It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is your god the real god?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Do I need to say anymore?


Of course you do, unless you are really saying that you think your god is the real deal because all the others look silly.


Or this could be applied to the gods during the time of Israel like Baal, Dagon, Ra and Moloch. They had no power, yet there people trusted those gods to protect them, but because they only existed as statues there power was only a rallying point for worship, but it's faith was misplaced. Those statues got destroyed and there people with them. Thus proving Yahweh to be a God that had real power to actually do something.


But Christians have suffered despite their god as well; other religions’ scriptures describe demonstrations of their gods’ power and other religions still exist. How do you explain all of that without making arguments that can be directed right back at yourself?

You can say their god looks silly and they’ll say well yours looks unimpressive.

You can say that their gods doesn’t protect them and they’ point to the fact that they still exist and to events where Christians have been persecuted (such as by the Romans).

You can show them your scriptures that make claims about your gods power and they’ll show you theirs.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Well you're back to that no reason thing. It's a choice and this is where you method is flawed. You have no reason to believe in God, but you also have no reason to believe there is no God. No one in history has ever produced any evidence that some kind of God does not exist. Either way, you're making a choice.

If you're making the argument that I should not believe in God because there is no reason to believe one exists, then I can make the same argument back at you. That you should believe in God because there is no reason to believe one doesn't exist. Especially since all these people in the past have went around saying they talked to different Gods.

Don't know what they saw, but I highly doubt every person that's ever had a religious experience was lying. That's just simply not the simplest answer. Obviously they saw something. What was it? Aliens? Spirits? Who knows?

True, there's no reason to think it was a God or that God exists if you assume everyone that ever talked to God was lying, but there's no reason to assume they were all lying either and that there wasn't some sort of God either.

According to your logic, then since there's no reason to just go ahead and assume that God doesn't exist then shouldn't you believe in God? After all, it's just your own logic in reverse.

If one should not believe in God because there is no reason to, then in contrast one should believe in God because there is no reason not to. Correct? See, your method is just as flawed as everyone else's. But that's all we have. Flawed methods right now.

But there's no way to know for sure, so you just have to make your choice how you wish to make your choice because since we don't know for sure it's a gamble. And when it comes to gambling we should let each person decide for themselves.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 




You have no reason to believe in God, but you also have no reason to believe there is no God.


But I don’t believe there is no god; I just don’t believe there is one. It’s a subtle but very important difference.

It’s like if I say that I have a blueprint with me right now that would solve the problems of producing fusion energy; after thorough investigation of my claim you have no reason to believe me but it is still a remote possibility that I’m telling the truth so the default position is to take an agnostic view and say “maybe you do, maybe you don’t” but behave as though I don’t.

If the goal is to filter what is real from what is not in the most efficient way it pays to approach things that do not have any evidence to back them with scepticism rather than blind belief. *

Couple this with the fact that many claims, such as the existence of a god, are inherently unfalsifiable by nature you would end up either believing everything or making arbitrary decisions that could very well have great negative impact.

However if you take the view that a reason must be present before believing something then you will successfully filter out most falsehoods at the expense of rejecting only a few truths.

That is why you shouldn’t believe in something because you have no refuting evidence.

I would bet a large amount that you practice this exact reasoning all the time, just not when it comes to god.


* It’s important to separate grand, big impact claims such as the existence of god or invention of some new amazing technology from everyday claims such as “I bumped into John at the pub”. Such claims are known to happen all the time, John does go to the pub and the person telling you is generally trustworthy so there is little to no negative impact in believing them without evidence.


With regards to religious experiences, while there is no reason to believe they were all lying there is equally no reason to believe that they were all telling the truth or that they were all correct in their interpretation of their experiences. Given that we have many alternate explanations for such experiences, ranging from people lying to severe psychological delusions and everywhere in between, and the fact that these experiences are often contradictory then the logical position is to attribute them to these alternate explanations which we have observed, tested and verified that they do happen.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


You don't believe in just one God? Well there's nothing wrong with that. I can't tell you there's just one God.

Now some parts of the Bible are a bit odd here on this topic. Not because of what the Bible says, but because how it's written. The Bible says there is only one God, but when read what it sometimes seems like it's really saying is there are other forces out there. Forces that others think are God, but are not God. But the strange thing is the way it's written sometimes you get the feeling what it's really trying to say is you should not treat them as Gods even if they are and you should believe as if there are no other Gods even if there are.

Now, that's not what the Bible says. It says there's just one God. But maybe it was just some kind of internal thing of the writer (either God or man) that came through in the writing where you get this creepy feeling. But maybe that's not the case. You'll have to leaf through it to find that.

Now when it comes to the don't believe in things with no evidence thing. I understand what you're saying, but I think many people make a mistake in their logic here.

The main difference is between not having evidence for things you could possibly test, and not having evidence for things you can't test. There's a difference and I don't think they should be treated the same and I'll explain why.

You're right that when it comes to things we can test for like global warming or something, if you don't have evidence for a given hypothesis, that tells a lot. After all, it's testable. Most likely if the hypothesis was true someone would have either found evidence by now, or if not, you can just go test it yourself. So, if there's no evidence that tells us a lot, and it's true you can filter out a lot of things that way that are probably not true.

However, I don't think the lack of evidence tells us near as much in a situation where the hypothesis can't be tested. Now here's why. True, not having evidence is still going to filter out a bunch of stuff that's not true.

