• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Does God exist? (8 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,555

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
First of all, I've finally realised that I'd gotten sick of not-that-bright's "CRITICALLY EVALUATED" comments. His evaluation hasn't been as critical as he's been trying to promote it.
Well I try to be as critical as possible, but from what I can see you'd only accept someone as being 'critical' when they agree with you.

So far, his comments just seems so confined to me. It makes me wonder his real thinking ability and analytical skills of all subject matters.
See when this sort of stuff isn't backed up by quotes and you asking for expanations, then it just seems like name calling. As for questioning my 'thinking ability' I really don't see why it matters... if I'm a genius and presenting weak arguments you should be able to deal with them, if I'm an idiot and presenting strong arguments I should be properly debated with.

It is obvious that since the beginning of debate on God's existence, the believers could only have proven their sightings passively, despite their best intentions for the outcome. (Of course, there are those that just want to stir things up. Let's just forget them now.)
This puts the defenders "anti-god" in an active mode. Yes, from humans point of view, what could be more intellectually appropriate than believing things that appear right in front of us - technologically teachable.

Now, this is technically correct. But since there is a conflict between the possible truth and methods of approval, it has come to a point where it is necessary to evaluate the credibility of the influential adjudicators. In this case, not-that-bright.
I have no idea what you're on about there at all.

I think mine are very controversial as there is no evidence and theoritical foundation to back them up.
I don't think most people (like me) can even understand what you're saying half the time so it's quite hard to judge what your 'ideas' are. As for there being no evidence or 'theoretical foundation' for your thoughts, that's fine, but that sounds like you have very weak concepts that won't, at least at this current time, stand up to much scrutiny.

Anyhow, readers rating of his comments should be equally important.
I don't care how readers rate my comments and I really don't see how it's important, if I wanted to 'epeen' I'd do it somewhere else.

As you would realise after I've reminded you all, there hasn't been much criticism towards him.
Me as a person, or my comments? I've been criticised quite a bit in this thread, just not since our discussions here. It's probably because like me, very few people can see what exactly you're trying to say or contribute to this thread.

I think partially because he has only been commenting rather than introducing new ideas or maybe a lot of you agree with him.
People could chipe up against my comments if they wanted to, as you saw back there KFunk had a problem with one of the things i'd said in response to you.

You can't do this with this topic discussion. But you can see if a person is literally stupid or intelligent when you compare their academic excellence.
--'

You want me to post up my educational history to check whether I'm literally stupid?

I'm going to divert from this for a second, to introduce something new since T-mac seems to not like that I haven't in the past.

It's my theory that T-mac thinks he has some sort of connection to a deeper truth that we can't understand and this makes him feel special. I also guess he knows that if he offered up these 'teachings' people would get to criticise them and he doesn't want that so instead he decides to protect it and not really give us anything to argue against but some rhetoric.

I also think I've countered the points of his (that i've understood) satisfactorily and he doesn't seem to have any response, instead he decides to attempt a few times in his posts to divert attention away from the argument, culminating in this crap where he's asking me to post my education, history etc 'just to check that someone isn't literally stupid'.

I also think the fact that he asked that I produce my history, education etc first shows more evidence of the sort of underminded tactics he's been trying (unsuccessfully) to employ in order to 'win' this debate. I think his plan was to see whatever I put up as my history, education etc, then post up his own trumped up claims that are better than mine.

For the record T-Mac you can just assume that I dropped out of school in year 10, I am a single mother and I chain-smoke 4 packs of ciggies every day.
 
Last edited:

T-mac01

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
400
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
If you don't have the ability to have long and concentrated focus, how are you going to critically evaluate posts in this thread. Education level shows a sign of commitment and focus in learning and accepting new information. You need that time to form a stronger link. Your subject scores provide a measure of how well you've digested the information provided that the materials learned is fundamentally correct and commonly accepted.
Just like learning a musical instrument or a sport. No matter how talented you are, you will always need a time of adjustment. However, their learning curves can differentiate just like people having different levels of learning abilities in the class room. Some students just don't have the capability to think deeper like other bright students. Their level of understanding simply ceases there. Conversely, the bright students don't see how the learning materials can be so hard to grasp by others. This is the same when digesting things that are being discussed over this thread. The only difference is there is no way to measure it. Therefore, people can retaliate if there is a challenge in their own notions.
This is essentially why I brought education up because those that are well educated constantly experiences mistakes and are used to adjust it, also account for the ultimate success in obtaining the correct conclusion. This is how I learned to be open minded. So if some of your comments which I disagreed was the slightest neutral, I would have noticed it. I've also acknowledged 20% of those and others I was just too lazy to be bothered. But it's 10% of those comments that are hurting my agreement not entirely because it's intruding my principle but the logic that was built upon. Here, I'm talking about your evluated comments not my ideas. And please quote the sentence before.


