[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

Who #1- Basic science. Its a fact that a cardboard box is a material object
Who #2/3- The definition of God. God is just 'there' in no physical form

How do you know that God does not take a physical form? Are you just arguing for the sake of it again? I thought you didn't even believe in God?

Your argument rests defiantly on the fact that God is not a material object. Why? How do you know this for a fact? Because to use the threads argument, an argument you started out defending ... science can't prove that God isn't material, right?

Originally Posted by setanta

I'm talking about Neanderthals here who didn't have a culture as such Stu, and had very short, violent lifespans. How can you explain a primative species like that having such customs, when all they'd be really interested in is shagging, eating and staying alive? It's amazing really.

As for near death experiences I remember reading about one particular person who was dead on the operating table - heartbeat, brain functions all gone and still could give a detailed account as to what had taken place after he/she has been resuscitated. There is no scientific theory that can really explain it in full. The majority of science looks to internalize all these occurrences, rather than look for any exterior influences that may have been present. The book I'm reading is great. Haven't finished it yet so to be continued lol.

Yet . Isn't it funny how these weird experiences are always clouded instances that only happen to a very, very, very small percentage of the population?

Who knows what the brain is capable of. It's endlessly amazing and for me, it's not an automatic prerequisite to the spiritual. I can't really argue beyond that really I guess. You have you views and I have mine.

What's the book called?

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

Yet . Isn't it funny how these weird experiences are always clouded instances that only happen to a very, very, very small percentage of the population?

Who knows what the brain is capable of. It's endlessly amazing and for me, it's not an automatic prerequisite to the spiritual. I can't really argue beyond that really I guess. You have you views and I have mine.

What's the book called?

The Spiritual Brain. Very interesting read. And no, I don't believe that you can internalize everything or reduce it down to the purely physical. We shouldn't be that arrogant or presumptuous about everything - we've fu$ked up in the past and right now by living that way.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

How do you know that God does not take a physical form? Are you just arguing for the sake of it again? I thought you didn't even believe in God?

Your argument rests defiantly on the fact that God is not a material object. Why? How do you know this for a fact? Because to use the threads argument, an argument you started out defending ... science can't prove that God isn't material, right?

I don't believe in God but I have more knowledge to back that up instead of "it just doesn't make sense" (done countless essays on it with all different types of evidence for/against and gaining a better understanding of it all). Its very interesting when you look into it a bit more and definitely makes you think.

And science can't prove that God is material, but if we're going to accept the possibility of a God in the first place then we have to accept the definition, and the definition says he's immaterial. Otherwise if you're going to try and prove he is material then you're not searching for the 'right' God.

Btw you'll know if I'm arguing for the sake of it or not, my points actually have substance other than the other day which was just all tongue in cheek

[Stu]

Originally Posted by setanta

The Spiritual Brain. Very interesting read. And no, I don't believe that you can internalize everything or reduce it down to the purely physical. We shouldn't be that arrogant or presumptuous about everything - we've fu$ked up in the past and right now by living that way.

What about the fuck ups past, present and no doubt future as a result of belief in the unproveable? It's a see saw argument that's going to go bad for the both of us I reckon. Is it arrogant to deny that a box cou - alright. I think I have made my box point enough .

I'll definately check out the book though. I'm reading a lot of atheist based stuff right now and I always like to have a balance.

Originally Posted by Tom

I don't believe in God but I have more knowledge to back that up instead of "it just doesn't make sense" (done countless essays on it with all different types of evidence for/against and gaining a better understanding of it all). Its very interesting when you look into it a bit more and definitely makes you think.

And science can't prove that God is material, but if we're going to accept the possibility of a God in the first place then we have to accept the definition, and the definition says he's immaterial. Otherwise if you're going to try and prove he is material then you're not searching for the 'right' God.

Btw you'll know if I'm arguing for the sake of it or not, my points actually have substance other than the other day which was just all tongue in cheek

See this just goes around in circles as ultimately your a slave to the theory .

So this time my question is : Which definition says God is immaterial? I wasn't aware the big fella had a definition. You simply can't prove he is not material. Your right though, you can't prove he is material either.

The topic titles argument is becoming more and more banal as we go along.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

See this just goes around in circles as ultimately your a slave to the theory .

So this time my question is : Which definition says God is immaterial? I wasn't aware the big fella had a definition. You simply can't prove he is not material. Your right though, you can't prove he is material either.

The topic titles argument is becoming more and more banal as we go along.

Definitions that I've worked from in the past generally point in the same direction. Some theodicies etc.

I think to properly look at the two, you need to isolate them both because they just end up falling back on one another and you get nowhere. Reminds me of when you're a kid and you call someone something, only for them to reply "I know you are so what am I?" Religion essentially opens up a whole minefield for philosophy so its hard to argue when religion is involved, and the dreaded "God works in mysterious ways".

To sum up a Facebook group, Christianity: One womans lie about having an affair that got out of hand.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Tom

Definitions that I've worked from in the past generally point in the same direction. Some theodicies etc.

I think to properly look at the two, you need to isolate them both because they just end up falling back on one another and you get nowhere. Reminds me of when you're a kid and you call someone something, only for them to reply "I know you are so what am I?" Religion essentially opens up a whole minefield for philosophy so its hard to argue when religion is involved, and the dreaded "God works in mysterious ways".

To sum up a Facebook group, Christianity: One womans lie about having an affair that got out of hand.

No definition or proof for what god is exists. I think I will rest on that comftorably.

That Facebook group is bang on the money, I reckon .

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

No definition or proof for what god is exists. I think I will rest on that comftorably.

That Facebook group is bang on the money, I reckon .

A few Bible quotes describing God

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god.htm

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

What about the **** ups past, present and no doubt future as a result of belief in the unproveable? It's a see saw argument that's going to go bad for the both of us I reckon. Is it arrogant to deny that a box cou - alright. I think I have made my box point enough .

I'll definately check out the book though. I'm reading a lot of atheist based stuff right now and I always like to have a balance.

.

That's what I mean : it's all about striking a balance and not discounting any theory or train of thought, which most scientists sometimes do. They're very rigid in their ways of thinking, you know? That's why I like to read spiritual stuff too because I believe that there's things out there that we're unaware of and it would be silly to place all your bets on one particular way of thinking, which includes dogmatic science or organized religion lol. They all f£ck up.

I'll sum my thoughts up by talking about my rabbit. Is he inferior in mentality to me? Yes.. well maybe. Is he capable of logical or rational thought? No. Is his main priority just to survive? Yes. When he comes jumping beside me looking for hugs and cuddles do I believe that there's more to it than just a need for warmth and that he loves me? Yes, I do. And how do I know this.... I don't, I just feel it, and it's the same with life and spirituality. Some things can't be explained or internalized. Call it intuition, call it stupidity, but it's how I feel, and until it's completely disproven I will continue to do so. I doubt that made any fecking sense lol.