The only problem is this. When the hypothesis isn't testable, it's also going to filter out a bunch of stuff that IS true also. For example, we have no evidence that aliens exist. We have no evidence of ghosts. We have no evidence we can travel faster than light, but we also have no tests that would produce evidence for these situations.

It would also be foolish to assume before we have a way to get the evidence that all these things either don't exist or are not possible. For example, to say there is no intelligent life in the universe and even if there was we'll never be able to communicate with them because there is no way to travel faster that light would be foolish. Yet, we have no evidence either is true or false.

At one point we had no evidence bacteria and viruses caused disease and the reason is because we had no way to test it But just because he had a lack of evidence didn't mean it wasn't so. That's because in this case the lack of evidence was different and should be treated different. In this case the reason we had no evidence wasn't because it wasn't true, it was because we had no way to test to get the evidence or simply hadn't done the test yet.

Once we got the test though the evidence told us a lot. However, before we're able to test it, like how we can't test for ghosts right now, the lack of evidence told us nothing where as once we can test for something a lack of evidence tells us a lot.

As you can see, in both cases we may have a lack of evidence, but in one situation that lack of evidence is meaningful, in the other situation it is not. Therefore the two situations should be treated differently and handled with care.

What it should be is, since there is no evidence, but there is a way to test it, I assume it's not real. If there is no way to test it though, evidence or lack there of does you absolutely no good.

Yes it filters out the unknown things are false, but it also filters out the unknowns that are TRUE. In other words, when there is no test, lack of evidence filters out EVERY unknown possibility. A filter that filters out everything isn't a filter. It's just a trash can that you throw your ideas into and you're left to assume that there is nothing more to discover. That what we already know is all we know because the only things we have evidence for are the things we already know. That's a foolish assumption. Obviously there's still stuff out there we don't know.

But how to go about finding it when science hasn't invented a test for it? Well that's one thing science can't do, so you have to turn to alternative methods like logic or math or philosophy or something until science catches up.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 





But I don’t believe there is no god; I just don’t believe there is one. It’s a subtle but very important difference.


Interesting, 3 points.
One, you are at least in way a correct, but are these gods actually alive?
Two, at least one other god (small g) is alive and does have considerable power.
2 Corinthians 4:4

4For the god of this world has blinded the unbelievers' minds [that they should not discern the truth], preventing them from seeing the illuminating light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ (the Messiah), Who is the Image and Likeness of God.


Three, there is only ONE Almighty Creator, everything that came after him is a lesser being than him.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Sorry, the emphasis should be on this “is” not the “one”; sounded right in my head but I suppose some things just don’t translate.

What I meant was, I don’t believe in a god, but that doesn’t mean I believe a god doesn’t exists or could possibly exist. My position is that it is a possibility but since I have no reason to believe that it is a fact I will treat it only as a possibility which dictates I behave as though there isn’t one.

I think the rest of that post should make more sense now.


For example, we have no evidence that aliens exist. We have no evidence of ghosts.


But do you behave as though these exist? If you do then what about fairies or djinn or the pink unicorn in my garage? There must be some things that you will say “I don’t believe in them” or more accurately say “I have no way of knowing they are true therefore I will, while accepting the possibility, behave as though they are not”.

The question is why do you take that position for some things and not for others? If you accept that it’s an arbitrary decision, perhaps based on largely irrelevant things such as “it just seems more appealing” then does that not seem like a flimsy differentiation?


It would also be foolish to assume before we have a way to get the evidence that all these things either don't exist or are not possible.


I agree which is why we should remain open to the possibility but to act as though they are true or even that they are likely would be counter productive to daily life. For example if you applied this thinking to everything then you would never get anything done for carrying out countless superstitious rituals.


I still think your logic is only half complete; you keep saying that to reject things for which there is no evidence is foolish because we would be rejecting some things that would turn out to be true but what is your alternative.

In what I am saying you can hold the door open to possibilities and continue to explore the evidence and potentially come to a positive conclusion. But what are you saying? Should we believe everything or should we believe some things and not others based on a whim?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


As I said to Tinfoilman, something was lost in translation there. I don't believe in any god or gods, but I remain open to the possibility.

Can you address my last reply to you?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by tinfoilman
 




In what I am saying you can hold the door open to possibilities and continue to explore the evidence and potentially come to a positive conclusion. But what are you saying? Should we believe everything or should we believe some things and not others based on a whim?


Well here's your problem to keeping the door open. Funding.

I don't know the answer to that, but I'll ask a question. There's no evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe right? But, how much of my tax money has the government used to build things like SETI (which is no longer public funded I don't think.) or Mars rovers or space shuttles to look for aliens or alien life in which we have found nothing whatsoever? Lots and lots.

Now, how do I know they're not just spending my tax money on some whimsical whim that isn't even true? Well I don't, all that money and they've produced me no evidence? So, should the space program be shut down because there is no evidence?

But if I were to use tax payer money to build a God antenna or to fly to Mars to look for God I would be completely criticized. In fact, anytime tax money gets used for anything related to religion nowadays it's a big uproar because there's no evidence that God exists right?

But when we go looking for aliens we all think we're really really smart right? But guess what? We have no evidence that aliens exist either! For all we know we're all alone in the universe. But for some reason society thinks it's more logical to look for little green men than it is God even though we have no evidence of either.