Most people underestimate the complexity of this topic. It's not just about proof. As this discussion has unsuccessfully progressed, I think we've all realised that our differences and discrepancies becomes an invisible wall of communication barrier and end of interaction.

I'm sure it's not just my posts that can be confusing and hard to understand. I've done my best to use language that is as simple as possible. Again, there will and has been people who understood my line of argument outside of the cyber space. Some coming from the same school of teaching and others were just casual encounters of your average acquaintances.
But it doesn't really matter so much that I believe as long as there is a logical explanation, one person can defeat the other thousand comebacks with no logic.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
If you don't have the ability to have long and concentrated focus, how are you going to critically evaluate posts in this thread.
How well you do in university/school does not show that you have a 'concentrated focus', I have recieved HD's for assignments I've done on the day, all that doing well in university/school shows is that you did well - don't read any more into it than that.

I do not need a 'concentrated focus' to critically evaluate what of any substance you've said so far, as has been exhibited by my previous posts.

Just like learning a musical instrument or a sport. No matter how talented you are, you will always need a time of adjustment. However, their learning curves can differentiate just like people having different levels of learning abilities in the class room.
I've been an atheist for quite a while, I've read up on alot of the different arguments and had these arguments on many different forums and in real life with people of all sorts of backgrounds. Generally the problems I have with their beliefs are quite similar.

Some students just don't have the capability to think deeper like other bright students.
You think I can't think 'deep' enough? Or perhaps that I'm not creative enough? I'd actually consider myself to have quite a wild imagination.

Conversely, the bright students don't see how the learning materials can be so hard to grasp by others.
So you're saying the reason why I cannot understand your posts sometimes has nothing to do with the inadequacies of your own explanations/writing style and more to do with me not being clever enough? You love yourself too much T-mac.

This is essentially why I brought education up because those that are well educated constantly experiences mistakes and are used to adjust it, also account for the ultimate success in obtaining the correct conclusion.
I actually think you'll find that those whom are most educated often aren't willing to conceed that they don't know things or that they were wrong. Of course many also do, but there are some that feel their high level of education means they are above being wrong.

This is how I learned to be open minded.
Where have I said something that leads you to think I'm not open minded? Please begin quoting what you have a problem with... I'm sick of responding to these huge walls of text where I have no real reference point as to what you're complaining about.

o if some of your comments which I disagreed was the slightest neutral, I would have noticed it. I've also acknowledged 20% of those and others I was just too lazy to be bothered. But it's 10% of those comments that are hurting my agreement not entirely because it's intruding my principle but the logic that was built upon. Here, I'm talking about your evluated comments not my ideas. And please quote the sentence before.
^ I don't understand this. Maybe I'm really bad at english or you are, but if someone else can explain exactly what this means that'd be helpful.

Most people underestimate the complexity of this topic. It's not just about proof.
It is for me.

I'm sure it's not just my posts that can be confusing and hard to understand.
No it really is just your posts.

I've done my best to use language that is as simple as possible.
It's not that the language is too complicated it is that the way you've structured your sentences often leads to them making no sense, you also often refer to things without any quotes so I don't know what you're referencing and often times are just posting rhetoric that I cannot see has any solid basis (or point to it) at all.

Again, there will and has been people who understood my line of argument outside of the cyber space.
That's nice, if they could explain it to me better perhaps I could respond properly.

But it doesn't really matter so much that I believe as long as there is a logical explanation, one person can defeat the other thousand comebacks with no logic.
ok.
 

ur_inner_child

.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
6,084
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
If you feel you are more intelligent than someone, you take their argument and demonstrate how they are flawed. This may demonstrates to the world how "more intelligent" you are.

If they do not understand, you re-phrase to make them understand.

