Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

Does reality exist if its not measured?
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

Measurement doesn't require an individual to be present, and you also missed (as the title of the article is misleading) that this is at a quantum level. As such, measured or not, my point still stands.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Further the tree in the forest is a prime example.
If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.

You're an idiot. Stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Further the tree in the forest is a prime example.
If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.

 

[dylansan]

How do we even know the tree fell in the first place...

 

[JKgo]

How do we even know the tree fell in the first place...

1. Ask God.
2. Ask the tree. Oh wait...

 

[GTsail]

Further the tree in the forest is a prime example.
If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.

Now this is the closer:
The only way that it can be percieved, known, or established from a reality position, that any of the above factors occurred, is by prior perception of the individual.

So if there is no individual there is no anything.

I'm a little unclear on what you are trying to explain with your example, so:

If all people were removed from the World, would your God still exist?

Without individuals to perceive your God, would he cease to exist?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[TenEightyOne]

How do we even know the tree fell in the first place...

Because it's in the question. "If a tree falls..."

 

[Imari]

Does reality exist if its not measured?
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

This effect has been known for a while at the quantum level. Look up firing single photons at a double slit.

But it's not about reality existing, it's about reality changing based on whether it is observed or not. And even then it's only at the quantum level, there's nothing to suggest that this effect persists in macro level physics.

There is lots of stuff that is poorly understood about quantum physics, this is just one more.

How do we even know the tree fell in the first place...

The cat hops out of his box, resurrects, and tweets the status of the tree to the experimenter, who is engaged in some secret highly experimental shagging.

 

[Denur]

However, there is absolutely, positively, without exception, no way to establish objectivity apart from the subjective perception of the individual or individuals.

Has no one told you? Objective is the opposite of subjective. If something can only be established by subjective perception, then by definition it cannot be objective.

 

[JKgo]

The cat hops out of his box, resurrects, and tweets the status of the tree to the experimenter, who is engaged in some secret highly experimental shagging.

 

[CBH]

I believe in God.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Forgive me if I have trouble taking you seriously after this one.

No problem, thats quite alright.

You mean you have actually been taking @SuperCobraJet seriously? He doesn't take observations, evidence, science or reason seriously, and hasn't taken any of our postings seriously by replying coherently, so why treat SCJ with serious consideration?

You obviously haven't read all of my posts, like this one:

Again that is certainly your choice to make.
Although you maynot believe it I can completely understand how you could believe that.
You may notice I already stated it is logical to believe that.
There are a few reasons why that is the case.
First from a carnal perspective(from without) it is reasonable to believe it is a myth.
Secondly, if our nature is as God describes it, that is consistent with the natural reaction.
The fact Jesus Christ is an offense also shows that to be expected.
As well God clearly states he has taken the wisdom of man and made it foolishness, and the foolishness and made it the wisdom of God.
Further he states if one wishes to be wise, let him first become as a fool, that he may truly become wise.

Clearly your belief, is not unfounded,

That might be a tall order, but reaching an appreciable % of light speed would make relativistic space travel possible. Apparently you could even travel to the Andromeda galaxy in about 28 years, or do a return trip in ~60 (I'm guessing you'd want to stay for a while once you got there...). Unfortunately, by the time you got back to Earth, 50 million years would have elapsed and the Earth would be a completely different place - humans would have evolved to the extent that you would appear like a living fossil to them - either that or humanity and even life itself might not exist on the planet any more. On the plus side, Scotland might have actually won a major footballing tournament by then. OK, this is getting a bit far fetched now.

Hey TM, long time no reciprocal post.
Just thought I would let you know, I can agree with your estimation of the far fetched part.
However not necessarily as indicated by the time mark.

Which would still be wrong...Nope.

Quick hint - whenever you use that word at someone else, it's likely to be wrong.No. You're just not getting what the scientific method is.

