Is God Real?

[Cris]

Jenyar,

So we agree that death is an affliction. But we disagree on its source and on the cure.

OK, close enough.

Even a way of sustaining your body indefinitely will not "cure" death, it will only postpone it indefinitely.

100 years is too short, a trillion years I can handle and then worry about what comes next at that time. Indefinitely sounds fine to me for the moment.

And assuming you are still talking about a human being as we know it: dependent on the earth, oxygen and food to sustain it.

No I am not. I do not see any long term future for a biological format dependent on the environment of a particular planet. Our biological bodies are weak and fragile, they are easily damaged, decay easily and quickly, and have no effective fault tolerant mechanism in the event of fatal disasters.

My position is that only the creator of life can ultimately sustain it. Evolution hasn't proved very competent at that. What makes you so certain we can do better?

Up until now evolution has been an undirected and highly inefficient process, hence the reason it has taken billions of years for us to arrive. Our intelligence and current scientific knowledge is slowly allowing us to begin to direct our own future evolution. Genetic engineering is certainly one area but that process will take generations to effect any major changes to say brain capacity, and we would still remain as fragile biological entities. That the disease of aging will be cured as will such things as cancer should not be in any doubt. While these are good they are insignificant to what we could do.

No, I do not see the future of mankind progressing through biology but through other more resilient technologies that will free us from the confines and limitations of an earthly biological environment. Neuroscience is revealing that what we call the mind is the result of 100 billion neurons arranged in forever changing and adapting neural networks that represent our thoughts, emotions, intelligence, and our awareness. But computer science is following another path where these human-like properties will be created in non-human forms and become artificial intelligence (AI), estimated at around 2020 according to Carnegie Mellon University.

The arrival of human level AI is expected to be only temporary since it is on an ever advancing technological path. AI is expected to exceed human level intelligence shortly after arriving. We will then no longer be the dominant intelligence on the planet. This is known as the arrival of super-intelligence or the singularity. By its very nature it is expected to take place very rapidly - http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html

The best scenario for mankind, I believe, beyond that is that we develop a way to analyze our own neural networks and transfer them into an AI organism. This is known as Minduploading and is actively being pursued by some scientists around the world. At this point biology and all its massive limitations and restrictions becomes irrelevant, we will have evolved into something quite different to current humanity and with an intelligence measured in orders of magnitude higher. As appears usual with punctuated evolutionary processes, the change from human to post-human will not be long and gradual but massive and very short.

What happens beyond that is difficult to see, but that our neural networks that represent our ‘consciousness’ survive in a form that can be easily and permanently preserved, transferred, transmitted, and easily cloned, is a massive paradigm shift. In effect humanity will have morphed into something radically different to any lifeform that currently exists or has ever existed. We will become a new species of non-biological immortal life.

Others see a more gradual transition where humans are progressively augmented by new technology. Latest technology has already made it possible using direct brain implants connected to small processors to allow the deaf to hear and the blind to see.

A French philosopher whose name escapes me once wrote: "anybody who believes in justice must believe in the hereafter."

The trouble with that is that justice is man made. If we want justice then we must create our own immortality.

References –

Transhumanism – http://www.transhumanism.org
Immortality Institute - http://www.imminst.org/

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
But, Marc, quarks were detected in 1975, we don’t have to believe in them for them to exist because they are real and independent of our imagination.

Yet I'm almost positive many, and possibly you too, who accept their existence aren't even familiar with the process by which they were detected; that is faith manifest.

Now, God of course is quite a different matter.

Quite so.

He has never been detected and there is nothing to indicate he is real, hence if we stop imagining him he will simply vanish and no one will notice any difference.

You can accept what you are told about the existence of the quark but not about God's existence? Now come one Cris... isn't that a bit biased? Even irrational? That's not you now is it? I will never concretely accept such things until I conduct the experiments for myself. God can be detected, I detected Him, Jenyar detected Him, Okinirus detected him... and about 2,000,000,000 other people.

I tried it 30 years ago and it didn’t work. But it did open my eyes to atheism and for that I am truly grateful to Christianity.

You cannot be grateful to Christianity Cris, only your friend. If you did as you said, well, it's your choice. You do, after all, choose what to believe. That way in the end you won't have anyone to 'thank' for your destiny except yourself. God works wonderfully don't you think?

Any other ideas?

Actually, there are no other ideas regardless of the subject. Everything you percieve is what you percieve. If you can't see it via you how else are you going to see it? Only one other: try again.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

Yet I'm almost positive many, and possibly you too, who accept their existence aren't even familiar with the process by which they were detected; that is faith manifest.