Honestly this "superiority" thing is ridiculous. If you're going to filter out who you want to debate with based on your idea of intelligence, please do so quietly by ignoring those "stupid" rather than asking about their educational background.

o if some of your comments which I disagreed was the slightest neutral, I would have noticed it. I've also acknowledged 20% of those and others I was just too lazy to be bothered. But it's 10% of those comments that are hurting my agreement not entirely because it's intruding my principle but the logic that was built upon. Here, I'm talking about your evluated comments not my ideas. And please quote the sentence before.
If I interpret you correctly, you do not have to be neutral to be open-minded. Often I encounter many issues in the NCAP forum I already have formed an opinion on. If someone is able to deconstruct the flaw in my logic, and I see it, I have no qualms as to admit fault. That, is open-mindedness.

In fact the person deconstructing it does not have to assert any neutralism or disagreement at all, but it does not mean that they are not open minded.

As for your recent retort against Not-That-Bright, you can be book-smart but there are other ways to show intelligence, and quite clearly you are not showing your range of intelligence if you resort to spamish posts like that.

Please review forum guidelines.
 
Last edited:

lengy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
1,326
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
T-mac01 said:
You know what?
I lose people. God does not exist.
No argument. That's the truth above all else.
People created religion and invented their own imagination just to entertain themselves.
The person that started this thread is an idiot. Of course god doesn't exist. What do you think, if God exists, do you think we would still be here?
Yes, science is our limit and our honour. We are the only perfect animal in this universe.
So, believe nothing but things that are around us. There is no need to wonder things that don't exist.
The end
Thank 'God'. Does this mean you'll finally stop boring us?
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
T-mac01 said:
"To determine whether or not someone has such knowledge we must first determine whether god exists "

This just proves your lack of understanding. You're rolling yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason this thread has been going in circles is because we can't make a mutual determination on God's existence. There is no physical way to prove it!!!!!!!

You damn idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I assume that you're quoting me. I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. On page 216 The Logical One proposed criteria for determining whether a belief is rational / whether someone has proper knowledge (using his new found epistemological tools). He claimed that for a belief about a proposition G (e.g. G = God exists) to be rational/knowledge the following criteria must be met:

1. It must be the case that G... i.e. that G is true.
2. One must believe that G.
3. One must be justified in their belief that G.

I was pointing out that to discuss 'proper' knowledge or belief is rediculous in this case because it overcomplicates things. In particular, you can't determine whether you satisfy criteria 1. until you answer the question of the thread 'does god exist?' Please read my posts properly before you decide to be rude about them.
 

SashatheMan

StudyforEver
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
5,656
Location
Queensland
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
T-mac01 said:
You know what?
I lose people. God does not exist.
No argument. That's the truth above all else.
People created religion and invented their own imagination just to entertain themselves.
The person that started this thread is an idiot. Of course god doesn't exist. What do you think, if God exists, do you think we would still be here?
Yes, science is our limit and our honour. We are the only perfect animal in this universe. So, believe nothing but things that are around us. There is no need to wonder things that don't exist.
The end
far from perfect
 

bored6

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
351
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
I thought this was interesting...

Many christians ignorantly claim that us Atheists have not been "enlightened" or not experienced God and many more fan sites claim that near death persons have experienced God / heaven etc and often have physical characteristics that are within comprehension etc. I found this article the other day which provides an adequate explanation of how and why these events occur. Admittantly it was through a different exercise completely but it does provide a basis for answering this unfounded justification for belief in God..

Loss of Consciousness and Near-Death Experiences

James E. Whinnery, Ph.D., M.D.

History and scientific research efforts are replete with inquiry into the secrets of death, the dying process, and what, if anything, happens to consciousness following bodily death. Our scientific understanding of the psychophysiologic aspects of these processes, however, remains relatively limited. In spite of the recurrent psychophysiologic findings reported from these studies, little emphasis has been placed on the common physiologic event that occurs ? loss of consciousness. The results of loss and recovery of consciousness experiments in completely healthy humans may provide insight into the normal neurologic processes that occur in association with NDEs and other related phenomenon.

This report focuses on the psychophysiologic events associated with acceleration (+Gz)-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC) in completely healthy individuals. Acceleration (+Gz, head-to-foot) stress is a unique aspect of flying fighter aircraft during aerial combat maneuvering. Modern fighter aircraft can rapidly achieve (<1 second) and sustain (> 5 seconds) levels of +9Gz, which places most humans at risk for G-LOC. The magnitude of such stress can perhaps be understood by realizing that a 380 $ (200 pound) man at +1Gz (the everyday gravitational stress experienced by earth-bound humans) can be transformed in one second or less at +9Gz to an 3,380 $ (1800 pound) man in a fighter aircraft.