The scientific method is not a process of invention but of discovery. We observe things, create a theory to explain the observation, design an hypothesis to test the theory, invent a test to prove the hypothesis wrong and collect results - then lather, rinse, repeat. We don't invent things, see if we're right and then pat ourselves on the back for knowing more things.

The purpose isn't to create knowledge, but to uncover what knowledge is already there. The knowledge is objective and our tests are objective to uncover it. Neither the knowledge nor the tests depend on any individual or group of individuals to observe them, and even if nothing at all does the knowledge does not change - because it is not a matter of individual perspective or belief.


Sometimes we don't even know that we don't know something. That it exists is objective, even in our total ignorance of it.

Well, a thousand pardons for being a stickler here for elementary concepts, but I am still curious to know how anything can be discovered, minus any perception to percieve it? And by the way that includes the discovery of ignorance. And please try, if for no other reason but just to humor me, with some logic in the process.

QUOTE="Famine, post: 10753507, member: 9036"]Ahh, those pesky fake Scots.

So not a single person on those lists (and you've read them all) was an actual Christian who converted away from the religion? Not even Jerry DeWitt, who was a preacher for 25 years?

Initially, yes I would have to say they were not.
However, it is mentioned in the Bible that it is possible to become re-entangled and overcome by sin even after being saved. And again Satan is not called the great deciever for nothing.
So it is possible that in that type of scenario that the resulting guilt, doubt, and confusion could convince one to convert to something else.

Now since I know very little if anything about those people, I cannot really say one way or the other, as to whether I think they were born again spirit filled Christians.
Perhaps some or maybe all were, or perhaps they were not.
I don't know that for sure, but my impression is they were not.

Concerning Jerry Dewitt, in reading some of his explanations for his decision, I am of the opinion that given his situation, he was role playing as a Christian getting by more on his family's faith to survive a herd situation, as opposed to his own choices and own faith. No one can inherit being a Christian. He appears to be a classic example of thinking you can. It is irrelevant what your Family believes.
What do you believe? That is the only relevant question.
It is a decision that must be made solely by each individual only.
Each person must choose it and from the heart. You cannot play act with God. He knows the heart, motivation and intention of every person.

So I am not really surprised in his actions. To me they indicate he skipped the first perequisite, unintentional as it may have been.
In my opinion it is certainly sad, but his actions were in that respect a likely eventuality.
He may at some point realize that and get it right by going about it God's officially recognized way.
That is why it is not up to me or anyone else to convince someone to become a Christian.
You must be convinced of your own volition.

Has no one told you? Objective is the opposite of subjective. If something can only be established by subjective perception, then by definition it cannot be objective.

Oh my look at this.
Bravo.
Has no one told you the production or establishment of objectivity is a refining process from subjectivity, and it is the only process whereby it can be established?
Therefore it is established, and considered objective, by subjective means.
So as said earlier, objectivity is never 100% pure.

 

[Imari]

Well, a thousand pardons for being a stickler here for elementary concepts, but I am still curious to know how anything can be discovered, minus any perception to percieve it?

But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that without perception that nothing exists. That's very different from arguing that without perception nothing can be perceived, which is tautological.

Objectivity states that without perception the rest of the universe continues to exist, regardless of whether there is anyone or anything there to perceive it at the time. The most distant objects observed are ~13 billion light years away, so what we are observing in that case happened 13 billion years ago.

Let's think about this sensibly, and try to disprove our hypotheses.

If things are objective, then we would expect observations to be similar regardless of who or what is observing them. Differences in observations (such as between a normal and a colour blind observer) may be explained by objective differences in the observer, and similar observers would be expected to make similar observations. If we find that observers that are fundamentally similar are making different observations, then that would suggest that objective reality is not correct. In particular, if we find that the same observer is making different observations when presented with the same phenomenon, that would strongly suggest that objective reality is incorrect.

If things are subjective, then we would expect observations to...what? You fill in the blanks here. It's your hypothesis, I won't put words in your mouth. Explain what you would expect to happen, and explain at least one set of circumstances that could happen that would suggest that the idea of subjective reality is incorrect.