Well, they may be right. It may be more logical, yet we have no evidence that the aliens exist. Which is what I mean, science can't do us any good here so we have to turn to something else, like in this case logic.

Because logically if we evolved something else somewhere else must have had too right? But there's no evidence of that. It's just a theory based on logic and not science.

Well, that's fine to base it on logic, but my point is that's exactly what you have to do when there is no test for the evidence. It would be foolish to say, well there's no evidence aliens exist so we'll stop looking for them right?

But when certain atheists come along and say not to believe in God because there is no evidence, they hardly ever hold themselves up to their own standard. I just saw a report actually that said something to the effect that a high number of people that choose to not believe in God because there is no evidence typically turn right around and choose to believe in other new age things like aliens and psychics and ghosts and other religions which there are no evidence for. In other words, they turn right around and just worship something else. Which is the opposite of what we all thought would happen, even us believers (well some of us like me anyway).

But also, in contrast, it comes back to your question, if there's no evidence how do we decide what to spend on our tax money on? Aliens that there is no evidence for? God which there is no evidence for? Bigfoot which there is no evidence for? Free energy which there is no evidence for?

How do we know what to look for? Well, I don't know, but having a lack of evidence won't tell you anything about what we should be searching for and what we should not.

Like I said, you have to turn to logic and math and philosophy and art and superstitions and sometimes just random guesses because science won't help you here. The only other alternative is to say well, aliens may exist or they may not, but we have no evidence either way.

Well, when it comes time to get tax payer funding to go look for intelligent life on other planets the argument, we have no evidence and no reason to believe they exist because we have no evidence isn't a very convincing argument to get the needed funding.

You know what I mean?

Sure I understand what you're saying. You shouldn't believe it outright. You should just say well, maybe they exist or maybe they don't.

But then where's your motivation and funding to look for it? Not many people are going to want to hand over money so you can go look for something that "probably doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it."

Before they give you money they're gonna want to be pretty sure YOU WILL FIND EVIDENCE OF IT. But how do you know what you'll find evidence of when you already have NO evidence? Well there's many methods to do so, but having lack of evidence in this case won't help you at all now will it?

How do you get the funding if you can't get anyone to believe in it without evidence? And if you can't get the funding, how do you get the evidence? I don't think we're going to build another Large Hadron Collider with your attitude.

Oh well, these particles we're looking for, we have no evidence they exist, but we want to build a particle accelerator the size of Texas with YOUR money! Yeah, I don't think that's going to fly.

Like I said before, you're gonna have to back up your theory with math or logic or something, but that's different from science. That's outside of science's arena.

EDIT: And so I just wanted to add to stress. When they build projects like SETI they're acting like aliens exist with no evidence that they exist. A person that didn't believe in aliens wouldn't do that. If the greatest scientific minds in the world can believe in things without having any evidence to back it up, then I think I can too.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with funding; we are talking about personal beliefs and the reasons why these are held.

You have a positive belief that a specific god exists, you are not saying that it’s a possibility that should be explored, you are skipping the exploration and investigation bit and going straight onto the belief.

Funding only comes into it when you’re trying to balance finite resources against the maximum gain. The LHC, SETI etc have defined methods and targets; they know what they’re looking for. Someone saying “I’m going to build a god antenna” can’t tell you what results he’d expect if god was to exist; SETI can. If they could then I wouldn’t be surprised if they got their funding. In both cases you don’t need to believe in what they are looking for before you start looking, you only have to consider that it is possible.

But that has nothing to do with why you personally believe what you believe and why you don’t believe what you don’t believe.

Nor does it matter whether other people hold them selves up to these same standards, if all scientists had a lucky pair of pants or if the government funded a giant leprechaun trap it would not make the logic behind these any more correct.

Again, you have said that to not believe something because there is no evidence is foolish because you risk rejecting some truths. So what is your alternative, how do you filter out the fact from the fiction in the absence of any reason to do either?

If you can’t say “I don’t believe this because there is no reason behind it” then why don’t you believe in fairies or leprechauns?

Going back to the original question, if you agree that you have no reasoning for believing that your god is the real god then why believe it at all, baring in mind that you don’t have to believe in the god to agree with the morals?

You can’t just say, maths and philosophy you have to elaborate on that and show why these, or other things, gives you solid reason for believing something to be true.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
"Why is your god the real god?"


What I don't understand is ther term: "your god." There is just God. Don't confuse religion with God.

God just is baby and he's cool!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 




Going back to the original question, if you agree that you have no reasoning for believing that your god is the real god


Well, we've already been over this. I already told you that I had a reason. Just because you rejected it doesn't mean it just disappeared. I never agreed that I didn't have a reason. Regardless of if the answer makes any sense to you or not. So, I guess we'll just have to disagree here.



You have a positive belief that a specific god exists, you are not saying that it’s a possibility that should be explored, you are skipping the exploration and investigation bit and going straight onto the belief.


Now if I didn't believe in something first why would I look for it? You have to have some kind of starting belief.

Just like scientists wanting to build faster than light space ships even though Einstein's work shows that it is impossible to do that. They basically have to have a blind faith here that Einstein was wrong because the evidence is already AGAINST them. But I don't see anything wrong with that. You apparently do.

