…
why are you trying to destroy faith? its the one thing that is to be admired about theists and you are bent on its destruction? if faith is destroyed god becomes science. you cant let science win like that
I am really having trouble seeing from your perspective, but I will help as much as I can in your realization of God.
What do you mean by wastes energy? Energy is recycled and reused where needed. Energy is never ‘wasted’.
What is Time?
I could swear it was “Knowledge is power”, not wisdom. I could be mistaken.
I could be wrong, but I believe you have a common misconception that God is seperate from the Universe. When in fact, God is the Universe. This would explain the rest of your post. The Universe is the result of these omnipotent calculations. What our brains percieve is God or the Universe doing its thing.
For example, the computer screen you are looking at right now. There are millions of ‘omnipotent calculations’ going on so that you can percieve the words you are reading at this moment on your monitor. You never see the calculations happening within the computer, just the result of them. But, these calculations are still part of your computer.
Again, your realization of God is very unique and personal to you so I am having trouble walking in your shoes. I could be barking up the wrong tree completely.
time is easily defined. look at a dictionary. outside of time doesnt exist just like outside of height width and depth doesnt exist.
cba1067950 wrote:
God is science. Science is used as a way to prove things. Why cant one prove the existence of God? Science and religion will begin to come together more and more. The times we live in allow for it, as our advances and scientist are coming closer and closer to the truth. Faith was a precursor. When Gods existence can be proven scientifically, all the world will have to believe, or either they will go against completely, and there will be great divisons. This will make for much destruction, and those with evil hearts who feel as though religion and science shouldnt mix, and as a result go so far as to participate in war and destruction against the good, will recieve a horrible fate. Im not calling you evil, Im simply trying to help you see the paradigm here, so instead of going against science helping to prove religion, you can see how its a good thing, and be for it. Once a synthesis of science and religion has occured, God will have no need to be idle, for we are in a new age, and we are truly near the end of things as we are used to them. The new millenium marks for a new reign. Every two thousand years makes for a new era, and this time the most beautiful of occurences will occur. Rejoice!
I’M AN ATHEIST!
God is possable,
we dont have any objective data about him,
he didnt use his infinint wisdom and power to create scientific documents for us to look through, or make myracles or…
wait…
all powerful means he could reveal his existance to all of humanity at any time he ever wanted.
The universe aint exaclty maintained is it?
Stars go nova after a while…
Earth recieves energy from the sun that live forms use.
Now then, is a star intelegent?
You tell me power requires intelegence?
What are nukes thinking compared to a human brain?
We surely want reality to make sence.
We (sometimes) want some sort of infinintly powerful freind who can make things allright, but do we have that?..
A long time ago i realized, hours spent thinking about God,
can also be spent working at things.
Spend time with your freinds or prepare some food or somthing like that,
and you will see what i mean.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
Your trying to figure it out but…
opinion and theory can only take us so far.
Best think about your own future and the future of humanity.
why are making god this tangible thing?
and why are we proving his existence with science
I don’t buy it. Scientific objectivity is embedded in the social, historical, economic, and linguistic contexts of a culture. As far as I can see there is no truth for science to get closer to.
Regarding the original post I have to say I fail to see how this is at all even remotly a “proof that God necessarily exists.” From my perspective it looks like Michael Llenos isn’t quite sure what he is trying to say. For example, “The truth is that any sort of power done by any sort of calculation can still become all the more powerful.” Can anyone make clear what he means by this? Are you suggesting that a mathematical calculation can become more powerful? What does a more powerful calculation do?
Or how about this, “Therefore omniscience and omnipotence go hand and hand. Therefore God necessarily exists.” This sounds like a very weak ontological argument.
Most proofs for god don’t work and those few that do can be picked apart with relative ease. Cba1067950 is right about faith, it’s honorable and very unique to each belief. I suggest sticking with it because it’s the best thing religion has going for itself.