The +Gz-stress reduces blood flow to the head and causes pooling of blood in the abdomen and extremities. Cephalic nervous system ischemia results in G-LOC. A solution for the G-LOC problem requires a thorough understanding of the alterations of consciousness. Although preventing further losses of aircrew and aircraft is the goal of fighter aviation medicine, the results from experiments involving loss-of-consciousness in completely healthy humans should be of interest to a broad range of scientific disciplines.

The results to be discussed represent data collected from over 15 years of acceleration-research experience and more than 700 episodes of G-LOC that occurred in fighter aircraft and during human-centrifuge +Gz-exposure. The individuals included experimental research subjects, fighter aircrew, and students in various aviation medical courses. The average age of the individuals was approximately 32 years. All were healthy and asymptomatic, having successfully completed military-flying physical examinations. The centrifuge G-LOC episodes were all recorded on videotape for subsequent analysis.

The sequence of events for a typical G-LOC episode is shown schematically in Figure 1. When rapid-onset +Gz-stress is applied to a sustained level well above tolerance, there is an approximate 6-second period (functional buffer period) during which normal neurologic function persists, despite loss of adequate blood flow. At the end of this period, consciousness is lost, and the +Gz-stress is reduced back to ground-level conditions. The length of the unconsciousness episodes averaged 12 +/- 5(S.D.) seconds, with a range of 2 to 38 seconds. The estimated average length of time blood flow to the central nervous system was altered during the loss and recovery of consciousness was approximately 15 to 20 seconds.

Myoclonic convulsive activity was observed in association with 70 percent of the G-LOC episodes. The myoclonic activity began on the average 7.7 seconds after the onset of unconsciousness and lasted 3.9 seconds. The myoclonic activity was observed to stop coincident with the return of consciousness. Upon recovery of consciousness, there is a period of relative incapacitation that lasts on the average about 12 seconds, in which there exists confusion/disorientation. The end of this period is measured by the return of the ability to make purposeful movement (that is, regaining aircraft control or performing other specific tasks). Individuals who lost consciousness were interviewed in the centrifuge on videotape immediately following the G-LOC episode.

It is possible to classify the G-LOC episodes according to the diagram shown in Figure 2. The G-LOC experience includes specific visual symptoms (tunnel vision through blackout), myoclonic convulsive activity, memory alterations, dreamlets, and other psychologic symptoms. The major, overall G-LOC experience characteristics that have commonality with NDEs are shown in the following table.

1. Tunnel vision/bright light
2. Floating
3. Automatic movement
4. Autoscopy
5. Out-of-body experience
6. Not wanting to be disturbed
7. Paralysis
8. Vivid dreamlets/beautiful places
a. Euphoria
b. Dissociation
9. Pleasurable
10. Psychologic state alteration
11. Friends/family inclusion
12. Prior memories/thoughts inclusion
13. Very memorable (when remembered)
14. Confabulation
15. Strong urge to understand


Ischemically induced loss-of-consciousness is usually considered a hazardous exposure in healthy humans. This research was conducted with the risk-benefit ratio balanced by the continuing operational loss of aircrew and aircraft. The G-LOC syndrome, however, suggests that loss of consciousness may be considered to be an evolutionarily developed protective mechanism that is evoked in a stepwise sequence in the face of excessive +Gz-stress (gravity), well before any pathologic alterations of the nervous system occurs. Specific neurologic states of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness are induced during loss and recovery of consciousness as the major source of energy (blood flow) is altered by +Gz-stress. Each of these neurologic states (consciousness, subconsciousness, unconsciousness) represents a range of neurologic energy distributed over a specific nervous-system structure. They become evident from the G-LOC syndrome symptoms that can be observed. When considering G-LOC from a thermodynamic perspective, it is necessary to define at least one additional neurologic state, a state that corresponds to a critical (very low) range of reduced energy. From this state, by definition, it is not possible to regain a neurologic state above unconsciousness because of pathologic alterations of the nervous system. This neurologic state is death. The magnitude and duration of the +G-induced ischemia (energy reduction) of the cephalic nervous system determines just how "near" to the neurologic state of death the individual comes.

Conclusions

Altered neurologic-states, whether resulting from G-LOC or the NDE, can produce vivid experiences to those who have them. Some differences between G-LOC and the NDE would be expected, if for no other reasons than the circumstances that cause them and the magnitude of the insults to the nervous system, which are different. The G-LOC syndrome symptoms are the normal responses of completely healthy individuals to relatively minimal periods of cephalic nervous system ischemia. If there are unique characteristics associated with the NDE, then their isolation would appear to be facilitated by focusing on what the real differences are in the individuals, their physical states, the environmental situation, the type of insult, and the symptomology between G-LOC and the NDE.