But I had another question that came to mind and it's a serious question. I really want to know the answer to this one.

I wonder what it's like to be a married atheist or atheist with a girlfriend? You guys couldn't even believe your own GF loved you right? I mean love isn't testable and you can't just take a person at their word right? They may be lying right?

I mean the logic would be, well there's no evidence she loves me. There's no evidence love even exists. Maybe she loves me? Maybe she doesn't?

Why would you marry someone on a maybe? Wouldn't you have to have some kind of trusting faith involved? How do you know she loves you? Where's her evidence? Do you guys even believe in love? Do you have any evidence to prove love is real? That must be like mental torture or something. Or is that like the one thing you guys take on faith sometimes when she's real real cute? How does that work exactly?


Anyway.



Funding only comes into it when you’re trying to balance finite resources against the maximum gain. The LHC, SETI etc have defined methods and targets; they know what they’re looking for.



Okay, now here you're just being dishonest and moving the goal posts to keep God out and keep your pet theories in. Leprechauns might be possible. Should we go hunting for leprechauns as long as I know what I'm looking for? No, probably not because logically they're not likely. But that's not based on evidence. That's based on logic. Which is what I was saying. You don't always need evidence.

You gave me all this crap about needing evidence and then when I point out other people are actually out there doing things based on the beliefs you turn around and say oh well, you don't always need evidence. you just do for God! Everything else you just need to know what you're looking for! It's like uh no. Pick one.

I mean, that's fine. I accept that. That's what I said in the first place. Sometimes you don't need evidence to believe something is possible, but you disagreed, but then when I pointed out that science would basically have to drop pretty much all of its research projects based on your flawed logic, you moved the goal posts.

Now you say, well you don't really need evidence, you just need to know what you're looking for! And don't believe it outright! Just believe it MIGHT exist! It's like uh okay. Believing that something might exist without evidence is still just a belief based on no evidence right? That's just a word trick you're playing.

To believe something might or might not exist is still a belief. How does one come to it with no evidence?

But anyway, so, then can we both agree that evidence is not always required to believe in something? Sometimes you just need to know what you're looking for right? Or are you gonna move the goal posts again back to where they were now?




You can’t just say, maths and philosophy you have to elaborate on that.


I'm sorry, do you have any evidence that I have to elaborate on that and that I can't just stop right here? Do you have any proof sir?

You really can't figure out how a person would use math to form a belief with no evidence? Look at Einstein. He predicts nothing can travel faster than the speed of light with his equations. But that's a prediction based on other predictions about the unknown laws of the universe we live in, not evidence.

Only recently have we even had the technology to test his ideas, but very smart people believed he was right and accepted them long before science could test them and prove them correct.

But that's what the math says. When given no evidence you have to turn to other things like math. But sometimes math doesn't work either and you need all the other tricks.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
You said that you had a reason to guess which doesn’t sound very solid and you’ve also said you have no way of knowing. But as I said your reasoning for this guess did not logically lead to a belief in a god; why do you think it does?

If you take the view you have no way of knowing then why do you say you believe in god at all? Why not take an agnostic viewpoint?


Now if I didn't believe in something first why would I look for it? You have to have some kind of starting belief.


Why? You only have to agree that something is a possibility and that this possibility is worth the effort looking for it.

I do it all the time, I read about all sorts of things I don’t believe just to see what is there. If I can do it then why can’t other people?* Have you never explored a topic which you don’t believe in just to see if it’s true?

* I think most do btw.


Just like scientists wanting to build faster than light space ships even though Einstein's work shows that it is impossible to do that. They basically have to have a blind faith here that Einstein was wrong because the evidence is already AGAINST them.


Who’s trying to build faster than light space ships? Plenty of people are looking at concepts that would either change or bypass the barriers special relativity represents but none would say that they have a prior belief that these new concepts are true, they would say that they think there is a possibility that they are true.

But as I have already said, even if these people do exist, their flawed logic is no reason to join in with them. As you’re so fond of logical fallacies you should know that this is appeal to authority and majority.


I wonder what it's like to be a married atheist or atheist with a girlfriend? You guys couldn't even believe your own GF loved you right?


Of course you could, you can tell by their behaviour; you have inbuilt mechanisms to do this from birth.

And while you wouldn’t test it formally, contrary to your statement love is testable.


Wouldn't you have to have some kind of trusting faith involved?


Trust and faith are not synonymous, trust is based on prior observation; I trust a doctor because I know they have gone through rigorous training and I trust that training because I have observed that the system works (and so on and so forth). I trust a girlfriend also because of prior observed behaviour (of her and other people).

Faith is without reason or evidence.


Okay, now here you're just being dishonest and moving the goal posts to keep God out and keep your pet theories in. Leprechauns might be possible. Should we go hunting for leprechauns as long as I know what I'm looking for? No, probably not because logically they're not likely. But that's not based on evidence. That's based on logic. Which is what I was saying. You don't always need evidence.


I started this thread asking for your reasoning not your evidence, though I consider a logical argument to be a form of evidence; at least in this context since we are not just talking about scientific testing in the same vein as physics or chemistry.

As for…

“Should we go hunting for leprechauns as long as I know what I'm looking for? No, probably not because logically they're not likely”

Why are leprechauns logically not likely but god is?


then when I point out other people are actually out there doing things based on the beliefs you turn around and say oh well, you don't always need evidence


You pointed out areas where people are doing things based on prior evidence and belief in a possibility. I am fine with both of these; none of the things you have pointed out are done with a prior belief that what they are looking for is true.

