Crazy Monday Poll - A serious one

[Swanky]

Yes but at the same time you say God can be in 2 places at once because he is everywhere, but you can't prove it. your answer to the question of How do you know God is everywhere, generally is, because he just is, or because he is God. Those kinds of answers fail to answer anything and do not satisfy our curiosity. If didn't wonder why the apple fell on his head and just accepted it fell on his just because.... then we would know about gravity.

[krunchie]

I think the question should have been

Is there a Poker God.

[Brett Kay]

I think the question should have been

Is there a Poker God.

At least 5 that i know of.

Tilt, Bad Beat, Fortune, Luck, Runner Runner.

[Swanky]

I think the question should have been

Is there a Poker God.

At least 5 that i know of.

Tilt, Bad Beat, Fortune, Luck, Runner Runner.

6. - old man Swanky.

[Scotty]

Tilt, Bad Beat, Luck & Runner Runner.

The Four Horsemen of the Apokerlypse?

[Adrian]

Yes but at the same time you say God can be in 2 places at once because he is everywhere, but you can't prove it. your answer to the question of How do you know God is everywhere, generally is, because he just is, or because he is God. Those kinds of answers fail to answer anything and do not satisfy our curiosity. If didn't wonder why the apple fell on his head and just accepted it fell on his just because.... then we would know about gravity.

I seek not to prove it, though. Like I said, it cannot be observed or measured, so cannot be proved.

You never asked us to prove the existence of God, you asked if we believed. Belief, by definition, does not require proof. I never said I believed because I could prove it, I only said I believed because there no logical alternative. I still think there's no logical alternative. This does not prove Its existence, but it's enough to keep me believing. It's not like believing is going to give me any benefit, or cost me anything either. Belief is free. I just believe because it makes sense to me.

The influence of gravity is observable. Therefore, something must exist to create the effect that gravity has, and that's what we named gravity. I merely discredit science to the extent that people depend on it to explain so many things about the universe. It's origins, for instance. I don't disagree with most scientific discoveries, you know. Science explains a lot of things about the observable world, but it can never disprove God. And to depend on it to do so is flawed logic. That's really the point of all those long-winded posts.

[bennymacca]

That's not weird. Of course it's possible for something to be in two places at once.

what the? you dont think this is weird?

And this testability requirement is why science will always fail to answer everything. Because not everything can be tested.

adrian, who tries to answer everything with science? physics it the study of the way the observable universe works. thats all.

No, you cannot argue that its real. You are ignoring the fundamental flaws of humanity. It is only real to the extent of observability and measurability.

so if someone screams in the forest, and noone hears it, does he really scream? of course he bloody does.

The reality is that human beings, with all their limits and failings, having the ultimate determination as to what is real and what isn't, is simply laughable. It's actually a completely ludicrous idea. Humans cannot observe everything in the first place. We can only see a small portion of the light spectrum, for instance. We can only hear a small portion of all possible sounds.

you are confusing "observation" with human senses. observation in this case means measurement. nothing to do with our own eyes and ears.

What hope have we seriously got? Yes, we can make machines to see and hear beyond our capabilities, but only to the extent that we can predict where these other non-observable things actually exist. What about things that we have no hope of predicting? How do we measure that? Does it not exist merely because we can't see it? Of course not.

what are you arguing here? of course there are things that we cannot see. this can be for 2 reasons. firstly, is we dont have instruments capable enough to see these things.

secondly, these things lie outside the realm of science.

Ah. You're finally getting it.

im sorry adrian, but do you really believe that everything cannot be proven? that is really quite silly man.

Here's a nice analogy I though of in the shower this morning. If we say the universe is like a large room. The scientist is a little guy on the other end of the room looking through the keyhole of the closed door. Yes, the scientist can observe some things going on in the room, he can see the furniture, some things hanging on the wall maybe, a few decorations, a few people chatting. But how can you ever accept that the observer knows everything that is going on in the room?

science doesn't pretend to know everything about what is in the room. im not sure who has told you otherwise, but they are completely wrong.

science is all about coming up with a theory. then, using that theory, coming up with some testable predictions. then going and testing them.

[Swanky]

Well it's always hard to disprove something that doesn't exist. I could say an invisible elephant sits on my shoulder and tells me what to do. Logic tells me it doesn't exist, because that would absurd. But you'd have a hard time proving I was lying!

[bennymacca]

lets use your analogy of a house, with a single locked door, and a keyhole.

scientist walks into the house, and has to decide what type of room is behind the locked door.

scientist walks around the house, gathers evidence, notices that the only room that he didn't go into was a bathroom. so now, he can come up with the theory that the locked room is a bathroom.

so now he has to perform an experiment, and goes and looks at the keyhole. through the keyhole, he can see a sink, some tiles, etc.

now, all the evidence points to a bathroom, so he concludes that the room is a bathroom. he doesn't actually have to see a bath or a shower, because all of the evidence is so strong that its not needed. down the track, he might perform other experiments, i.e drill a hole in the wall, to confirm his suspicions.

of course there is a small chance that the room maybe a laundry instead, and the theory may be wrong. this is what you seem to be arguing, the fact that we can never know for sure.

what has this got to do with god? nothing if you ask me.

for some reason, you seem to think that i am arguing that science can explain everything. i am not arguing that at all. not sure how you came to this conclusion, or whether this is just your belief and you are trying to argue your point, even though noone is arguing against you

[Swanky]

Here's a nice analogy I though of in the shower this morning. If we say the universe is like a large room. The scientist is a little guy on the other end of the room looking through the keyhole of the closed door. Yes, the scientist can observe some things going on in the room, he can see the furniture, some things hanging on the wall maybe, a few decorations, a few people chatting. But how can you ever accept that the observer knows everything that is going on in the room?

Now lets do some role reversal with this one and call our observer God. You say our observer doesn't know what's going on in the room, but change his name to God.... and that all changes