The last serious course I did on high energy physics was at undergraduate level in 1978 where most of my time was spent studying bubble chamber photos from the CERN accelerator trying to locate sub-atomic particles. I don’t have a problem with the science and I don’t see the need for faith in this instance.

What are the problems you see with the science in this area?

You can accept what you are told about the existence of the quark but not about God's existence?

One is independently detectable the other isn’t. I don’t see any confusion with this.

Now come one Cris... isn't that a bit biased? Even irrational? That's not you now is it?

Your statements seem be without basis and the sarcasm somewhat forced. Are you running out of real arguments against me?

I will never concretely accept such things until I conduct the experiments for myself.

Are you making a statement concerning yourself or is that something you think I might say? If it’s about me then I challenge you to find anywhere in sciforums where I have made that claim.

God can be detected, I detected Him, Jenyar detected Him, Okinirus detected him... and about 2,000,000,000 other people.

No, these are only baseless claims of detection. No such claims can be distinguished from imaginative fantasy, which is infinitely more plausible.

You cannot be grateful to Christianity Cris, only your friend.

Dream on my poor deluded friend. But many atheists de-converted once they had objectively read and studied the bible. It is the atheists best weapon against a really screwy religion.

You do, after all, choose what to believe. That way in the end you won't have anyone to 'thank' for your destiny except yourself.

As do you. The difference between us of course is that you choose to believe fantasies as if they are true and you are unable to tell what is credible and what isn’t. Perhaps one day you will wake up.

God works wonderfully don't you think?

The power of the human imagination is indeed a remarkable ability.

If you can't see it via you how else are you going to see it?

Via independent evidence of course and there is none.

Only one other: try again.

There is no point. Christianity has no credibility and I have moved on.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
Marc,

The last serious course I did on high energy physics was at undergraduate level in 1978 where most of my time was spent studying bubble chamber photos from the CERN accelerator trying to locate sub-atomic particles. I don’t have a problem with the science and I don’t see the need for faith in this instance.

I've seen a few 'photos' myself. I need to examine every element of their production before I accept them as such. I guess I don't have too much faith in science.

What are the problems you see with the science in this area?

The fact that I haven't experimented for myself. I find it hard to believe the 'photos' as such. They are totally dependent on computer programming, which is subject to what we think should happen - subject to our imagination. I consider 'discover' and 'detect' very loose terms in this respect.

One is independently detectable the other isn’t. I don’t see any confusion with this.

"God can be detected, I detected Him, Jenyar detected Him, Okinirus detected him... and about 2,000,000,000 other people."

Your statements seem be without basis and the sarcasm somewhat forced. Are you running out of real arguments against me?

Against you? I argue against your cause bro/sis. It is not possible to "run out of arguments" against your cause Cris. You never statisfactorily dismiss the ones proposed. You simply side-step them. An example? Review your reply to my proposal regarding quarks. Oh, and please don't be so defensive, I have no intention to deface your character, only your cause.

Are you making a statement concerning yourself or is that something you think I might say? If it’s about me then I challenge you to find anywhere in sciforums where I have made that claim. I'm quite sarcastic... it is never forced.... be assured.

I, myself, no quotations. Go figure. Keep working on your English o.k.?... as will I.

No, these are only baseless claims of detection. No such claims can be distinguished from imaginative fantasy, which is infinitely more plausible.

For me, the particle tracks which are detected are far more plausibly explained in terms of human imagination than God is.

But many atheists de-converted once they had objectively read and studied the bible. It is the atheists best weapon against a really screwy religion.

Exactly, they have only themselves to thank. Yet many read with objectivity and an open mind and find all the 'problems' easily solved through faith. Not absolutely solved, but solutions abound. Atheists have converted too you know.

As do you.

Yes, I thought that was rather obvious.

The difference between us of course is that you choose to believe fantasies as if they are true and you are unable to tell what is credible and what isn’t. Perhaps one day you will wake up.

Actually, I see you the same way. Wow. Now that's an anithesis.

The power of the human imagination is indeed a remarkable ability.

Well we agree on one thing.

Via independent evidence of course and there is none.

Cris, you missed the point... again. If you don't observe the evidence how the hell are you going to appreciate it... ?... Unless, here, you are advocating 'blind faith'? Or some kind of screwy "out of body into computer programming info gathering" experience?

... I have moved on.

It's never too late to turn back. With God all things are possible.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

It's never too late to learn the truth!

Originally posted by MarcAC
It's never too late to turn back. With God all things are possible. [/B]

MarcAC, this is so true! Thank you for saying it! It's NEVER too late to turn back and find the truth about Xianity. With God, all things are possible! With Xianity, all things are not Godly!

 

[Cris]

M*W,

Subtle.