What I am talking about is holding a belief that something is true without having any reason to, this does not apply to CERN or SETI because these people don’t say that the higgs boson or aliens are real, they say they are possible.

Someone who believes in god is not saying god is possible they say god is real.


Sometimes you don't need evidence to believe something is possible, but you disagreed


I never disagreed with that.

However see two paragraphs down:


Now you say, well you don't really need evidence, you just need to know what you're looking for!


I did not say that either, I said that in the context of directing finite funds (an irrelevant issue you brought up) then one must know what to look for otherwise you’re on a wild goose chase. That is why those who say that god is possible don’t receive funding to build a god antenna. They can still think a god is possible, as do I, they’re just not going to get anyone to pay for an experiment when they don’t know what it is they would expect to see if god was real. If they did then they'd probably get the money but it has nothing to do with whether they believe in god or not.

You moved the goal posts there; my issue is with personal belief or none belief not how a government decides where to spend its money.


Believing that something might exist without evidence is still just a belief based on no evidence right?


No it isn’t, it is evidenced by the fact that our knowledge is limited and new things are being discovered daily.

This is not about belief in itself it is about believe without reason. There is reason to believe that things that we don’t yet know or have no means of testing might still be true.


You really can't figure out how a person would use math to form a belief with no evidence? Look at Einstein.


I don’t think you fully understand how this branch of science works. They don’t just write equations and say “it fits with my last equation therefore it’s true”, they make predictions that can be tested. Einstein’s theories are held as true because those predictions that we have the ability to test (they are numerous) have been scientifically verified. That is evidence.


Only recently have we even had the technology to test his ideas, but very smart people believed he was right and accepted them long before science could test them and prove them correct.


Again that is not true, his theories were tested as early as 1919 (earlier?). Some aspects of his theories were not possible to test until recently and still others can’t be tested even now but we continue to explore his theories because of these earlier confirmations.

There is a logical reason and evidence to continue to believe that Einstein was right but even so no scientist would say that we should not consider and explore the possibility that he was wrong.


But you didn’t answer my questions;

You have said that to not believe something because there is no reason or evidence is foolish because you risk rejecting some truths. So what is your alternative, how do you filter out the fact from the fiction in the absence of any reason to do either?

If you can’t say “I don’t believe this because there is no reason behind it” then why don’t you believe in fairies or leprechauns?


[edit on 13-10-2009 by Mike_A]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Okay, here's my point is this. When it comes to faster than light travel you may be able to get around it with a warp drive or something where the ship doesn't actually move. Only the massless warp field moves, but to actually get a ship of any construction to move faster than light itself, well most people believe that is impossible including top scientists. Not just might not be possible, but they're pretty darn sure it'll never be possible.

That's why people trying to figure out the equations for warp drives, are trying to figure out ways to build warp drives. Because they already believe that most likely Einstein was correct and they'll have to "get around" the problem because they're not going to be able to solve it any other way. Even though nobody has actually tried ramming an infinite amount of energy through a ship's engine and seeing if it's possible without the warp drive. But that's because we don't have the technology to do that test. But since we have common sense, we know it probably wouldn't work even though we've never tried it. Using a warp drive would not prove Einstein wrong though because of the nature of the warp drive.

So anyway, love is testable? How is love testable? How do you know love even exists? How do you know it's not just a chemical reaction and if their body chemicals changed tomorrow they could just stop loving you.

Heck I just seen a study saying women that go off birth control many times no longer find themselves attracted to their SO. That when their body hormones change back to normal they break up with who their with many times and don't "love" them anymore.

Do you believe that love is more than just biological a chemical reaction? Because that's just lust, not really love. Do you believe in the abstract concept of love?

Coming from wrecked homes, I've seen many many times where everyone acts perfectly normal and lovey dovey and the wife comes home and does the dishes and cleans the house and is nothing but nice to the man, and the next day she's packed up and gone with another man and the guy never had any idea. I've seen them men do the same.

How do you know she/he won't leave you tomorrow? Where's your evidence that love even exists?

How is love testable? If she's nice to you does that mean she loves you? Strippers are usually nice to guys, but it's not the guy they love. If she cleans the house and always comes home on time does that mean she loves you? Cause I've seen both men and women do that for 40 years and be gone the next day because they met someone else. Does it just mean she hasn't found another place to stay yet?

You're telling me you could always tell if a girl was two timing you even though no man in the history of the world has figured out how to ALWAYS tell if they're being cheated on?

How do you know with 100 percent certainty that someone loves you? How do you know that love is even real? So far all the science says love isn't even real. It's just a chemical biological attraction or perhaps evolved programmed behavior.

What is love to you, and what is your test? How do you know it exists?

EDIT:
How do you pick out the truths from the false hoods? Well one method I would suggest is using the same methods that the math people who work on warp drive calculations used and I'm sure they used a few different methods.

Even without knowing with 100 percent that Einstein was right, they still somehow came to the conclusion that it's most logical to try and get around the problem by building warp drives instead of trying to prove the problem didn't exist at all. If we could ask them and see what they say.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Why is your god the real god?