 

[Denur]

Has no one told you the production or establishment of objectivity is a refining process from subjectivity, and it is the only process whereby it can be established?
Therefore it is established, and considered objective, by subjective means.
So as said earlier, objectivity is never 100% pure.

Mixing up process and goal. Did you even finish high school?

 

[GBO Possum]

You mean you have actually been taking @SuperCobraJet seriously? He doesn't take observations, evidence, science or reason seriously, and hasn't taken any of our postings seriously by replying coherently, so why treat SCJ with serious consideration?

You obviously haven't read all of my posts, like this one:

Again that is certainly your choice to make.
Although you maynot believe it I can completely understand how you could believe that.
You may notice I already stated it is logical to believe that.
There are a few reasons why that is the case.
First from a carnal perspective(from without) it is reasonable to believe it is a myth.
Secondly, if our nature is as God describes it, that is consistent with the natural reaction.
The fact Jesus Christ is an offense also shows that to be expected.
As well God clearly states he has taken the wisdom of man and made it foolishness, and the foolishness and made it the wisdom of God.
Further he states if one wishes to be wise, let him first become as a fool, that he may truly become wise.

Clearly your belief, is not unfounded,

SCJ, you obviously didn't understand the word "coherently", so I bolded it for you above.

It means the ability to communicate clearly and logically.

 

[DK]

How do we even know the tree fell in the first place...

How can our eyes be real when trees don't make a sound when they fall unobserved?

 

[G.T.Ace]

How can our eyes be real when trees don't make a sound when they fall unobserved?

Maybe you're all just a part of my imagination? How can I know you're real?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that without perception that nothing exists. That's very different from arguing that without perception nothing can be perceived, which is tautological.

Nothing exists from the standpoint of "if there is no perception to establish, or know about it".
That does not establish that there is "no possiblity for something to exist".
Only that it does not exist due to the inability to perceive it.
So under that condition, nothing can be said to exist, so nothing exists.
Possibilities are inperceivable as well so again nothing exists.

Objectivity states that without perception the rest of the universe continues to exist, regardless of whether there is anyone or anything there to perceive it at the time. The most distant objects observed are ~13 billion light years away, so what we are observing in that case happened 13 billion years ago.

That is nothing more than a tree in the forest example albeit a little more complex and based on the observation of an ongoing event, as opposed to a hypothetical event known to exist and of a shorter duration.
Still just an exercise in perception.

Let's think about this sensibly, and try to disprove our hypotheses.

If things are objective, then we would expect observations to be similar regardless of who or what is observing them. Differences in observations (such as between a normal and a colour blind observer) may be explained by objective differences in the observer, and similar observers would be expected to make similar observations. If we find that observers that are fundamentally similar are making different observations, then that would suggest that objective reality is not correct. In particular, if we find that the same observer is making different observations when presented with the same phenomenon, that would strongly suggest that objective reality is incorrect.

If things are subjective, then we would expect observations to...what? You fill in the blanks here. It's your hypothesis, I won't put words in your mouth. Explain what you would expect to happen, and explain at least one set of circumstances that could happen that would suggest that the idea of subjective reality is incorrect.

Objectivity is a part of the perception claim.
The original claim as I recall, is that:
"In reality everything is of belief, or perception".
As explained in the first reply of this post, the establishment of, or knowing, of anything and everything is only by way of perception.
That is just a simple, bonafide, inescapable fact.
Now the second factor of the same status is that the perception is inseparable from the individual.(person or persons)
Third and also a factor of the same status, is that the perception of said individual is of a subjective nature.

