who created god

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your assertion that you should always trust your personal experiences is false. You can be fooled very easily. That is how magicians are able to do slight of hand. The human experience is very fallible.

BTW I pray twice every day, but I do not pray to something outside of myself. If I want something, I go get it. If it is out of my reach, I work for it. If it is impossible, I find a way. If I am praying for the wrong thing, I look for wisdom to see the poison.

Originally posted by Deadline
It may not considered to be paranormal but that doesn't mean if you prove its existance that it didn't exist.

If you say so.

I think you missed my point. The reason that all claims of the paranormal are bullshit isn't because everyone that makes bizarre claims is deluded, stupid or malicious, it's because when they're not they prove can prove the claim and once you do that we don't call it paranormal anymore. Obviously light has the nature of particles, but now that we've proven it we call it science not magic.

Repeat that process for 500 years and you end up with everyone nearly talking about the paranormal harping on claims that have long since been disproven or are totally absurd to begin with. Feynman makes a great point about this in QED, a lot of absurd things about the world are true but scientists accept them because they can show that these things are true.

Or we can make an analogy. Two people, Alice and Bob, build boats (ideas). Both of them want the boat to be called a car (scientific) and keep making changes to have that happen. Alice takes the time to learn about what a car is, and her changes result in the boat becoming more car-like even if the end result is a very strange car. On the other hand Bob doesn't, he just stands on the prow of his boat and yells at people.

Should we really say that both vehicles are cars? Of course not, the definition of what makes a car is quite clear, no one gets special treatment. In the same way the definition of what is needed to make a scientific theory is quite clear, no one gets special treatment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you missed my point. The reason that all claims of the paranormal are bullshit isn't because everyone that makes bizarre claims is deluded, stupid or malicious, it's because when they're not they prove can prove the claim and once you do that we don't call it paranormal anymore. Obviously light has the nature of particles, but now that we've proven it we call it science not magic.

Repeat that process for 500 years and you end up with everyone nearly talking about the paranormal harping on claims that have long since been disproven or are totally absurd to begin with. Feynman makes a great point about this in QED, a lot of absurd things about the world are true but scientists accept them because they can show that these things are true.

Or we can make an analogy. Two people, Alice and Bob, build boats (ideas). Both of them want the boat to be called a car (scientific) and keep making changes to have that happen. Alice takes the time to learn about what a car is, and her changes result in the boat becoming more car-like even if the end result is a very strange car. On the other hand Bob doesn't, he just stands on the prow of his boat and yells at people.

Should we really say that both vehicles are cars? Of course not, the definition of what makes a car is quite clear, no one gets special treatment. In the same way the definition of what is needed to make a scientific theory is quite clear, no one gets special treatment.

Great got that doesn't neccsarily refute what I said. You done wasting my time?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Deadline is right about the existence of double standards. Science is just as if not more self-righteous than religion and in some areas is just as closed-minded. Airs of superiority abound in both an so do outright lies and unproven claims. What I believe really makes a difference is how people share their discoveries, as there are more to be found in each and truths to be found in each.

and you base this on science not agreeing with you?

or something more solid?

Originally posted by Deadline
Great got that and you still missed my point. You done wasting my time?

Nope. I plan to keep calling you out when you make ridiculous claims without evidence then whine that scientists don't accept them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope. I plan to keep calling you out when you make ridiculous claims without evidence then whine that scientists don't accept them.

Ok lets try one more time eg prove telepathy exists that doesn't mean its not telepathy or that there is afterlife. Understand now? It could apply to some aspects of the paranormal but not everything.

You don't call me out on shit what you do most of the time is try to find some wrong with what I'm saying even if there isn't Remember this:

A: Atheism isn't a belief system.
B: I know
A: Why are you arguing that it is?
B: I'm not.
A: Atheism isn't a belief system
B: Oh for god sake just go away.

Originally posted by The MISTER
This seems very positive. 😎 No man should judge your hearts reasons for going about things as you do. Just give others the same consideration. Deadline is right about the existence of double standards. Science is just as if not more self-righteous than religion and in some areas is just as closed-minded. Airs of superiority abound in both an so do outright lies and unproven claims. What I believe really makes a difference is how people share their discoveries, as there are more to be found in each and truths to be found in each.