He rose from the dead.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Hi Texastig--

Are you aware that in the mangled Greek of the New Testament texts (5446 Manuscripts, no two alike, and a grat deal of the texts are written with impossible grammatical howlers) never use ROSE in the active sense but rather WAS EXALTED in the passive sense when it comes to the fate of the remains of the seditionist R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir following his execution by Roman Authorities at Pesach in 36 CE for armed sedition (Luke 22:40-52) against Rome (breach of Lex Maiestatis, the socalled No King but Caesar law)...

There is a BIG difference in essentialy between 'he rose from the dead' and 'he was exalted in his death to the right hand of the Most High EL'--i.e. suffered a ''righteous-martyr's' death (see Daniel chapter 12).

When 'believers' claim that there were witnesses to this 'exaltation' remember that ONLY HIS FOLLOWERS claimed to have experienced 'his manifestation' (they never say in the mangled Greek texts 'they saw him' they say things (alla Osiris or Mithras) like 'he was MANIFESTED unto them' which is again, not quite the same thing.

In the more than 30 Mystery Religions which circulated at the time of the earliest Messianic Jewish movements, including Seccacah/Qumran where the Dead Sea Scrolls were being copies (and these Mysteries predated AND post-dated the early Christian Mystery religions in the levant and asia minor/Egypt in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE), the god or focus of the mystery (whether it be the Mysteries of Osiris, or of Isis, or of Zeus, or of Osiris-Hapis (Serapis) or of Dyonisius etal.) was 'MANIFESTED' unto the Mystes (i.e. the baptised novitiate) which formed the Climax following a long ceremony involving fasting and prayers and chanting and other rituals which parallell the earliest Christian and Dead Sea Scroll (Essenoid) Mystery Religions.

To blindly claim that this R. Yehoshua 'rose from the dead' is a gross mis-translaton and total 'violation of the mangled Greeki NT texts' not only of the bad Greek MSS copies that form what later was voted into the 'New' Testament after Nicaea, but is totally contrary to the earliest Nazrorean beliefs about the Exalted Messiah, 'the Nazir of the Judaeans' following his Roman execution by crucifixion---the specific penalty for armed sedition against the Maiestas of the 'divine' Roman Emperor Tiberius in 36 CE....



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 




He rose from the dead.


This is why you said this is your proof. Can you prove it? Also, isn't the fable about "Jesus" rising from the dead? So Jesus is God? God rose from the dead? The concept of "dead" doesn't even exist to God.

Are you a Pagan? You think Jesus is a god and then there is God. So you have two gods? I have no problem with Pagans as some of my best friends are Pagan.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Warp drive – Everything you have said about it still has sound reason behind it. We believe Einstein was correct because his theories have been verified every time they have been tested; we can test aspects of special relativity that confirm that faster than light speeds are impossible therefore we believe that it’s impossible. That may change but the reasons for this thinking are backed by reason as well as evidence. People are exploring alternate methods of travel that would negate special relativity because other theories (equally tested) show that these alternatives are possible while remaining consistent with special relativity.

Love – As with any emotion it is just a physiological, behavioural and chemical process. It exists no less for that fact; “love” is just the label we give to this process.

We know it exists because people consistently report the same conscious feelings coupled with the same physiological reaction.

It’s tested as any other such process is tested, for example using EEG or fMRI to determine the areas of the brain that produce the emotion. If you wanted to formally test someone to see if they genuinely loved you then that would probably be the method you would use; you can’t fake the blood flow in your brain.

Your interpretation of “behaviour” is a little obtuse; behaviour includes everything that a person does not just the big behaviour patterns such as always cooking dinner. It includes involuntary facial expressions, vocal expression, the choice of words, whether or not someone gets physically close to you, whether they mirror your movements or not etc; most of these things are not consciously perceived but nevertheless inform your conscious, through top down processes, that “this person loves you”.

Is this always correct? No, of course not, I never said that it was; but where I do hold this belief I do so for a sound reason that has shown to be very accurate, it’s not arbitrary. And that is the crucial point.

Remember I said that if you take the view that a reason must be present before believing something then you will successfully filter out most falsehoods at the expense of rejecting only a few truths. And that requiring reason before believing something was the most efficient method of filtering the truths from the falsehoods; I did not say that it was 100% accurate. It is, however, far better than arbitrarily accepting things for which there is no reason.

Btw lust is something different; people show the same physiological reaction to a pet they’ve had all their lives as they do to a significant partner and report the same feeling of love but you wouldn’t say they lust after their cat just because it involved chemicals or neurons.


How do you pick out the truths from the false hoods? Well one method I would suggest is using the same methods that the math people who work on warp drive calculations used and I'm sure they used a few different methods.


That method is the scientific method, develop a hypothesis based on current observations, test the hypothesis, refine where necessary and retest until it is consistent with what is observed.

That fits perfectly well with everything I’ve said, it does not fit with the idea that one does not need reason before believing something. These mathematicians have ample reason behind what they are doing.

So again how do you filter out the fact from the fiction in the absence of any reason to do either? “In the absence of any reason” is the crucial factor there.

And,

If you can’t say “I don’t believe this because there is no reason behind it” then why don’t you believe in fairies or leprechauns?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Oh you only believe in the physical biological kind of love. You don't believe in abstract soul mate kind of love. I guess perhaps you'd have to believe in a soul for that.

