Do you believe in God? If so, why, if not, why...
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Yes.
I believe in God because I believe what the Bible tells me, and most of all, I believe in Him because I can feel his Holy Ghost/Spirit inspiring me to do his will from day to day. Does that answer your question?
Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
Yes, I believe in God because I talk to him everyday and sometimes He even answers me.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
May I ask precisely which God you are talking about? The "Christian" God? Even the people who call themselves Christians often mean very different things when they say "I believe in God." Perhaps I'm seeming a bit nitpicky here, but I think you really have to have your definitions in place. Unless you mean, "do you believe in whatever god is to you?"
Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
I agree with suntranafs. Though many of us believe, who believe in G-d, that he is one, the idea of G-d is ever-changing. My idea of G-d is not yours or the next person's.
Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
And this how to do with OSC in.. what.. way????
~Sir Montague
*watches as this post gets tossed to the other side of the river*
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I belive in the existence of beings greater than humanity, and that such a being could be misconcieved as God. The universe is many billions of years old, and the human race--at about 10,000 years--is very young. By a little mental math, an ancient race could have as many as one million years of evolution for every one year the human race has been around. I think it's quite likely that some multibillion-year old race has messed with us at some point in some way.
I know it's not very satisfactoy for those looking for "the answer", the meaning of life, or whatever, but I stopped looking the moment I realized that "the answer" is whatever you want it to be, but that's another story altogether...
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
I believe in god. He talks to me everyday, and sometimes I even listen.
Posted by EnderWiggin2004 (Member # 5366) on :
Wheat Puppet, I have a comment about your post... You said that the "answer" meaning if there was a god, or how the human race was created, was whatever we wanted it to be. I apoligize for questioning your judgement but that statement is no more true than 5+5=14 because "I want it to." Events such as human evolution or, heavenly creation(the two main arguments) are not things we imagine, they are not fantasies, they are events that actually took place(only one of course unless you are a religous person who will not allow science to disprove religion and then you start to accept evolution as the means in which "God" developed man over the years( that is another issue). So you see, we can not be correct in saying that "the answer" is whatever we want to be when "the answer"is an event that took place. Furthermore, to help prove my point, one cannot say Abraham Lincoln assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. because they want it to be so. All one can do is pick which ever theory seems more likely to them; which ever theory has more evidence; which ever theory is closer to the truth. And if one chooses the wrong theory then they are wrong because it is false, therefore they can't be right simply because "they want to be." Thank you.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
I believe in god. Since I don't believe in free will, I believe that something had to tip the dominoes that we are. I believe that thing is god.
But I personally don't beat myself up about it since there is no way to know whether god exists or not. Its an arrogant thing to say that god exists. Its an arrogant thing to say that he doesn't.
In matters of faith, you only have what you believe.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote:And this how to do with OSC in.. what.. way????
Am I the only one who thinks its okay to post non OSC realated things in this forum. I mean really, OSC fans should be some of the most interesting people to talk about this with, so why not post ideas that you find interesting?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Laurenz0, that's why there's "the other side of the river." Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
Laurenz, you believe in god and yet not free will, didn't god (certainly the christian god) give us the gift of free will?
Erm also tis true that the river has two sides but people have being posting non OSC topics here for years. Why bother worrying about it now?
Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
I believe in God, i think all the things he's done for us are fairly obvious. I believe it's fairly obvious the things he lets us figure out for ourselves are things we cant be taught, he's my other father. I feel him around me, though through my own mistakes he cannot always dwell within me. That makes me sad when i think about it and it's a real sadness not the guilt of someone whom is taught to obey the true guilt of someone who knows what they did is wrong and honestly regrets it.
~Brock
~A dishonest man you can always trust to do the dishonest thing, but an honest man... an honest man you hafto worry about doing something REALLY stupid!
Posted by jontar (Member # 5423) on :
Elohim translates as gods(little g), not God YWVH translates as "God of the Firey Mountain"
In Sumer "God of the Firey Mountain" was set to rule over lesser lands which could be, and most likely are the lands of the Jews. Older jewish stories tell of rivals gods and a war among them. In the end YWVH won. He proclaimed himself the only God and that worshipping of any other gods would be punishable by death. Firey Mountain also has some meaning that i wont get into in this short little post.
