "Christians" I've met.
You'd have review my posts to find them, but I've certainly mentioned Jesus to many atheists on this forum over the past decade. FYI, I spent a lot more time early on debating Christian theology here and a lot more time recently discussing science and the existence of God with atheists. In terms of discussing the topic of God with atheists, you could start here if you like:
An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)
I don't believe that God "destroys" souls. The term "gehenna" (translated to "hell") refers to a "soul clensing" process in Judaism. It had no "soul destruction" connotation during the life of Christ, nor does it imply such a thing today. All people "sin" however and we all have to come to terms with that sin and be cleansed of it. That was the original meaning of that term in Judaism, and it's the same meaning that Origin assigned to that term. Augustine was a pagan who converted to "Christianity", but he insisted on holding on to some of his pagan beliefs.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2003
- 4,011
- 814
- 83
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Politics
- UK-Labour
I'll have a look this evening, Maile. I know I have some articles in my Favourites, but there are also some cracking apologists on YouTube. The proofs have been accumulating lately at such a rate, I think you would do well to keep abreast of the articles and posts on the 'uncommondescent.com' website.
Upvote
0
Ah but it isn't at all self explanatory.
The phrase "the devil is in the details" springs to mind, well so too would be your "God".
How are you defining life.. Or, what aspects of biological life do you suppose the universe to possess?
And more importantly, what leads you to the conclusion, and how can you tell that your conclusion is correct?
Only typically in the physical sense, certainly not in an emotional or 'life effecting" sense. Seeing the universe itself as God simply adds physical substance to the term. Most theists find that 'optional' actually.
Hallucinations and delusions can "effect' your life pretty substantially too.
Vacuous is a play on words there (sorry I can't always help myself), an allusion to the amount of space in the universe.
Your definitions of both god and life are again, not very meaningful in terms of any real demonstrated understanding though.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself here, you haven't even gotten step 1 pinned down and "personality" is something like step 20.
Upvote
0
That's probably true for *all* cosmology claims, and for science in general. The devil is always in the details.
Well, for starters the universe posseses many of the same mass layouts and circuit topology features that we might expect from a living organism based on what we observe inside of living organisms.
I can only cite "observational evidence" that humans the world over and throughout recorded human history have reported, and continue to report having a relationship with something they call "God". I can "predict" that a living electric universe would tend to explain that observation. It also tends to explain those mass and circuit topology layouts we observe in space which tend to mirror the circuitry that we find inside of living organisms on Earth. If we're going to approach this issue "scientifically", the best I can hope to do is cite observational "effects" which the theory itself might "predict".
Note that I have no need, nor any desire to ascribe anything to the larger universe that doesn't already show up here on Earth, whereas other cosmology theories suffer from the need for one or up to four supernatural components to work correctly. I don't even need one supernatural element to physically describe "God" as the physical universe.
True, but "hallucinations" don't typically effect the majority of the human population. All "theories" are subject to being rejected or replaced over time of course, but that never stopped anyone from proposing scientific theories and hypotheses.
Doesn't it seem odd that with all that space, the macrocosm and the microcosm tend to look alike? So above, so below?
What exactly do you mean by the term "understanding"? In comparison to any other cosmology theories, or just in general? I can (and do) understand the physics in terms of circuit theory as it applies to plasma in space, and to some degree how it applies to circuity in living organisms. I can't claim to have as complete of an understanding in terms of biology as other professional biologists, but I'm plenty qualified as it relates to circuit theory and plasma physics.
I agree. I'm just noting that it's one thing to have a conceptual physical description of God without having a "relationship" with the God, and visa versa. Lots of Christians have a relationship with something akin to a "personality" of God, but they don't typically have a physical definition of God to offer. I'm willing to start at step one, but it's not fair to expect *more* of me at step one than mainstream scientists with respect to physically describing the universe.
If you're going to compare any ambiguity issues at the macroscopic level, we'll have to compare that ambiguity to the ambiguity that exists in "alternative cosmology theories".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
HenryM
Well-Known Member
Thank you for reference. I checked it out, but won't comment. Other Christians who don't frequent these sub-forums much, but are reading this, might also be interested to see what the suggested best example of "honestly seeking for God" atheist on Christian forum (with more than couple of thousand posts on their profile) looks like, so they too can check out Split Rock.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
IMO there is a difference between what I would call "honest skepticism" and what I'd call "evangelical invisible ignorance". Most atheists I meet here at CF and around the internet tend to fall into the first category. Yes, there are a few truly evangelical types that put themselves in the position of judge, jury and executioner and who simply ridicule any attempt to offer them evidence, but by and large they are the exception rather than the rule.
That's just my two cents.
IMO most atheists are not likely to entertain any specific religious belief until or unless they're willing to entertain the likelihood/probability of the existence of God.
That's actually pretty logical and predictable when you think about it. You probably wouldn't be much interested in entertaining the finer points of Islam unless and until you first accepted the legitimacy of the religion of Islam. It's pretty much the same issue.
Upvote
0
Well, for starters the universe posseses many of the same mass layouts and circuit topology features that we might expect from a living organism based on what we observe inside of living organisms.
Looks similar = has the same function?
I don't think that's a very good premise.
I suppose we might be operating from differn't definitions of "explain".
When I explain something I mean to yeild clarity and detail, not to propose a differn't mystery to remove another.
Well so far, you've got a "layout" that is somewhat similar between neurons and very large gas structures. And to that you add that people tend to think there is a "God".
