[Gofre]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
GUYS THINK OF THIS FOR A SECOND

Suppose an inventor invents a machine.

If we test that machine (without knowing anything about the inventor) and put it through stringent scientific tests, would scientists be able to find out the:

Identity of the inventor?

What he looked like?

How old he was?

How he come about?

Or anything else for that matter?

The logical answer would be NO. Simply because the inventor is not contained in the invention he created, he/she is rather outside it, if you catch my drift.

Similarly God, being the supreme creator of the whole universe, would not be contained in his creation. In other words, the evidence for God cannot be tested by mealy observing or testing his invention (i.e. the universe).

Now if we look through history, you can pretty much figure it out that God knowing this to be true (the fact that it’s impossible for us as the most intelligent beings of his creation to find out about him) has always communicated with through his revelations. Now for any thinking human being with an open mind, that should be clear enough reason to recognise and pay homage our creator.

The difference is our inventions aren't being filled with sentient beings who are having their eternal salvation decided by whether or not they can figure out who their inventor is.

[tooosh]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
The thing is that these revelations already exist, but the problem is distinguishing facts from non facts in their contents and that's where the human mind with all its intelligence comes in to kind of see through the obvious facts from the non facts.

So you propose that there are events that could potentially be revelations, I have no problem with that. What about the second predicate?

[heyhey922]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
Similarly God, being the supreme creator of the whole universe, would not be contained in his creation. In other words, the evidence for God cannot be tested by mealy observing or testing his invention (i.e. the universe).

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

[noisy06]

(Original post by heyhey922)
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

That's a crap saying. It begs the question of what "proof" here actually means. There is no way you can prove you had an ancestor in the year 1254, so would you dismiss this idea?

[heyhey922]

(Original post by noisy06)
That's a crap saying. It begs the question of what "proof" here actually means. There is no way you can prove you had an ancestor in the year 1254, so would you dismiss this idea?

We have historical proof that people existed in 1254.

And enough evidence of how human reproduction works to understand that my ancestors would have been around in 1254 rather than them poofing into existence somewhere in the late 1600s.

[noisy06]

(Original post by heyhey922)
We have historical proof that people existed in 1254.

And enough evidence of how human reproduction works to understand that my ancestors would have been around in 1254 rather than them poofing into existence somewhere in the late 1600s.

No, I said where's the proof your ancestors lived in 1254, not people in general, do not even try to misrepresent me. You have no observable proof, the only thing you can offer is circumstantial evidence and inductive based evidence. This is insufficient for a person who claims that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

[Gofre]

(Original post by noisy06)
No, I said where's the proof your ancestors lived in 1254, not people in general, do not even try to misrepresent me. You have no observable proof, the only thing you can offer is circumstantial evidence and inductive based evidence. This is insufficient for a person who claims that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Just to be pedantic, but mitochondrial DNA has been used to trace people's ancestries back by a few hundred years =P

[noisy06]

(Original post by Gofre)
Just to be pedantic, but mitochondrial DNA has been used to trace people's ancestries back by a few hundred years =P

Well, it doesn't answer the question though. I understand the concept but I'm asking for any specific individual that lived in 1254 who is an ancestor. The concept of tracing back people's ancestries is there, but where is the evidence they actually existed in that particular year? The closest thing that I would view as compatible with "heyhey992"' idea of proof is to exhume the body and cross check DNA and also prove that the body is from 1254 (carbon dating?) Otherwise this idea can be dismissed out of hand.

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

We keep on saying science this science that, when in real terms science is just a tool that shows us how the fundamental forces in the universe work. not who put them there or why. when has it become a measuring tape for anything other than that? it is limited and for someone to place there trust in such a system is not thinking rationally (in my opinion)

Look at the end of the day, it comes down to two things.
1. we humans accept our limitations
2. we don't accept our limitations and follow a limited system (science) wasting precious time.

don't get me wrong i love science but life is way more complicated than biology, physics and chemistry. mind you each of this disciplines all come together to contribute only halve of what a human being is made of. The other half being the soul.

Some might say how do we know we have a soul? well if you haven't felt that already, then consider yourself a ghost. we can deny it all we want but the truth always hurts.

[Gofre]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
Some might say how do we know we have a soul? well if you haven't felt that already, then consider yourself a ghost. we can deny it all we want but the truth always hurts.