Our history is lost and undeniable proof is also lost.
Do i believe in a vengeful, judging God. No. Quite frankly its very small minded and only reflects the mind of man. Is there a divine being, i dont think so, something as grand as our creator could not be called a "being". Is there some creation force that moves through out the universe and beyond in all likelihood yes. Does he care what we call him or how we worship him (dont get carried away with that, im not saying that you should sacrafice your dog to some divine power) i highely doubt it, as long as your morals are strong and your ideas and thoughts are honest that you will be OK.
There is SO MUCH of our history that has been edited out because we are a christian based society. SO MUCH so that the ideas seem ridiculous and strange, which usually causes anger or spite. If people took the time to research pre-bible documents you would see more than you ever thought possible. The bible was compiled by men looking to create a religion from diffrent documents. If you seriously dont think they edited it, then you give way to much credit to humankind.
Ill even use an Orson Scott Card refrence. Remeber the story of Gloriously Bright or Qing-jao, his ideas may have just been fantasy to him at the time but those ideas of have rang true since the dawn of time. People that are raised on an belief become so overwhelmed with that belief that all else is FALSE. -=] provable or not the idea will always be false. ex:) creationism vs darwinism (btw i believe neither)
thanx for reading
j0ntar
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Qote from EnderWiggin2004:
"only one of course unless you are a religous person who will not allow science to disprove religion and then you start to accept evolution as the means in which "God" developed man over the years"
I'll take really stupid assumptions for 500, Alex.
Not all people who believe in God were born taking The Bible literally, and not all religous people call themselves Christians.
Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
this is irrelevant but why does everyone want to copy various states of Ender's name, why cant people be themselves? just curious.
~Brock
~because last time i tried to unlock it I Killed CHURCH!!!
Posted by PhysicsGriper (Member # 5410) on :
I'm inclined to say that I don't believe in any force which can change the physical laws of the universe. Evolution and modern science virtually disprove most of the beginning of the Old Testament, and many people are willing to say that the Old Testament was wrong, but the new testament was right simply because they act on faith. I believe that the universe is a magnificent place, but I do not believe that when we die, we will go to a perfect place and spend all eternity there (just think of how many observable physical laws that would violate). And please, none of that "aha, so you believe physics and evolution are God!" stuff.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Okay, so you don't believe in God. And you expect to be attacked for it. That's kind of sad, actually. I don't think there's any reason to try and accuse you of anything, as long as you recognize that the folks here who disagree with you have a legitimate opinion, albeit one different from yours.
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
PhysicsGriper-
In what way does modern science rule out anything in the Old or New Testament? I ask this as a practicing physicist at CERN and the son of one who works at Los Alamos, whose formative years were spent going to a ward (Mormon equiv. of a parish) almost entirely populated with physical sciences PhDs. In the opinion of a significant fraction of mature scientists, there is a whole lot of room for God (yeah, a literal being, not a figment of some collective imagination) in the universe. Yes, I know the Big Bang is on a firm footing - I saw the MAP results. Yes I've heard about <standard disproof of religion topics>.
Your scope is too narrow. Don't just emote, THINK. Science in its present form is very cool, and gives us a lot of neat handles on the world. It is critical to understand the _limitations_ of both our knowledge and of the method. There are very few problems that we can solve analytically, only a few more that we can model reasonably. We can't account (yet) for what makes up the lion's share of the universe. Our biology is extremely primitive. The archaeology and palentology with which we justify our theories on the origin of life are not even close to ironclad... though I happen to believe they are in the right ballpark.
There are no arguments to be made for or against the existence of God in the gamut of present knowledge. Speculations (wild guesses) are free game, but there is not one iota of actual evidence within the canon. Make your religious decisions by honestly examining your own heart... you can't excuse philisophical laziness by appealing to the "obvious" facts of science.