So now we come to how to establish objectivity with the only available resource to do so, which is the said individual with the subjective perception.
Given the factors that are clearly established, how can that be done?
Well, the only way to go about it is to devise a system that minimizes subjectivity, and maximizes objectivity.
Hence the Scientific method.
Now through that process of refinement a high percentage of objective purity is considered to be obtainable. (subjectively tainted as it may be)
So that being the case, that which is subjected to this method can be generally and logically considered objective and acceptable as factual. Assurance as per evidential support has now been established to satisfy belief.
Or in other words there is sufficient removal of doubt for acceptance through testability, repeatablity, and measurability.
However, even so, the products of the system and the esteem in which they maybe held, is still one of belief, and that is because of the subjective perception that must be adopted to establish the objectivity.
Hence the objectivity can never be of 100% purity.
The fact that some things established in this manner can be overidden or disproved at a later date supports that as well.

Lastly do I believe that just because the system is imperfect and must employ subjective means, that it is incapable of establishing objectivity in a high percentage of purity?
Certainly not.
As a matter of fact I would not be here participating in this discussion if it were not for God's grace, and the developement in one area of that system.


Oh BTW something I stated earlier about the tree thing,

If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.

should have been stated as this:

"If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing, that is directly perceivable at the time of the event".

Sorry about that.

 

[Liquid]

Amongst all this talk about perception, objectivity, subjectivity, we go back and forth on that all the time.

Is there any update on proof of the actual existence of a god or on the validity of the Bible? The last few pages seem to be more about avoiding the question, or squirming to justify a lack of evidence, than actually presenting fact and evidence.

 

[Com Fox]

Amongst all this talk about perception, objectivity, subjectivity, we go back and forth on that all the time.

Is there any update on proof of the actual existence of a god or on the validity of the Bible? The last few pages seem to be more about avoiding the question, or squirming to justify a lack of evidence, than actually presenting fact and evidence.

I pretty much gave up on the subject. This pretty much watching me arguing with my "using the internet doesn't provide arguments" brother.

 

[Famine]

Amongst all this talk about perception, objectivity, subjectivity, we go back and forth on that all the time.

Is there any update on proof of the actual existence of a god or on the validity of the Bible? The last few pages seem to be more about avoiding the question, or squirming to justify a lack of evidence, than actually presenting fact and evidence.

At the moment, he's redefined literally all of those words - including "proof", "fact" and "evidence" - so there's nothing really meaningful that you can get from any post that posits to provide what you ask.

Currently he's arguing that the universe doesn't exist - though I suspect he doesn't realise that.

 

[Liquid]

I pretty much gave up on the subject. This pretty much watching me arguing with my "using the internet doesn't provide arguments" brother.

Sometimes there are very interesting discussions on the history of the Abrahamic myths and where the stories come about, or where and how they evolved. It might not be factual, due to a distinct lack of evidence for these stories to be true, but it is interesting. Interesting which pagan or indigenous ritual was accepted and taken over by the mainstream religions; marriage, the seven day week, "Christmas", creationism all predating Christianity, for example. Interesting how some people turn to, or turn away, from religion.

What we have right now is just circular nonsense.

 

[Com Fox]

Sometimes there are very interesting discussions on the history of the Abrahamic myths and where the stories come about, or where and how they evolved. It might not be factual, due to a distinct lack of evidence for these stories to be true, but it is interesting. Interesting which pagan or indigenous ritual was accepted and taken over by the mainstream religions; marriage, the seven day week, "Christmas", creationism all predating Christianity, for example. Interesting how some people turn to, or turn away, from religion.

What we have right now is just circular nonsense.

That's what I meant . Like this thread has been lately, my brother turns arguments to rubbish nonsense .

 

[DCP]

But it should be soon, right? Like within a few years from now? Are you already preparing for the days leading to the Rapture, like stocking food and weapons?

Those who choose to be left behind can plan all of that.
I plan to be out of here before it starts. Why go through all of that, then to rather avoid it completely.
A free gift. I mean, will you be happy that God takes away your infants to protect them?