What you call a soul, I call neural activity. The fact that our very nature can be changed permanently by head trauma lends credence to the notion that consciousness is, at its base, little more than a biochemical phenomena, unless you can prove otherwise.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
God knowing this to be true (the fact that it’s impossible for us as the most intelligent beings of his creation to find out about him) has always communicated with through his revelations.

This is where your analogy falls to earth in flames. Inventors simply don't have revelations; they go to the patent office to register their inventions and they communicate clearly and unambiguously with their customers with no attempt at mystery.

Are you sure you have chosen the most appropriate user name?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by noisy06)
No, I said where's the proof your ancestors lived in 1254, not people in general, do not even try to misrepresent me. You have no observable proof, the only thing you can offer is circumstantial evidence and inductive based evidence. This is insufficient for a person who claims that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

It ill-behoves any person who believes in a bearded man in the sky to criticise such a deduction as without proof.

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

(Original post by Gofre)
What you call a soul, I call neural activity. The fact that our very nature can be changed permanently by head trauma lends credence to the notion that consciousness is, at its base, little more than a biochemical phenomena, unless you can prove otherwise.

When you say our very nature, you must mean only our actions that were controlled by that part of the brain change permanently.

but let ask you this. if human beings were only matter and energy alone how do you explain free will? if we are only material beings then a person would have to be without freewill since materials do not have the ability to make decisions or the ability to discriminate, decide and choose at their discretion. All this points towards their being something else. also where do we get this sense of 'I' from when we achieve something? do we refer to the hand we wrote with or the legs we ran with. of course not, we are referring to our soul, the real us

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

(Original post by Good bloke)
It ill-behoves any person who believes in a bearded man in the sky to criticise such a deduction as without proof.

Where do you get this notion that the creator looks like his creation? big bearded or not. Does Mr Dyson look like one of his vacuum cleaners?

[Inverse]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
When you say our very nature, you must mean only our actions that were controlled by that part of the brain change permanently.

but let ask you this. if human beings were only matter and energy alone how do you explain free will? if we are only material beings then a person would have to be without freewill since materials do not have the ability to make decisions or the ability to discriminate, decide and choose at their discretion. All this points towards their being something else. also where do we get this sense of 'I' from when we achieve something? do we refer to the hand we wrote with or the legs we ran with. of course not, we are referring to our soul, the real us

Yeah, seems legit.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC One X

[Good bloke]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
Where do you get this notion that the creator looks like his creation? big bearded or not. Does Mr Dyson look like one of his vacuum cleaners?

You get your ideas about his characteristics from a collection of old fiction. I get mine from old paintings.

[Gofre]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
When you say our very nature, you must mean only our actions that were controlled by that part of the brain change permanently.

but let ask you this. if human beings were only matter and energy alone how do you explain free will? if we are only material beings then a person would have to be without freewill since materials do not have the ability to make decisions or the ability to discriminate, decide and choose at their discretion. All this points towards their being something else. also where do we get this sense of 'I' from when we achieve something? do we refer to the hand we wrote with or the legs we ran with. of course not, we are referring to our soul, the real us

This is a very young branch of neurobiology, the exact mechanisms are not known. However as I stated before, we have been able to discern what you're defining as the soul is predicated on the physical form of the brain, a great illustration of this can be found in the case of Phineas Gage. You can't just say it must be god because we can't explain it, that's just the god of the gaps argument.

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

(Original post by Gofre)
This is a very young branch of neurobiology, the exact mechanisms are not known. However as I stated before, we have been able to discern what you're defining as the soul is predicated on the physical form of the brain, a great illustration of this can be found in the case of Phineas Gage. You can't just say it must be god because we can't explain it, that's just the god of the gaps argument.

Fair enough. but why do we have this need to explain everything, can't we just not accept our limitations as humans and realize that we can only look from inside the box but never from outside the box.

[Gofre]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
Fair enough. but why do we have this need to explain everything, can't we just not accept our limitations as humans and realize that we can only look from inside the box but never from outside the box.

We do not need to explain everything, but people do need to prove the things they make factual claims about. You're even welcome to say that god cannot be proven, but I'm also free to call your god a malevolent, wicked being for punishing us for not believing in spite of that.

[ackbar]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
Where do you get this notion that the creator looks like his creation? big bearded or not. Does Mr Dyson look like one of his vacuum cleaners?

I do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of all religious texts but I'm fairly certain that the abrahamic religions at least all claim that god created man in his image


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App