I think you are speaking from a biased point of view. The scientific method is a very high standard. You misunderstand this very high standard as arrogance, because you attribute what some controversial people say with the scientific method. Remember it was Christianity that put Galileo in house arrest for the remainder of his life, for simply reporting what he saw in the sky. Who was arrogant in that case?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Worthless to a group yes, to an individual no. The belief that the majority of the world has, that there is a spirit, is worthless to you isn't it? You obviously don't just base what you do on what others consider is of worth. A personal experiment like this is worthless to everyone who isn't you. Who else would be responsible for your spirit? More people would say that finding out more about your personal spirit is a high priority once they have found out more about theirs. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by inimalist
and you base this on science not agreeing with you?

or something more solid?

I'd love for somebody to point out what parts of science I disagree with, or math for that matter. Science alone is not a religion but some people will worship it and treat it as gospel while they preach it like it's some sort of God killer. God supporters can actually go as far as to dismiss dinosaurs!?!?!?! There are over-zealous people on both sides faking miracles and missing links. Thus the importance of personal truth seeking.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok lets try one more time eg prove telepathy exists that doesn't mean its not telepathy or that there is afterlife. Understand now?

Well I can barely parse your sentences but lets see.

1) We prove telepathy exists.
cool
2) That doesn't mean it's not telepathy.
yeah, but it does mean we don't call the claim paranormal anymore
3) That doesn't mean there is an afterlife.
in fact telepathy implies nothing at all about an afterlife

Originally posted by Deadline
It could apply to some aspects of the paranormal but not everything.

Sure, but if we keep disproving a particular claim (psi powers for instance) it becomes absurd to keep testing it. If we prove that 1000 people don't have psi it's quite reasonable to tell that 1001st person to go home.

But most paranormal claims don't even get that far. The logic behind them is frequently flawed, other times they make claims that contradict reality, still other times they're unfalisifiable and the person making them asks for special treatment.

When none of these things are true we test them. When they pass the tests we put them through more rigorous testing until finally we stop calling them paranormal. When they don't pass the test we keep calling them paranormal and you whine that science has a double standard (which I guess is something like "things that are proven get to be science but things that aren't proven don't get to be science"😉

Originally posted by Deadline
You don't call me out on shit what you do most of the time is try to find some wrong with what I'm saying even if there isn't Remember this:

A: Atheism isn't a belief system.
B: I know
A: Why are you arguing that it is?
B: I'm not.
A: Atheism isn't a belief system
B: Oh for god sake just go away.

No, what I recall is:

B Vague statement about atheism being a religion.
A: No it's not.
B: Vague statement about atheism.
A: I think just disproved that.
B: BLARAGAG!!! I SAID ATHEISM WASN"T A RELIGION WREREN"T YOU PAING ATTENTION???!!!!QUESITONMARK
A: Oh, you were really unclear. Chill out.

But, hey, maybe I'm biased.

God came from the LHC, they started a mini big bang the other week. These mini particles tend to have their own rules including ignoring time, so maybe this WAS the big bang which started everything off in some way.

The result being, Man is God because he not only created the universe(s) but dreamed up the idea of a God.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Its worthless as an experiment because it isn't an experiment. To be an experiment, it has to have falsifiability; in your case, no matter what the result is you can claim it supports your hypothesis. This is the opposite of proving things. This is the opposite of science.

Thanks also for proving that science acts like religion. You've stated that my experiment is not worthy of being called one. The God of science has spoken and his laws are absolute. What I am suggesting is the OPPOSITE of science.

Explain the opposite of science. I would guess that it's similar to the opposite of math. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by The MISTER
Not true. If your serious prayers go unanswered then you could theoretically say that there's nobody there to answer. It is obviously an experiment that contains falsifiability. Gods answered so many of my prayers that I must believe that there's no coincidence. And I don't pray for things like the sun to come up and stuff like that. God's blessed me with better things than exactly what I asked for while giving me what I asked for. I'm speaking on the results to my personal experiment.