Now, there are experiments one _can_ do to ascertain the existence of God - but those entail some dedication and a desire to know the truth, whatever it may require of you. Thus, the admonition to examine yourself.
In reply to some spurious comments:
It is not inevitable that some higher race has messed with us - the chances are pretty low, in fact, if you really think about it.
Free will is subtle - I don't think we necessarily see it in action every day. I can quite understand why Laurenz0 doesn't believe in it. Not that I agree.
It seems fairly obvious that if there is a God (as I will assert) He is not subject to the whimsy of human belief. As for changing laws of the universe - why? The idea of a " force which can change the physical laws of the universe" is recursive to the point of meaninglessness. And, IMHO, there is plenty of room for Him to do a whole lot.
Alden
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
*Applauds* HUZAH, HUZAH, HUZAH!
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Stradling,
While we keep in mind the niceties and neat handles on the universe afforded to us by modern science, I think it's also useful to keep in mind that religious texts afford us neat handles via narrative (i.e. stories) on our experience in that universe.
flish
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Full and unconditional agreement. I'll take it further and say that since the data were given by one who really understands the universe's underlying principles, it'll contain hints not only "on our experience in that universe", but on the nature of the universe itself. If you're equipped to pick up the hints. I operate on the assumption that nobody really is, though.
Religious philosophy question, if anyone's interested in playing - does God understand all principles of the universe, or all events in the universe, or just those principles/events that pertain to godhood? I'm asking for specific references to the Christian/Mormon scriptural canon - no reason to reference human philosophers, after all, who can have no basis to comment. And please, no Gödel citations - we don't have enough of a reference to know whether God resides/operates totally within our universe, which may or may not be closed.
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Just for argument...
PhysicsGriper, what observables are affected by an afterlife? Just wondering. Extra points if you can tell me which terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian have problems with that.
Alden
Posted by j0ntar (Member # 1352) on :
Stradling
The Big Bang isnt on firm ground really, it is the accepted theory by most academic physists but the real truth seekers are out there coming up with diffrent ideas.
If one were to look at the big bang and compare it with Genesis, youll realize they are very far off from one another. One physists even said it have would take 7 days to create the universe at the time of the big bang, because time was a little diffrent then than it is now. I dont have the link to his exact calculations but im sure you can google for it.
However Genesis is a book that was written after 1000 years of oral history and that history is derived from Sumerian Texts. Genesis differs more from the original in my opinion only because they wanted to create their own history, so they took the original and chopped it up and edited it. THere are also 70 diffrent translations/versions of Genesis. All of which were never translated correctly.
The fact remains as was said before, the truth if looked at through books and research would most likely prove god's existance is NULL and Void. Though that is the silliest reason to not be spiritual. There is a creational force in the universe/universes. The only thing i have to prove it though is some senses science says doesnt exist and a will to back it up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: specific references to the Christian/Mormon scriptural canon
Are you deliberately excluding other traditions/religions? Or inadvertently doing so?
quote: human philosophers, after all, who can have no basis to comment
Hardly no basis. Not a definitive basis, perhaps. But any of us who observe His actions in our world have a basis to comment.
quote: what observables are affected by an afterlife?
Well, there's the whole exothermic/endothermic question . . . Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Geoffrey:
One of the common arguments that occurs between atheists and theists is a kind of chicken and egg thing. Namely, if atheism is merely the lack of belief in God, then every child is an atheist until they are taught otherwise.
Another way of looking at this is that (assuming that there is no god) if no one had invented religion, then everyone would be an atheist, and no one would know it.
Atheism itself has no other characteristics, but we are constantly accused of "evangelizing our belief," when really, you can only walk silently through life for just so long before you get sick of being told that you're wrong.
Christianity is specifically evangelical, and atheists are frequent targets of that evangelism. But when we react to it, we are accused of being the aggressor.
Which gets me back to the original question in the thread. It's quite natural for a theist to ask if someone believes in god. It's also quite natural, when the answer is "no" to respond by asking: "Well, why not?"