You only believe in, she likes me because her vajayjay told her to love me, and as soon as her vajayjay tells her to love someone else she will love someone else. That there is no free will or no true choice. It's just an illusion created from evolution.

You only love her because your peener told you to because strategically you'll be able to spread your genes through her and that kind of thing. There's no real soul level love. It's just whoever I'm attracted to today is the one I love.

She only stays with you for evolutionary reasons for like financial protection of the offspring for evolutionary reasons like spreading on the genes. She thinks she loves and cares about you, but she really doesn't. It's just an illusion in her mind created out of a biological process so that she doesn't leave you because that would affect the offspring type of situation right? She doesn't actually care about that. It's just her DNA made her think she does right?

In other words, everything love related can be explained by evolution and biology alone right? There is no soul. No connection. It's just about reproducing the genes right?

That goes further into is their free will and things like that. Like do you really have a choice to love her or does your DNA control it? Is there really a conscience or is the sense of self just an illusion that appears out of purely biological processes. Well I don't know the answer to that.

I believe in a different kind of love where someone really loves you at the soul level for reasons other than their private parts and body chemicals forced them to love you and as soon as their chemistry changes they're out the door with someone else. Even though, sometimes that's the case.

Cause, I believe in that kind of physical chemical attraction too that can go away at anytime, but I believe there can also be more at a higher level even if it might be rare or not.

I believe in a higher form of love. Don't know if it exists or not, but I choose to believe even though the evidence may say different.

But I wonder, if love is just a chemical reaction and people don't have any control over who they love and there is no free will then if one should still be mad or hurt because a person cheated on you?

I mean people get so mad and jealous about it, but if it's just a biological reaction then there's really nothing to get upset about when your wife cheats on you cause it was just her chemistry telling her to do it right?

And since you have no soul and you're just one big chemical reaction, how can you be mad at a chemical reaction for doing what a chemical reaction does?

I mean it just comes down to evolution where the only reason you're jealous is because it's an evolutionary thing to stop you from wasting resources to raise someone else's genes unknowingly and not your own when the SO cheats.

So, jealousy is just an evolutionary thing to create the illusion that you care about someone so you don't raise someone else's genes thinking they are your own right? It's not because you're really jealous or really care about the other person. It's just an evolutionary illusion to make you think you care because animals that got jealous produced more offspring for natural selection so those patterns spread right?

But you can't really blame the guy trying to do your wife. He's just doing the smart thing evolutionary wise when he's trying to do your wife. He's just trying to spread his genes too right? You can't really blame him for that right?

But I guess real love never gets involved. From an evolutionary point of view as long as I use a condom on someone else's wife it's probably not a problem. It's just everybody's biological privates controlling everything they do right? No free will. No choice. Just do what your peener tells you to. Right?

Well, if you want to believe in that, I can't tell you you're wrong. There is lots and lots of evidence to back you up there. I mean I can't argue at all and if I did I couldn't support my argument with evidence.

However, it's just sad because you know that your partner will never actually love you in that system because there is no real "love". There is just biological attraction.

All they care about is spreading their genes in the evolutionary system. Love is an illusion to make that happen, true, but it's not real. As soon as a better opportunity to spread their genes comes along they'll be gone and so will you.

Believing like you believe means nobody will ever really love you at the soul level simply because it is impossible to do so because there is no soul.

So, if you want to accept that, that's fine. I mean I don't consider a chemical reaction love though. I would prefer a different word for the kind of love you speak of. Maybe we could work together to come up with a good one lol.

But even if that's all true, I think I'd rather not know the truth to that. It would be hard to know that your mate will never really "love" you and it's just a chemical reaction that neither of you have any control or choice over.

I think I'm better off not knowing. So, I'll leave the thread here instead of debating about it from here on .

EDIT: Oh your idea about how we can't test all Einstein's theories, but all the ones we've tested have panned out so we can use that to tell that' he's most likely correct about the rest. Yeah I accept that. You're right on there.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Oh you only believe in the physical biological kind of love. You don't believe in abstract soul mate kind of love.


Can you describe it without referring to biological reactions, feelings and desires?

All of these are known, quantifiable physiological and psychological processes.


You only believe in, she likes me because her vajayjay told her to love me


No, though it does involve such biological forces in the context of a sexual partner it does not necessarily involve those same forces in all cases and it includes influence from a wide range of areas include social, cultural, learned behaviours etc. It is not just a biological drive to mate otherwise you wouldn’t love your mother or your pet and same sex couples would never talk about love.


She thinks she loves and cares about you, but she really doesn't.


If you exhibit the same “symptoms” and feel love then you love regardless of what is making you love. If I asked what your favourite food is, you wouldn’t like it any less if I described the biological forces that make you like it. It’s no different with love.


But I wonder, if love is just a chemical reaction and people don't have any control over who they love and there is no free will then if one should still be mad or hurt because a person cheated on you?


Of course, regardless of who or why they love you or someone else they still have an understanding of your feelings (assuming they’re a normal, healthy person) and to cheat on you would be callous and hurtful. Plenty reason to be a bit miffed imho.

On free will, whether you believe it to be grounded in the physical or “something deeper” you still have no choice in it do you. So on those grounds you can’t argue against the physical because it’s the same with any none physical explanation.

But this is all getting very, very far from the point.