When I ask you how you "know" things, I mean how do you differentiate between your ideas being true and your ideas being false.
You seem to still require any number of forces you don't understand for your "alive" universe, as such a thing doesn't just explain itself. How a gigantic megastructure would act like electro-chemical neurons seems to be more of a problem than an explanation.
I still don't see where you've clearly defined what aspects of "alive" you seem to think the universe has so you are without even a definition, much less an explanation or cosmology.
Given the weakness of the evidence for or even a coherent concept of God's, I can not simply rule out the idea that humanity is prone to some mass delusion.
A sensation of a being that is so differn't in scale and nature would be quite something in and of itself, but, how exactly would that work?
Odd? What you should be asking me is whether such a thing could only be true if your ideas are true.
My expertise would be more on the biological side. So, the issue I am having is that I am pretty sure we don't exactly understand how neuronal nets work in biology. You are presenting the idea that they can work on VERY a macro scale and I have no idea how you suppose to go from not terribly understood A all the way to whatever Z you are prescribing.
We can assess depth of understanding based upon how much you can tell us about the phenomena we are talking about and how all the steps between A and Z work.
Fair enough, just like mainstream scientists, from you I expect you to have some sort of methodology and epistemology that would allow you to either accept or reject your ideas based upon relevant objective criterion that are well defined and accessible to anyone.
When the other scientists fail at that they aren't being scientists either.
No, again, if we are just fairly ignorant about cosmology, that is the state of things.
Appeals to ignorance are not valid. They are not good reasons to believe A rather than B.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Same here, apparently only preaching to the choir will do.
Someone who goes to a forum meant for "discussion and debate" and then won't speak with anyone who disagrees with them seems to lack intellectual integrity.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Not necessarily in every case. In this case however they're both current carrying environments and the flow of current on the left gives rise to "awareness" at the microscopic level. I certainly can't discount that possibility as it relates to the macroscopic level of reality.
It would be if that was my "premise", but there's that small matter of having published papers galore that explain it from the perspective of circuit theory and pure empirical physics to add to the equation.
It's very typical in "science" that when trying to 'explain' an observation, another 'mystery" is added. Where does dark energy come from for instance? Adding almost anything to the equations tends to add 'mystery' to them.
Well, I'm looking at it from both the level of physics and theism, sure. There's a bit more to it however, starting with about a hundred published papers by Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Anthony Peratt, Charles Bruce, etc.
I know that gravity exists because I experience it every single day of my life. The formulas to describe it have changed over time, and they may continue to change over time, but my "knowledge" of gravity isn't even related to mathematics, it's related to *experience*. That's pretty much true for everything else as well. I can "understand" some mathematical equations, but that isn't necessarily 'knowledge'. In some/most cases it's just 'theory". Even GR might eventually give way to QM formula for gravity. That won't change my 'experience" of gravity one iota however.
It's not a "problem" at all. I've got billions of potential power generators and circuitry galore. It's not so much of a problem as it's an "observation" and one that is consistent with laboratory experimentation. Birkland's solar model works in the lab. That's not a "problem", that's an "explanation".
If you're looking for the physics in published papers, start with Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven in that order. The first two are totally free references, and most of the last one as well, although his book is an easier read because it's compiled in order and it's kinda pricey. Most of the chapters come from his other published papers however and most of them are freely available on the internet.
Sure, but that's a pretty 'weak' answer without evidence to suggest *everyone* has been delusional since the dawn of time. That sounds like an empirical dead end and not a particularly compelling "explanation". Gravity could be a "mass delusion" too I suppose, but it's hard to call that a "likely" possibility.
I'm not entirely sure because I have no idea if "awareness' has a speed limit even if circuity might. The sun for instance has more circuitry flowing through it's upper atmosphere than my entire brain, and that's just the circuitry that I can observe on the outside. The overall complexity of circuitry at level of a galaxy is staggering to even think about, let alone an entire universe of galaxies.
I'm not suggesting it's *only* possible if the universe is 'alive', but the similarity both in terms of mass layout and circuity is obvious. I can't just ignore that.
Well, I'm not suggesting or implying that I personally have all the answers or that we'll have all the answers in my lifetime. I can however see a logical path towards achieving those answers over time based on the principles of pure empirical physics. I find that encouraging, even if there's a long road ahead in terms of fully "understanding" it all.
Me personally or can I add a few published references for you?
Sure. I'm doing my best for instance to *not* stray beyond the realm of laboratory physics, other than to perhaps "scale" various processes that we observe in the lab. That's pretty much a core tenet of EU/PC theory as described by Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland. The biology aspects will be limited due to the problems you mentioned. Even at the level of biology we're not entirely sure how circuits give rise to awareness. We have some idea, but not all the answers. I certainly don't profess to have all those answers at the moment either. Nobody however advocates tossing out biology as a whole simply because we lack some of those answers.
You'll have to elaborate. Is a proponent of "dark energy" not being a "scientist" when they can't explain where I might find an actual source of the stuff? I'm assuming that this 'science fail' problem applies to *all* topics, not just the topic of God?
It's certainly the current state of things for mainstream astronomers. That criticism doesn't apply to everyone however.
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm suggesting that EU/PC theory offers you far "better" empirical explanations to various observations in space, with or without any theistic overtones. It "just so happens" to also offer you a clear physical definition of "God" if you personally wish to go there.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