The psychophysiologic events of the NDE may be at least partially open to experimental investigation in healthy humans and not solely upon clinical happenstance. The need to understand the neurologic states of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness, along with the mechanisms that cause the transition between these neurologic states is shared by those investigating NDEs and G-LOC. There are several types of alterations, both physiologic and pathologic, that can disturb the normal state of consciousness. Based on the physiologic insult similarity, it is possible to establish a framework, as shown in Figure 3, for the systematic study of the NDE and for relating NDE research to other psychophysiologic research.

Loss-of-consciousness episodes of all types appear to have an explainable physiologic basis. They are, therefore, open for scientific investigation. At least the loss-of-consciousness aspect of the NDE, therefore, has a potentially explainable and experimentally explorable basis. It would be odd if the symptoms associated with loss and recovery of consciousness were not part of the NDE. The fact that many of the NDE symptoms are very similar to those resulting from loss and recovery of consciousness suggests that individuals who report their NDEs have provided accurate symptom descriptions. This includes those symptoms beyond the scope of G-LOC experimentation, which are unique to the NDE.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Yea I already know about those NDE's etc. I didn't read the article since I already knew a bit about it, but does it explain that astronauts/pilots being tested on how much G-forces they can handle also experience the same sort of thing as those whom claim NDE's?
 

bored6

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
351
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Whilst its not concrete, I think that the people who claim NDE describe them in one or more of the aforementioned symptons so its probable that these claims by the religous sort are not infact "divine" experiences but rather excessive pressures placed on the cranial area, probably of a lesser extent to those experienced by the men in the article
 

bored6

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
351
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
spadijer said:
Oh, listen, kids this entire God debate is really a profound metaphor on the metaphysical nature of transcendental beings known as death.

God lives on. Why? Because humans do not.

Therefore, God, for me, is a parameter: He is a manifestation of our mind, a set of values based on consciousness, a rather etched, relativist (and cute) impulse. For we are "god". God is very much alive. We aim to be "gods", we are a humanity that "seeks out" God in our lives: we became Gods, we believe in Gods. God is a kind of neat teleological metaphor of what we can, cannot be, and want to do. God is wielded when we need him, and when he doesn't exist he IS there. God's a cloud that has a sense of humour.

So, where do I stand?

I know there is no GOD (seeing is believing right?), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in him.

For starters, I believe in myself, and I believe in you. For "we" are Gods.

Don't you agree?

Steven Spadijer
I dont agree it just looks like an elaborate and yet useless arrangement of words that aren't by any strech of the imangination logical / useful in challenging the notion of God.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
543
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
bored6 said:
I dont agree it just looks like an elaborate and yet useless arrangement of words that aren't by any strech of the imangination logical / useful in challenging the notion of God.
I believe you see it that way because no amount of rhetoric, no amount of logic, no amount of argument will ever shift belief in God. The only times I've really heard people abandon their faith is when something bad happens to their family or friends, or they see, for example, the kids cancer ward. Faith relies on emotions, and so is generally only abandoned through an emotional experience, not through cool logic.

 

ur_inner_child

.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
6,084
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
ElendilPeredhil said:
I believe you see it that way because no amount of rhetoric, no amount of logic, no amount of argument will ever shift belief in God. The only times I've really heard people abandon their faith is when something bad happens to their family or friends, or they see, for example, the kids cancer ward. Faith relies on emotions, and so is generally only abandoned through an emotional experience, not through cool logic.

Although, someone who was teetering over the edge like I was got effected by those who were able to clarify and justify a non-belief in God and make you see in a different point of view. Also, encouraging people to step back and look at their beliefs is a healthy and achievable thing, for both parties; those who believe in a faith or not must from time to time step back and re-analyse. Yes I agree, change comes from within, emotions, experiences etc, but one can influence. Not necessarily convert and impose, but to discuss, provided that they do so correctly.
 

lengy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
1,326
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
This thread, and I'm not kidding, finalised my point of view on god's lack of existence two years ago.
 

hurikai

boredofposting
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
105
Location
In your mum
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
moonlightsonata, sashatheman, I love you ^^

I'm definitely feeling quite agnostic now... I agree, I kinda stopped believing around about the same time I found out Santa wasn't real..
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 8)

Top