The initial claim was that I couldn’t know if someone loved me because there is no reason to think that, I think I’ve amply set out the counter argument to that. Knowing whether someone loves is reasoned, this has been well tested for many years, it’s evidenced by every facet of its study, you can deny it but not with logic on your side.

This is about reason, not love; love has a reason behind it, knowing whether someone loves you has a reason behind it, believing Einstein was correct has a reason behind it, exploring warp drives has a reason behind it etc etc

So is it not true that the most efficient way of filtering fact from fiction is to require a sound reason for believing something and that this will filter out most falsehoods while rejecting only a few truths?

And I take it by the lack of reply to the leprechaun question you can’t answer without saying that there is just no reason to believe in them.

All this being so, going back to god, if you don’t have a reasoned argument for believing in this god over another (taking into account the criticisms of the morals argument) then why do it at all?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 

Yes you can know that someone loves you, but that's because you've redefined love and think of it as something different than what the poets talk about. That's why I suggested another word be used because we're talking about two different things. I was talking more about a fate or destiny kind of love or love of the soul.

Everything else can be explained by evolution alone.

You can call it a biological process or a learned behavior or psychology, but it's all based on the biological. As soon as the biology changes so to does the entire culture. Our culture is also caused by our biology.

For example you point to the loving the kids and the pets. This is most likely a biological thing where your biology, through hormones, makes you feel a feeling of love for your kids and the helpless so you'll take care of them to protect your genes through the offspring. Yes loving your kids is all about producing offspring. It's about protecting that offspring once you've already produced it.

Children that are biologically programmed to love their parents probably did better in being protected by their parents in a human environment. The parent is genetically programmed to feel love for the child, and a child that is programmed to love back perhaps can appeal to the parent's programming to get more attention from the parents over the siblings.

That feeling of taking care of the more helpless offspring probably carries over to the pets as well because evolution isn't perfect. Sometimes you get things you don't need.

Also, tribes that were biologically programmed to care for pets are more likely to have a dogs or some other protector that may protect the tribe from attackers. Guard dogs warn of attackers. But sometimes mutations are just random and don't help at all in the current environment. But once we have the mutation for love, well nature isn't perfect. We may end up having feelings of love for all kinds of things that make no sense, but they're just feelings created out of chemical reactions.

To me that's not real love. It's just biological programming. True they have the emotions, but the emotions are just the urges created out of the programming. Consider other animals that have different programming like scorpions and spiders and mantises where after mating the male has to make a mad dash to get away from the female because the female is programmed to try and eat the mate.

You could say it's psychological, but the psychology is also created out of the biological urges. Some of us are programmed to think we love our mate, other animals are programmed to eat their mates, but it's all biology and programming. There is no soul for real love to come from. You only love because your DNA tells you to. As soon as it tells you to start eating other people then you will just like a spider does.

Learned behavior is also just behavior that comes out of evolution and then gets passed around by the culture. For example, taking care of your offspring isn't a learned behavior from culture because we have to consider severe cases of postpartum depression where the mother attempts to kill the children.

As we see we don't even have to do something as complicated as changing the DNA. All we need is a few hormones out of whack and all of a sudden a women's biology is reprogrammed and instead of being programmed to love the children they're programmed to hate the children and try to kill them. That's not learned from society. We teach parents not to kill their children, so why do they try to kill their children?

Because their biology completely controls them. There is no "self". Whatever the body tells them to do they do. They may fight it because of learned behavior, but sometimes the urges win. But you can't say it's a choice. No one chooses to kill their children. Most likely it's because they're programmed to do so because of hormones out of whack.

However, if everyone was biologically programmed to kill their children, soon the learned behavior would change too. It would be normal to kill your offspring. But humans like that wouldn't survive natural selection so you're not likely to ever see that.

But we see that a mother's love for their children isn't real at all. It's just a chemical reaction that once put out of whack can results in a murderous mother trying to kill their children.

Once we get the chemicals back in line again, all of a sudden all this love comes back that wasn't there before.

Same thing with homosexuals. A mutation doesn't have to be beneficial. Sometimes a mutation is just random. Homosexuality isn't a learned behavior or choice they make. Many homosexuals would choose to not be homosexual if they had a choice. But they don't have a choice. They have an emotional urge they cannot control because their body is controlling them. They have no true control over the programming in their DNA.

Also, a guess is that homosexuality is an attempt of nature to produce extra foster parents without further overpopulating the species, but nature isn't always perfect in its attempts so maybe that's one mutation that doesn't work really or we're just not making good use of it.

Eventually those urges take control of them though. Just like one's urge to be hungry or not. I can't choose to not be hungry. I'm programmed to eat. I have no choice over it. Until I eat, my body will keep telling me over and over that I'm hungry.

If we could reprogram DNA at will though we could turn that switch off. Turn another switch and mothers don't love their children anymore. Turn another switch and we're gay.

Love is just a switch in which we have an urge to take care of our offspring. Other animals don't have this though because in their environment they don't require it. They may just lay eggs somewhere and then forget about them and never come back. What works in one environment doesn't always work in another.

It's all just programming though. Flick a switch or change a hormone and it's gone. That's all evolution can provide us with. A subtle difference. According to evolution we're all just robots that are preprogrammed to act how we act.

So in this kind of love, it is just a computer program. True we have this emotional urge, but a flick of a switch and that love could be all gone.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by tinfoilman]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join