It's a perfectly honest question. I'm not accusing anyone of "atheist baiting" or anything, but what follows is often that the atheist answers the question, and gets accused of attacking the person's faith. Why? Because the atheist presents a sequence of observations, systematically arranged in order to demonstrate the reason the atheist lacks belief. In other words, an argument, in the academic sense.
Of course, for one whose faith is important to them, the logical argument often sounds like a fighting argument, since it's based in disagreement, and next thing you know, a fight ensues. So who started it? (this is the chicken and egg thing I was talking about)
So, short answer: Yes. We atheists expect to be attacked. Happens all the time. From our perspective, it is the theists who fail to respect our right to an opinion.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: Wheat Puppet, I have a comment about your post...
There's a story to my belief system, which I'll forego for the purposes of brevity, but I would like to further explain why the answer is whatever you want it to be.
Basically, we live in a universe that is beyond human conception. Don't tell me you can because you can't. You can give me numbers and distances and laws and theories, but that's merely a way of describing what we sense.
Take, for instance, the Moon. How far away is it? Do you know? Of course, it's x-number of miles away (I didn't bother to look it up, but you know what I mean). But do you really know how far that is? If we made a walkway to the moon (a perposterous idea, but bear with me a second), could you concieve of travelling--by land--all the way there? It's a huge distance, and that's just to the moon.
The universe is greater than we can ever imagine, in all parameters. Looking back down at humanity makes our greatest efforts--wars, the great wonders, progressions in society--seem meaningless and petty. So I decided that I would decide what was important for me, and urge others to do the same. It's not about 5+5=14, it's about whether to care about math at all. I know a lot of people who hated math, but took advanced calculus all the same. They felt like they had to, but they weren't acting on what was important to them, only what other people said was important. I decided to figure out for myself what I thought was important, and made it clear what those things were.
As an example, I took an Modern American Literature class at school last year, which I thoroughly hated. All but one of the books we read and discussed I really hated. All of these books were highly acclaimed works of literature, but I hated every last one of them. I made it very clear that I didn't think that our selected readings were "great" literature, and supported my argument fully. I didn't get a great grade for the first few assignments. Later, I think the professor realized that there was no winning with me (and most of the other people in the class were doing poorly for other reasons), so I got higher marks afterward.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, don't let anyone tell you what's important. Spend time and figure it out for yourself. Don't do what's cool, or right, or even moral, do what you think is important for you. You won't always be right, but you'll always be happy. I am.
EDIT Glenn Arnold: Yeah, usually when I get asked the question, "Do you belive in god?" by the average person, my response is, "No, don't want to talk about it." Because it inevitably ends up in the theist getting angry and me getting frustrated.
[ July 18, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Stradling,
No Goedel? (how to do accents? little help?)
You seem to make an equivalence between a "closed" universe and Goedel's "completeness" with the last few comments in your post. I'm unsure of the relation between the two that you are drawing.
mike
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Mike -
1. Copy and paste. On a Mac or a PC I can do better, but I haven't bothered in Linux yet.
2. I'm drawing a rough analogy between a logical system and the universe - which I suspect might be reducible to a set of rules. It's certainly a point I would expect to see in the commentary here. Thus Kurt. I'm not real interested in debating topics on which we have NO information, and that would apply quite thoroughly to whether the universe can be described as a Gödel-type system. So I tried to head off the IMHO inevitable tangent.
OK - J0ntar, I'd recommend reserving comment on things you're not familiar with - I am always embarassed when I fail to do it. Big Bang is (as of a few months ago) in very good shape - it went from being a theory to a theory with a _very_ strong experimental result behind it. It isn't a proven _fact_ (unlikely it ever will be) but it is well beyond, say, evolution in terms of solidity. As for truth seekers elsewhere, how are they going about this search? You're awfully quick to dismiss some of the world's most competent and experienced truth-seekers.
Before anyone breathes fire in return to the Big Bang thing - just remember: a Big Bang says nothing about the Bible or God or anything. Nothing. No connection. Remember - in science, unless you can specifically disprove the null hypothesis, science has nothing to say. It can opine, but that's useless. In actual fact, the BB is describing a VERY different thing from the Creation. Created, in translation = formed (roughly).