God does not need to be a being or nonexistant.
Couldn’t the elementary laws of nature be labeled “God” with the same amount of reverence and less mysticism?
I would tend to agree… If one wishes to maintain that there is such a thing as “order” or “logic” in the universe/existence then a “god” is nessisary… Weather this “god” be a personal being or a set of natural “Rules” is to date unknown… But my guess is our beliefs depend on the individuals need to anthropomorphize his/her surroundings
Regardless of whether or not god is a personal being he/it is by nessesity beyond our comprihension… and claiming that “he” is anything like us humans is absolute nonesense… and yet an anthropomorphisis seems to occure in more then one religion… tsk tsk… Making them all inadvertently inaccurate descriptions of what they claim to describe…
someemofag wrote:
Im not saying science should go further and attempt to connect with religion or truth, Im saying it already does; but its subjective form of explanation, makes for differences in comparison to religion. For instance, take the Bible and how Jesus went around casting out demons. These demons were in blind people, epileptics, people who couldnt hear, and as a result couldnt talk. They were referred to as possessed by demons. Science now refers to these situations scientifically, and has searched for the causes of these situations. Same stuff, different explanation.
Science is objective in its process, not in its explanation.
“God” is such an entangling word.
All these “proofs” by Christian theologists, even if we disregard the flaws in their logic, do not go very far in asserting anything useful to them about the nature of God. Even if we grant the necessary existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and infinite God, what does this have to do with the God of the Bible? Do omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevlonce, and infinite-ness necessarily imply anything about being a prescriber of the specific morals of Christianity? Does having all these “omni-” attributes necessarily imply being a creator that judges his creations? I think the opposite is the case: having all these attributes necessarily negates the God of the bible…but I won’t go into that just now.
Suffice it to say that all these proofs about a God really don’t mean a whole lot as far as ethics, science, or even religion is concerned. What it would mean for there to be some entity/force/creature/whathaveyou that created us or sustains us through time is vastly open to interpretation, so much so that it scarcely admits of contemplation. All these proofs really say is that there is something unfathomable upon which our existence is supervenient, something which is far beyond our capabilities to comprehend–something about which it is pointless to think.
Consider that while it is possible to prove that one finite representation of an infinite being is inconsistent with the nature of said being (and thus an inaccurate representation), it is NOT possible to prove that any consistent representation is the MOST accurate. One could conceive of all sorts of Gods consistent with the above criteria–an infinite number of them, in fact. For an infinite being there must exist an infinite amount of “accurate” finite representations (representations that express some amount of some attribute actually possessed by the infinite omni-etc. being), just as for an infinite line there are infinitely-many finite segments definable along the line. How can any representation consistent with the infinite/omni-etc. characteristics hope to be the “most” accurate? No matter how big the line segment is, there is still an infinite amount of line that it does not contain; the line could look extremely different depending on where one observes it along its infinite length.
I agree. The trick to accepting the proof is actually finding a way to construct an agreement which “helps” along the flaws of the logic by pretending you don’t notice them, or somehow know that they mean something different. For example, when Anselm says that if we imagine the greatest possible being, who must necessarily be God, we know that he must exist in reality and not in our minds, because if he existed only in the mind he would not be the greatest being, compared with the one who exists outside the mind. It doesn’t take much insight to deconstruct this argument with the notion that the “God” said to exist “in the mind” is not comparable with the actual God of which the thought in the mind is just a conception. In other words, the original conception of “God” by the mind is one which is indeed in the first place already supposed to be about the “God” whose existence in reality we are trying to prove by thinking about him. Again, to think about the greatest possible being is initially a thought that involves envisioning him as beyond the mind doing the thinking. Interestingly, the proof from this perspective still forcefully suggests the existence of the being in question. Perhaps it served Anselm’s project an easier explanation to break it down into the steps he felt were necessary. But we know what good old Ockham had to say about that. But what did God have to say about Ockham?!