GOD: real or fake?

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    sunonmytoes wrote:

    Well if you know your languages and the origin of the word "god," it is an interesting take. The word "god" is an ancient word that literally means "that which is." G=that O=which D=is

    The only thing that always "is" is what is present, Life. So, God must be Life. Not some supernatural being in the sky, but the present experience.


    wut
    if what you say is true, god could also be death, or an inanimate object.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    [SIZE=4]"http://www.teenhutmagazine.com/"[/SIZE]

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    sunonmytoes wrote:

    Well if you know your languages and the origin of the word "god," it is an interesting take. The word "god" is an ancient word that literally means "that which is." G=that O=which D=is

    The only thing that always "is" is what is present, Life. So, God must be Life. Not some supernatural being in the sky, but the present experience.
    I'm just going to go ahead and say you pulled that entire comment out of your ass.

    Nonetheless, even if you didn't, there are plenty of words that have changed meaning over time. The word "counterfeit," for example, used to mean a clean and precise copy of something. Today, the word is used to describe the exact opposite.

    Using an old translation of a word and applying it to modern terminology is laughable.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    I can't necessarily say he is fake...because that would just seem to me to be too profound a statement without proving that he isn't real...but then again...there is no proof that he IS real (or it...?) so there is a chance that there is no god and its a figment of peoples imaginations.

    Idk, its just hard for me to come out and say GOD IS FAKE...but then again like I already said, there is no evidence to suggest that he actually exists.

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    LuklaAdvocate wrote:

    I'm just going to go ahead and say you pulled that entire comment out of your ass.

    Nonetheless, even if you didn't, there are plenty of words that have changed meaning over time. The word "counterfeit," for example, used to mean a clean and precise copy of something. Today, the word is used to describe the exact opposite.

    Using an old translation of a word and applying it to modern terminology is laughable.


    Ok, I agree with you that the whole GOD=that which is, is complete bull crap. But the word "counterfeit" still means a copy of something. Quality (i.e. good or bad, clean & precise or hastily done) does not really have bearing on it. So technically it does not mean the exact opposite of "clean and precise copy", because that would be a poorly made original wouldn't it? Sorry about being way off topic.
    What I should have said was...Nothing!

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    alfaspider06 wrote:

    Ok, I agree with you that the whole GOD=that which is, is complete bull crap. But the word "counterfeit" still means a copy of something. Quality (i.e. good or bad, clean & precise or hastily done) does not really have bearing on it. So technically it does not mean the exact opposite of "clean and precise copy", because that would be a poorly made original wouldn't it? Sorry about being way off topic.
    Perhaps I was a little ambiguous. When I said "clean," I was referring to a genuine or valid copy of something, as opposed to a forgery.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    ByTor190 wrote:

    Want to explain how science can't explain that?
    My understanding of it is that if it's part of the natural, observable universe, it's explainable by science, because that's what science does.
    Science doesn't deal with what is morally "right" or "wrong."

    Science can tell you that injecting a large dose of potassium chloride into a person will kill them. It can't tell you if doing such an action is moral or immoral.
    It's subjective. There is no definitive right or wrong, unless you believe in moral absolutism from a religious standpoint, which is an entirely different discussion.

    What exactly would you observe? That a person's brain deems murder as being immoral? The most that would prove is that in that person's opinion, murder is wrong.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    LuklaAdvocate wrote:

    Science doesn't deal with what is morally "right" or "wrong."


    I think it certainly can. Science is how we describe the natural world, if morality is part of the natural world (which it is), it will be describable and ultimately prescribable by science.

    LuklaAdvocate wrote:


    Science can tell you that injecting a large dose of potassium chloride into a person will kill them. It can't tell you if doing such an action is moral or immoral.
    It's subjective. There is no definitive right or wrong, unless you believe in moral absolutism from a religious standpoint, which is an entirely different discussion.