Trust me, the Rapture is at the door even. Some of you guys say we have been waiting for 2000 years, while you continue to prove the bible right by mocking and scoffing, yet fail to understand biblical prophecy, of the events that must take place leading to the Rapture. If you seriously interested, I'll be glad to share.
When God says, Love your enemy, it doesn't mean you are my enemy in the natural. You are my enemy in the spirit, meaning you disagree with the sole purpose and plan of God to rescue those that want to be rescued from the wickedness that is soon about to fall upon this already fallen world. Who is the cause. Yep, mankind as usual.

You're assuming I believe the bible. I don't know that there was a sacrifice, let alone what the purpose was, let alone the REAL point which is what the effect was. None of that is anything I "know". I choose not to have any dealing with the tooth... jesus... because I don't think he exists.

Also, technically, Jesus is God right? Holy trinity and all that? Jesus, God and the easterbunny make one holy trinity, they are one in the same. So if Jesus is God, then Jesus is responsible for the old testament, and in that they seemed to favor stoning over beheading. The God of christianity is responsible for some pretty horrific acts and commands, and that's on Jesus too, and the easterbunny for that matter.

Jesus is responsible for the commandments / covenant to the Jews in the OT. Without it, the birth of Jesus wouldn't be possible. Secondly, God is love, so likewise, if you are love, and if wickedness or evil came to take away your own family, you would do whatever to destroy it before it destroyed your family, right? Simple yes or no.
The bible has never made such claims of an easter bunny. Again, you prove the bible right by mocking. You go boy.

Wait, really? Stories are enough to prove something? That makes Robin Hood, James Bond, and a host of other individuals real, I suppose. It also must imply other religious figures exist, too.

"God" (or at least, religious beliefs in a powerful entity) is one of the leading causes of death in the world. Christians alone have killed plenty over the years in the name of their religion.

The tooth fairy is an imaginary individual created in stories to coerce children into doing something on the promise of a future reward. That actually sounds incredibly similar.

Actually, the difference with the tooth fairy is I definitely did get the reward!

Where is James Bond site that the whole world goes to visit? The site that was prophesied about? The site that everyone wants a piece of?
Where is 2 billion people worshipping ol Jamsey?
Where does Jamsey proclaim creation, and when did James sacrifice his son for the world?

How do you know those people that killed in the name of God, are Godly people...??? You don't. ONly the Creator does, hence why He says He judges by the heart, and not by deeds.
Jesus said, love your neighbor, and your enemy. Are these people killing religiously actually following Christ?
If not, how can you say they follow God?

The toothfairy gave you a material reward, which is temporary, since you don't know if you will be breathing tomorrow.
Christ will give you a spiritual eternal reward. Your free choice of what reward you want.

So hell is just a natural consequence of not believing in god? He had no say in that matter?

Let me ask this: Who created hell?

The bible is clear that God created hell for satan and his demons.
The bible is also clear that all evil doers will have their place in the lake of fire.
Since you were born to attack the bible (like claims of being born gay etc), I'm sure you know what is "evil" in GODS eyes, by "Gods" standards.
If you fit the above, "you" can actually change that, but by no means will it go away, if you keep telling yourself God doesn't exist, or allow your friends to convince you as well.

It's so simple.
"Lord Jesus, I confess my sins, and I am sorry. Forgive me. I believe in you. Come into my heart".
After that, go and sin no more. Nothing else.

Just those few words will save you. Free will indeed.


@Liquid

Yes there is. I've been saying for a while now, that it is not possible for something to come from nothing. Organized chaos. No such thing.
Where did the energy come from. Where did the information come from. Where did ethics come from etc.

God created it, and you can know who God is, through Jesus Christ. Choice.
The incredible journey of the Jews tells you about Gods promise. The signs and wonders and prophecies in the Bible.
What a man believeth in his heart, so is he.

 

[Com Fox]

The bible is clear that God created hell for satan and his demons.
The bible is also clear that all evil doers will have their place in the lake of fire.
Since you were born to attack the bible (like claims of being born gay etc), I'm sure you know what is "evil" in GODS eyes, by "Gods" standards.
If you fit the above, "you" can actually change that, but by no means will it go away, if you keep telling yourself God doesn't exist, or allow your friends to convince you as well.