Thanks also for proving that science acts like religion. You've stated that my experiment is not worthy of being called one. The God of science has spoken and his laws are absolute. What I am suggesting is the OPPOSITE of science.

Explain the opposite of science. I would guess that it's similar to the opposite of math. 😮‍💨

So, if you don't pass a test in school do you claim the teacher doesn't like you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well I can barely parse your sentences but lets see.

1) We prove telepathy exists.
cool
2) That doesn't mean it's not telepathy.
yeah, but it does mean we don't call the claim paranormal anymore
3) That doesn't mean there is an afterlife.
in fact telepathy implies nothing at all about an afterlife

Sure, but if we keep disproving a particular claim (psi powers for instance) it becomes absurd to keep testing it. If we prove that 1000 people don't have psi it's quite reasonable to tell that 1001st person to go home.

But most paranormal claims don't even get that far. The logic behind them is frequently flawed, other times they make claims that contradict reality, still other times they're unfalisifiable and the person making them asks for special treatment.

When none of these things are true we test them. When they pass the tests we put them through more rigorous testing until finally we stop calling them paranormal. When they don't pass the test we keep calling them paranormal and you whine that science has a double standard (which I guess is something like "things that are proven get to be science but things that aren't proven don't get to be science"😉

If you say so.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, what I recall is:

B Vague statement about atheism being a religion.
A: No it's not.
B: Vague statement about atheism.
A: I think just disproved that.
B: BLARAGAG!!! I SAID ATHEISM WASN"T A RELIGION WREREN"T YOU PAING ATTENTION???!!!!QUESITONMARK
A: Oh, you were really unclear. Chill out.

But, hey, maybe I'm biased.

Thats exactly what happened, theres no distortion there and thats quite accurate. 👆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are speaking from a biased point of view. The scientific method is a very high standard. You misunderstand this very high standard as arrogance, because you attribute what some controversial people say with the scientific method. Remember it was Christianity that put Galileo in house arrest for the remainder of his life, for simply reporting what he saw in the sky. Who was arrogant in that case?

To be honest I don't trust humans as groups of people. Of any creature humans are the most dishonest when teaching other humans.
I am biased against many human suggestions about things that are important. That's why I don't think my race is better than others, my country is better than others, my worth is more than others, my species is God, or that I can disprove God with human understanding.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I am biased. Who isn't? As far as for Galileo the people calling themselves christians are some of the MOST arrogant people ever.

To be honest I don't trust humans as groups of people. Of any creature humans are the most dishonest when teaching other humans.
I am biased against many human suggestions about things that are important. That's why I don't think my race is better than others, my country is better than others, my worth is more than others, my species is God, or that I can disprove God with human understanding.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Thanks also for proving that science acts like religion. You've stated that my experiment is not worthy of being called one. The God of science has spoken and his laws are absolute. What I am suggesting is the OPPOSITE of science.

I am just going to guess you are unfamiliar with Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, or, in general, any of the philosophy behind experimental methods, yes?

Originally posted by The MISTER
I am biased. Who isn't? The christians are some of the MOST arrogant people ever.

To be honest I don't trust humans as groups of people. Of any creature humans are the most dishonest when teaching other humans.
I am biased against many human suggestions about things that are important. That's why I don't think my race is better than others, my country is better than others, my worth is more than others, my species is God, or that I can disprove God with human understanding.

Scientists know that humans are fallible. They understand their own failings. That is why we developed the scientific method. We developed this over a long time. So, separate humans from the scientific method.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Not true. If your serious prayers go unanswered then you could theoretically say that there's nobody there to answer. It is obviously an experiment that contains falsifiability. Gods answered so many of my prayers that I must believe that there's no coincidence. And I don't pray for things like the sun to come up and stuff like that. God's blessed me with better things than exactly what I asked for while giving me what I asked for. I'm speaking on the results to my personal experiment.

Thanks also for proving that science acts like religion. You've stated that my experiment is not worthy of being called one. The God of science has spoken and his laws are absolute. What I am suggesting is the OPPOSITE of science.

Explain the opposite of science. I would guess that it's similar to the opposite of math. 😮‍💨