 

[wesmorris]

God exists as fantasy made real by the thoughts of the faithful. God exists as an abstract. God exists as a culmination of all that is not known. God doesn't exist.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

With God all things are possible.

And so many of these ideas have been explored in the millions of books in the fiction section of libraries across the world.

But of course none of these stories just like the god stories are grounded in reality. All you have is mere entertainment.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MarcAC
Yet I'm almost positive many, and possibly you too, who accept their existence aren't even familiar with the process by which they were detected; that is faith manifest.
...
I will never concretely accept such things until I conduct the experiments for myself. God can be detected, I detected Him, Jenyar detected Him, Okinirus detected him... and about 2,000,000,000 other people.

There are two critical differences here.

The first is that in science all of the experimental parameters and data are given. Anyone can then replicate the experiment provided they expend the effort to do so (practical considerations acknowledged).

The second is that the parameters and data are presented for critical review. If contrary evidence is discovered the discrepancies must either be explained or the findings are discredited. This helps to guarantee the veracity of the findings.

This process is extraordinarily reliable. And while I do not discredit the subjective experience of theists who claim to have experienced God the 'findings' are contradictory and unreliable. God cannot then be thought to exist in the same sense as an atom or an electron. In particular, what one may know about God is extraordinarily limited. To make concrete, objective, assertions from such a limited basis requires a staggering amount hubris.

~Raithere

(edited to remove an unnecessary repetition)

 

[Cris]

Marc,

I've seen a few 'photos' myself. I need to examine every element of their production before I accept them as such. I guess I don't have too much faith in science.

Are you sure it is a lack of faith in science or just a lack of knowledge of science? Science allows us to see the beauty and superb precision of our universe, to admit to having no faith in science is to reveal your ignorance of science. You don’t have a science background, do you?

Perhaps this applies to you – “A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.”

They are totally dependent on computer programming, which is subject to what we think should happen - subject to our imagination.

LOL. Go back to school.

"God can be detected, I detected Him, Jenyar detected Him, Okinirus detected him... and about 2,000,000,000 other people."

It doesn’t matter how many times or how loudly you shout these claims they are still baseless claims and indistinguishable from imaginative fiction.

It is not possible to "run out of arguments" against your cause Cris.

I know, that is the nature of imagination, it has no limit, and Christianity has shown itself very durable over the centuries by repeatedly and imaginatively re-interpreting its ambiguous scriptures depending on whatever is fashionable at the time.

For me, the particle tracks which are detected are far more plausibly explained in terms of human imagination than God is.

You appear to be admitting an attitude identical to those ancient ignorant primitives who also didn’t understand the universe and attributed everything to imaginary gods.

Cris, you missed the point... again. If you don't observe the evidence how the hell are you going to appreciate it... ?...

I cannot observe the fantasy inside your head, but I have a strong sense of reason and logic that enables me to distinguish between fantasy and reality. You probably have a similar ability that appears to be currently suppressed.

Unless, here, you are advocating 'blind faith'?

That is all you have.

Or some kind of screwy "out of body into computer programming info gathering" experience?

You also seem to have some weird ideas about computers as well. I guess you don’t have a computing background either, do you?

 

[G71]

My page about God

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Raithere
There are two critical differences here. etc.

Acknowledged and accepted. However, my point is, still, all these verifications are reduced to simple subjective acceptance in terms of the individual. Therefore, the fact that another cannot see it exactly as you do, does not mean it cannot be relatively verifiable. In all scientific measurements there are random errors, I won't even expound on systematic. However, why can't these random errors be applied to the different perceptions one might have of God? They might all be random errors which vary from the 'true' value. It is possible, isn't it? Thank you for your input Raithere, despite our differences.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MarcAC
However, my point is, still, all these verifications are reduced to simple subjective acceptance in terms of the individual.

At some point, yes, I agree that this is true. Although the point at which this happens is not necessarily the same and I find this difference to be quite important.

Therefore, the fact that another cannot see it exactly as you do, does not mean it cannot be relatively verifiable
...
However, why can't these random errors be applied to the different perceptions one might have of God? They might all be random errors which vary from the 'true' value. It is possible, isn't it?

I agree, but what do we do in such a situation? We allow the conflicting information to cancel itself out and attempt to reduce the information to its core principles. At this level I really have no problem with God.

Thank you for your input Raithere, despite our differences.

I appreciate yours as well.

~Raithere

 

[and2000x]

G71, I like your points, but the first one is suspicious. Would a god (the most powerful being in the universe) really need matter in order to think? It is just assumed.....Okay, I'll shutup now.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
Marc,

Are you sure it is a lack of faith in science or just a lack of knowledge of science?