I believe Genesis literally - I'll understand what it literally means when I understand the terms it's written in. I know God didn't lie to Moses. What I don't know is what he meant by what he said. In school, people who don't understand the topic (students) often sieze on an apparent "contradiction" by the professor, and leap about with glee - until they find out they just weren't understanding what was said, and they sit down and start learning again. People do that to God (especially in Genesis) a lot, either for or against. Remember the idiot who tried to explain to his classmates what the professor meant, but got it all wrong. I hope that's not self-indicting.
I know that God is, and is our father. It's an experimental result. I can wait on the rest until I have a basis to understand it.
Alden
ps - we Mormons are lucky. We get a clean copy of Genesis from the source.
What is this nonsense about Sumerian texts? All of which were not translated correctly? Regurgitating speculation doesn't help the discussion go forward. As if I couldn't think of several ways off the top of my head to poke holes in that argument. Come on.
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
And yes, I am specifically excluding other religions and worldviews and philosophies and all that. Why? 'Cause I'm not asking the question to instigate a philosophical love-fest where everyone ooohs and aaahs over each other's theologies and teleologies - I want an answer to the question in specific terms that I care about. Applied religion is of central interest to me, and I don't believe that Hindu or Zuni theology will give me results that can pass the test of having been given by a prophet that speaks with the God of Israel. Neither can any other significant Christian religion, except Catholicism, and I challenge the validity of that claim. Just like they always challenge mine.
So - no religion-bashing - I 'm just looking for a very specific answer which will be meaningful to me. Seeing as how I'm not Taoist, Mormon theology will have to do.
Allow me to clarify, BTW; you're quite right. I do want a definitive basis. I continue not to want philosophers. They're sort of a meta-religion in and of themselves, and not one that I think can answer the question.
"Well, there's the whole exothermic/endothermic question . . ."
Ha. Very nice.
Alden
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: the test of having been given by a prophet that speaks with the God of Israel.
:raised eyebrow: Presumably not, but Judaism certainly can.
quote: "Well, there's the whole exothermic/endothermic question . . ."
Ha. Very nice.
Why, thank you. I was a chem major -- so I just had to bring that up. Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Judaism has no central authority, to the best of my knowledge, and I've certainly never heard of anyone since Malachi who's been able to say Thus saith the Lord... but that could well be my lack of experience. In any case, lack of central structure in prophetic authority kills validity for me, as in the case of Islam. If ten fatwas can be issued by ten "inspired" clerics, each with the same apparent authority to speak for God, and the ten contradict each other roundly, I can't look to that as a source of information from God.
Alden
Posted by j0ntar (Member # 1352) on :
Stradling
to copy and paste in linux, depends on what desktop enviroment your running, but usually its always Right click or 3rd mouse button.
also. i am famaliar with the big bang, and its alternative theories. Just because you read steven hawking dont assume you know all there is to know. If you dont want to compare and contrast the simliarities between Genesis and the Big Band then ignorance is your gift to yourself. Use your left and right brain together. If you only think with the left then you will see nothing but a bunch of molecules floating around in a quatum field.
I am not religious nor ever will be, so if your assuming that i am defending Genesis then your wrong. I am trying to point out that Science and Religion will and are coming together to create something new. I do know that you are trying to rationalize God and that left brain thinking isnt working. Your big words are confusing you and you have yet to make any point other than to post your opinion on the matter (me either for that matter)
Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
Quoting Glenn
quote: if no one had invented religion, then everyone would be an atheist, and no one would know it.
If there was no God it would have been neccessary to invent him. (Can't remember who said it, but it sprang to mind).
It seems such a shame that a perfectly good conversation about a/the supreme being(s) has to have religion dragged into it. But it seems so difficult to keep the two mutually exclusive.
My major gripe is that religion of every kind is man made. Whether there was a divine command to create the religion or just a large number of people who believed the same thing - therefore creating it through their belief(s). (Just wondering, how many more people need to believe Elvis is still alive before it fulfills one of the tenets for becoming a religion?).