    I don't think there's nearly as much actual grey-area as you seem to, although I'll certainly agree that it's easy to fall into the idea that there is, or that there might be. People are generally the same, and people are generally good and moral.
    I think, ultimately, that there is an absolute right and wrong, we don't have it now, and I don't know if we ever really will, but I'd be inclined to say that there is because I think science could describe it, and ultimately prescribe it, which would approach absolutes.

    LuklaAdvocate wrote:


    What exactly would you observe? That a person's brain deems murder as being immoral? The most that would prove is that in that person's opinion, murder is wrong.


    I'm not a scientist, and certainly not a neurologist, but my guess would be that a scan of some sort would show chemicals and situations inside the brain that would be considered normal, and that that normal situation would be inclined to say 'murder is wrong'. That way when someone says 'murder is ok', you could look at their brain chemistry and such and look for what would be considered an anomaly.
    [CENTER]

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]


    [/CENTER]

  • Re: GOD: real or fake?

    ByTor190 wrote:

    I think it certainly can. Science is how we describe the natural world, if morality is part of the natural world (which it is), it will be describable and ultimately prescribable by science.
    Science deals with tangible objects and concrete theories. The only thing tangible about morals is how our mind perceives them. You can study the brain waves of a human when they analyze the morality of a certain action. You can't, however, determine whether or not their conclusion of a moral action is correct since morality isn't objective.

    ByTor190 wrote:

    I don't think there's nearly as much actual grey-area as you seem to, although I'll certainly agree that it's easy to fall into the idea that there is, or that there might be. People are generally the same, and people are generally good and moral.
    Whether or not there's grey area depends on the situation.

    If a sniper randomly kills 10 children walking out of school, by all means, he's a SOB who deserves to be locked up for life. Not much grey area there. Still, that's falling under our subjective views. I can't empirically prove that what the murderer did was wrong.

    On the other hand, say that sniper in the above situation somehow was acquitted during his trial, and the father of one of the dead kids decides to shoot and kill the sniper. Suddenly, you run into a range of issues that attempt to lessen the guilt of the father, even though he also committed murder.

    It happens in court all the time. I never said there's always a large grey area. I said it's always subjective; both of the above situations are subjective, although the latter situation has a much larger grey area when it comes to possible murder charges.

    ByTor190 wrote:

    I think, ultimately, that there is an absolute right and wrong, we don't have it now, and I don't know if we ever really will, but I'd be inclined to say that there is because I think science could describe it, and ultimately prescribe it, which would approach absolutes.
    Approaching absolutes and having an absolute are two very different things. If you ever take calculus and deal with limits, you'll find that out quickly.

    You can easily believe in an absolute right and wrong.     You just can't empirically prove it using science.

    ByTor190 wrote:

    I'm not a scientist, and certainly not a neurologist, but my guess would be that a scan of some sort would show chemicals and situations inside the brain that would be considered normal, and that that normal situation would be inclined to say 'murder is wrong'. That way when someone says 'murder is ok', you could look at their brain chemistry and such and look for what would be considered an anomaly.
    Uh huh...

    Two things. One, "normal" is also subjective. If something is "normal," it's merely conforming with current standards. What's normal now may be abnormal at a later date. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, there is no "normal" in the way you're trying to argue. A certain area of the brain may differ in two different individuals; for one person, we may argue their brain is "normal," but only because their brain better parallels other humans. The other person's brain may not be "normal" to our individual standards, but in an evolutionary sense, it's simply different, not abnormal.

    Additionally, if two people have "normal" brains, yet have two differing ideologies, then what? Do we try to figure which brain is more "normal?" Good luck.

    By the way, you're essentially running in a circle with your logic; you're saying: people with normal brains are against immoral actions. How do we know those actions are actually immoral? Because their brains are normal.
    It's a flawed argument.

    Don't mistake me for underestimating the capabilities of science. I'm fully aware of its potentials. But science can't explain everything.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    The post was edited 2 times, last by LuklaAdvocate ().