It's so simple.
"Lord Jesus, I confess my sins, and I am sorry. Forgive me. I believe in you. Come into my heart".
After that, go and sin no more. Nothing else.

Just those few words will save you. Free will indeed.

So by free will, you mean strip us off our dignity and our own opinions just to go to a place that is only said in a book.

By your logic, I can just say Pokemon is real and when I die, I get sent to the Pokemon World.

 

[DCP]

So by free will, you mean strip us off our dignity and our own opinions just to go to a place that is only said in a book.

By your logic, I can just say Pokemon is real and when I die, I get sent to the Pokemon World.

If you have free will to practice evil, obviously you must pay for it.
I think I was quite clear when I said God hates sin. I don't know what intentions you have in your heart.
God does. Your intentions might seem right to you, but I ask you, is it right according to Gods standards?
If not, then you are without excuse.

Being a christian doesn't mean we are saved, but rather, that we need a Savior because we make mistakes all the time. It's the whole purpose of Christs suffering for us.
Don't think that you can freely sin because of this. You are then seriously mistaken and miss-informed.

 

[Imari]

However, even so, the products of the system and the esteem in which they maybe held, is still one of belief, and that is because of the subjective perception that must be adopted to establish the objectivity.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring to your attention a fascinating exhibit.

Here we have a believer that is so engrossed in belief that he cannot imagine any other way to be. When it is explained to him how other people observe and judge things without belief, he finds a way to attribute those things to belief. When objectivity is explained to him, he finds a way to attribute it to belief. When logic is explained to him, he finds a way to attribute it to belief. Everything is fundamentally a belief, to this man.

Here we have a believer whose beliefs are so deeply embedded that he is unable to contemplate anything that does not come about as a result of belief. That's what most people call closed-minded, the inability to comprehend the thoughts and opinions of others.

One might imagine the consternation such a person might face when considering "I think, therefore I am". Were he to cease to believe that he thought and therefore he was, he might poof out of existence.

Luckily, those of us who are braver have tried this. No poof. Honest.

SCJ, you completely avoided the task I put to you. If the universe is subjective, what observations would be made, and what observations would be made that could disprove this hypothesis?

I submit to you that no possible observation can disprove it, and therefore it's not a valid hypothesis.

 

[Famine]

Yes there is. I've been saying for a while now, that it is not possible for something to come from nothing.

You need to establish both that this is the case and that this is the alternative to divine creation.

And also establish why it doesn't apply to deities.

Where is James Bond site that the whole world goes to visit? The site that was prophesied about? The site that everyone wants a piece of?

Oh there's a few. I mean the most obvious is Stoke Poges golf course, but the MI6 building and Pinewood Studios both see significant Bond-related tourism.

Where is 2 billion people worshipping ol Jamsey?

The combined ticket and home cinema sales for Bond films now totals in the range of 4-5 billion.

And of course there's a Bond film on TV every Christmas - practically a ritual of the holy holiday...

 

[Com Fox]

If you have free will to practice evil, obviously you must pay for it.
I think I was quite clear when I said God hates sin. I don't know what intentions you have in your heart.
God does. Your intentions might seem right to you, but I ask you, is it right according to Gods standards?
If not, then you are without excuse.

Being a christian doesn't mean we are saved, but rather, that we need a Savior because we make mistakes all the time. It's the whole purpose of Christs suffering for us.
Don't think that you can freely sin because of this. You are then seriously mistaken and miss-informed.

You're answering the question as if Christianity applies to a non-believer.

I don't think Sins exist, I don't think God exist and I absolutely think that there is no suck thing as a saviour.

This, to me is just gibberish that I once learned in 2nd Grade,

 

[DQuaN]

Those who choose to be left behind can plan all of that.
I plan to be out of here before it starts.

Err....

What exactly to you mean by this? It almost sounds like you are in some kind of suicide cult.