Gravity vs. God

It's not really my fault. You guys are so used to the traditional view of god that you automatically assume that's what anyone means when use the term god and completely miss the point of what I am trying to say and instead concentrate on the semantics.

God - n. the supreme or ultimate reality. from merriam-webster

And do you think that this stereotyping is ok? If I said that I was black and someone would automatically assume that I eat fried chicken everyday, would you not have a problem with that? I'm doing the same thing, trying to fight this damn stereotype.

 

He's not ignorant, just stating his opinion and feeling strong about it.

 

And blindly believing what he thinks is 100% truth with the mindset of, "God dun it!"

 

Ok, so what do you want me to call it then? It doesn't really matter what I call it really, I'm talking about the same thing regardless of what name I give it. Now can we please stop concentrating so much on the semantics.

Please go away. I already explained everything and you still don't understand. Now shoo, go be arrogant somewhere else.

 

Saying that just because gravity "is" but is "invisible" doesnt give any reasoning to say that god exists. If you want to take the abstract approach to things, I'll rgue that way. Gravitation ouccurs between two masses. It has been proved, and there is a Gravitational constant for the Universe. This is a way of measuring gravity. Now, I dont think there is a way to measure God, now is there?

 

Consciousness.

 

No.

5characters

 

That's DEFINITELY not the only thing we know about gravity. Now I'm not gonna sit here and explain everything I know about gravity but I can tell you there is a LOT more to gravity than 'it pulls shit together'.
We see gravity daily. Well, not actual 'gravity' but we see the effects of gravity. The earths creation is a direct result of gravity. Our orbit around the sun is a direct result of gravity. Heck, the sun its self is a direct result of gravity. Now.. What started evolution? I suggest you go to the link PublicityFtF posted, and if you want to go far back and ask 'What started this', what created god? What created the creator of god?

 

i dont think so.. if god created the world i think he/she would have known about the science's involved with it, do u think we evolved coz i dont think so.. not a chance at all

 

That is a grammatical error.

 

I was trying to say it was intentional, but that wording didn't come to mind at the time.

You're assuming there is a creator, and here's a link on evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

 

Yes.

5characters

Pretty much just described the different ways that large things attract smaller things.

I don't know what started evolution since I can't travel back in time and look at it. But I do like the study of abiogenesis and what explanations it offers and is probably the theory I agree with most right now. Now you are assuming that I am replacing science with God and instead saying that it was God and not abiogenesis that started life? Completely wrong. You can't deny science, because it is the observable and testable reality, to deny it you have to be crazy. What I don't agree with is the notion that science can explain everything and that everything is explained by science. The problem with this is that it is assumed that what we experience with our senses is everything that exists, there could be things (many things) out there that are out of the reach of our senses. Our sense of sight is only limited to visible light, which is way less than 0.00001% of the electromagnetic spectrum, and that's only the electromagnetic spectrum that we take account of, there really is no end of the electromagnetic spectrum on either sides of it. Wavelengths can get as long or as short as they want infinitely. Now imagine the stuff that you CAN'T see. Imagine if you had a pair of eyes that could see infrared waves, what would you see if anything at all? What would those waves bounce off of? Maybe nothing, but then again there could be other universes in different frequency ranges that are completely invisible to us.

Wow this is pretty long lol I'm sorry, but anyways you get the idea. But anyways, science can't and never will answer the question as to why life happens because that answer probably doesn't lie in our observable frequency range. The answer to questions like that can be reached through lengthy meditation. In deep meditative states your brain starts emitting various brainwaves, alpha, gamma, theta, delta, each of these brainwaves gives you a different experience and has a different effect on your body. Through meditation you are able to gain experience in the unseen world, and accompanied by science you are able to construct your own perception of reality and truth.

 

yeah, but like .. couldn't someone come around and basically void your argument by just replacin the word..??

you say "the earths creation is a direct result of gravity."
someone else says "the earths creation is a direct result of gods will."

i mean, you sayin what you (apparently) know it is, yet, you're on the same side of the argument as the opposed argument in itself.

you're arguing with your teammate, basically.

hey, if you're talkin about the mainstream version of the god, then you have to apply it's godlike attributes. the mainstream (or, in this case, christian) version of god is the equivalent to existence.

"existence existed, therefore, god exists."

there was nothing before existence, because without existence, there would be nothing. i mean, the only way i see of explaining what most Christians try to explain is to, again, replace the word.

"god existed, therefore, it exists.", basically meaning, there was no creator before god. god simply existed.

and you can do that with the other statement.

there was nothing before god, because without god, there would be nothing.

i'm not saying it's a logical argument, i'm just trying to give you the understanding that you don't currently have.

--

yeah, 'Sythe', it was pretty void, what was happening there. he was basically stating the equivalency of the pantheist philosophy.

 

What you are basically doing is destroying the current definition of God, which most people believe in as a human that created anything and everything. Then, you take that, and are blasting it out of proportion.

Why don't you just make a new word? Don't use God, just make some new word. You're trying to relate gravity, something we KNOW exists, and we can PROVE exists, to something we have no proof of. As said before,

We can test it. It has affect on our bodies, as stated by YOUR post, the first and original.

By the way, it's its, not it's in that context. But on topic,
Does God have an effect on your body?

Yet, I must admit, people are taking their definition of God and replacing yours with it. Most posters in this thread do not understand that you think of God as whatever sustains life. I must say, also, that that is not the meaning of God . It must be used as a God. Not just, "God is what makes us live, sustains and completes life." God is referred to as a being, not an effect or a condition. I'm sorry to say this but you fail to understand this.

/Thread.

 

I guess god caused the electric charge... :noworry:

 

Wow, wait. You aren't serious are you ?

In case you are let me tell you this.

Gravity = Proven

God = Not proven

 

"Everyone knows Christians don't believe in gravity." Peter Griffin

Hehe, but anyways, in keeping with the intelligent argument here...hmm.

That's your logic, not undeniable logic. Like Sythe said, this is a circular debate. You're just substituting "god" to answer the complex question of our origin.

Edit: As hard as I'm trying to avoid some lengthy answer that's been made in some form or fashion a hundred times before, I will use this simple example to make a point (methinks I should keep it simple for erm, well you get the idea. Or do you? that's the point, eh.)

I can simply drop a ball to objectively and empirically prove the existence of gravity. I can throw a prayer into the wind and I will fail to get anything empirical and any results will be purely subjective.

 

If you don't believe in the traditional God, then what's with your avatar? Why not use the words "a god" instead of "God"? I think you're misleading all of us here...or perhaps using evasive techniques of denying you're a traditional Christian just to cover up your argument's fallacies.


Anyways, this is what you sound like to me, "I don't know why the light turns off when i close the refrigerator door so it must be God."

 

I'm with you on this thread as long with the other 7% of us believers.
The other 93% are going to argue and resist God.

Keep spreading the Word and Truth my brother in Christ!