I'm sure it is a lack of complete faith in science as I have faith in God. In fact, my faith in God allows me to accept science as a useful tool. I will not even dare to adress the other half of the question; your memory seems to be quite limited. At what age were you an undergraduate... 40?

Science allows us to see the beauty and superb precision of our universe,

Agreed. I'd put see in parenthesis. I just say it enables us to see the greatness, wonder, and majesty of God.

to admit to having no faith in science is to reveal your ignorance of science.

I disagree. It is a simple non-religious acknowledgement of the absolute nature of science, and again, work on your Englsih will you... and your reading skills? Nowhere did I 'admit to having no faith in science'. Hee hee, very funny.

You don’t have a science background, do you?

I try to maintain a level of anonymity on the web, and for sheer statisfaction, I won't address that question. However, feel free to judge for yourself. It might be a revelation on what you think as opposed to what reality is. God is my judge, therefore, your opinion is of no consequence as it is applied to me.

Perhaps this applies to you – “A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.”

Now that deserves a laugh. Perhaps it does: perhaps not.

LOL. Go back to school.

Well if you know/remember anything about those 'photos' it is that their production is impossible without computer progamming [which is totally subject to human imagination] and 'photos' is a very misleading term - but if you don't it's o.k. Science evolves quite quickly. I'm always a student. I advise everyone to go back to school whenever they can. It keeps the mind fresh, and keeps you 'on top' of things. I advise you likewise.

It doesn’t matter how many times or how loudly you shout these claims they are still baseless claims and indistinguishable from imaginative fiction.

If you hear them too, wow, God is calling you back. However, I just repeated it to illustrate the nature of your responses to it, somwhat like an identity. Your friend has a massive influence. Your cause is your friend's.

I know, that is the nature of imagination, it has no limit, and Christianity has shown itself very durable over the centuries by repeatedly and imaginatively re-interpreting its ambiguous scriptures depending on whatever is fashionable at the time.

So has science, in an analogical sense. I have no problem with that.

You appear to be admitting an attitude identical to those ancient ignorant primitives who also didn’t understand the universe and attributed everything to imaginary gods.

Their attitude was commendable, and is, arguably, [edit] not [edit] different from those of us today - yours especially it seems, with your digital 'god'.

I cannot observe the fantasy inside your head, but I have a strong sense of reason and logic that enables me to distinguish between fantasy and reality. You probably have a similar ability that appears to be currently suppressed.

That you might, however, honestly, some arguments I've seen you propose on this forum seem quite void of brilliiance - maybe due to your narrow focus you keep missing some elements of the picture.

That is all you have.

Faith is all I have. Faith is all you have, though you deny it. My faith is in no way blind.

You also seem to have some weird ideas about computers as well. I guess you don’t have a computing background either, do you?

Actually, that all came from you. The post referred to was quite entertaining (quite amusing). It illustrated the fact that not only theists are religious.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Raithere
At some point, yes, I agree that this is true. Although the point at which this happens is not necessarily the same and I find this difference to be quite important.

I'm not sure if I get you here... what difference would there be in the points at which it happens?

I agree, but what do we do in such a situation? We allow the conflicting information to cancel itself out and attempt to reduce the information to its core principles. At this level I really have no problem with God.

The question is what those core principles would be.

Anyway, in the end, we all choose what we believe. For me that's the key.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

computer programming [which is totally subject to human imagination]

I don’t see this. Can you expand a little more please?

Actually, that all came from you. The post referred to was quite entertaining (quite amusing). It illustrated the fact that not only theists are religious.

It is not clear what you are referencing here. Can you be more specific please?

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
Marc,

I don’t see this. Can you expand a little more please?

Expound? That's not really necessary now is it? Computer programming is based on human thought. We program computers according to what we expect to happen, mind you according to whatever scenario we can think of (imagine). What do you call it? An algorithm? My time here has expired.

It is not clear what you are referencing here. Can you be more specific please?

Go 6 of your posts back and you'll see your somewhat cathartic post there.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

Your friend has a massive influence. Your cause is your friend's.

Do you truly believe this or is that just sarcasm?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MarcAC
I'm not sure if I get you here... what difference would there be in the points at which it happens?

I was considering it in terms of logical reduction; at some point we run into a primary set of assumptions (the existence of self, the existence of non-self, the existence of phenomenological reality, the reliability of perception, etc.). This level of assumption is far less presumptuous than more immediate or far ranging assumptions. As in our considerations of god as mentioned above it's a question eliminating the noise and contradiction and reducing matters to their core aspects.

The question is what those core principles would be.

This begins with an honest and open minded examination of the primary religions.

Anyway, in the end, we all choose what we believe. For me that's the key.

But what we choose and why we choose it is immensely important. I prefer to have a better understanding than simply ascribing it to freedom of choice.

~Raithere