It is possible to argue this point back and forth but when it comes down to it, the problem lies in the translation. Whichever religious text it may be it was created in the first volume by mortal hands. Let me give an example of what i'm trying to say.
I'll use two examples of which i know more about and what seem to be the main case arguments here:
The Bible. Firstly - not just one book ergo not just one author. Written in countries and times rife with sexism and racism and across a large period of time. The translation would have been done almost, if not, completely by men; and after... 2000 years? (New Testament alone) the amount of editing (perhaps not altruistically so) could well be substantial. Issues and stories may have been removed, added or edited by any writer as it was changed from Hebrew to Arabic, to Latin, to German, to English etc... (I don't even want to get onto the subject of The Book of the Apocalypse, one of several books not included in the standard purchasable Bible but still available to buy - just no-one mentions it's there). The old testaments story of seven days: Isn't that just a metaphor for the seven stages of the creation of the world. The great flood which turned the whole world into an ocean - wouldn't the whole world to the writer have been the few hundred miles around where they lived? Aren't many of the stories told in parable and metaphor, the way in which knowledge was passed down at the time? Are these methods of communication relevant to be followed in a literal sense today?
The Book of Mormon As many of you are Latter Day Saints you'll be more knowledgeable on the subject than I but I'll just go by what i learnt at school and from my LDS ex-girlfriend.
Translated in the last one or two centuries by Joseph Smith though not a new book by LDS accounts, this is the 'missing testament' (?) which Smith received from Moroni on Golden tablets, translated and dictated to his wife (without her ever seeing the tablets) through a curtain in the next room (That is the point which always bothered me. Especially as my ex had never been taught this particular fact and disagreed heartily before checking with her parents and finding i was infact right). The tablets came direct from heaven no? But still they had to be translated by mortal hands and by a young man who, by his own admission, was poorly educated (although i have a strange feeling he was given the gift of Babel???).
I think some of my points apply to many religions and their religious texts.
Book I digress onto God. I could never understand why people see many religions as mutually exclusive. Its not a matter of "all religions are wrong" but more why can't all religions be right?
If you get 500 people to look at a picture from a different angle. And in front of this picture is a transparent, multi-sided crystal(I might need to be more specific here but i reckon you knpw what sort of object i'm getting at), obscuring the picture completely. The only view of this picture you get is what you see through your particular side of the crystal, each person will see a different thing, however slight this differnece may be. 500 different views of the same picture; not wrong - just not complete; and all different.
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Stradling,
While I read your posts and absorb, thanks for joining in on the forums during my stay. I enjoy your perspective.
flish (mike)
[ July 20, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: filetted ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Stradling,
Can I ask you a couple of questions?
also, I wanted to remark that evolution != natural selection and I think that's frequently confused.
mike
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
jOntar-
Yes, I can copy and paste in linux.
For me, science and religion were never apart, in the sense to which I think you refer. God lives in the same universe we do. I think it's safe to assume that he obeys its rules as well.
In describing the universe right now, there's a debate on as to how to proceed. On one side, reductionists, who say we can reduce the behaviors of reality to a set of rules, then apply those rules to eventually explain everything that happens. On the other, "collectivists" (I guess) who assert that in collective behavior (large groups of particles) behavior emerges which can't be extracted from a knowledge of fundamental physical constants.
When God talks to man, He is much more interested in teaching man his place in the universe and explaining his responsibilities. I kind of sympathize with the collectivists, and think perhaps God IS describing some physics to us - just on the ultimate level of "collective behavior" descriptions. He tells us how to interact with it in such a way as to become like Him. Apparently the way we treat our fellow creatures and our ability to exercise self-control have something to do with that. Of course, this bears no resemblance to photon exchange between electrons, which have no apparent self-control.
In sum: modern science is very reductionist. God seems to be more interested in the other end of the spectrum of knowledge. Combining the two seems ill-advised, at least to me, under present conditions. I have an image in my head of Dilbert's pointy-haired boss replacing a controller chip with "Moby-Dick" in a circuit diagram. If you're going to combine two things (usefully, anyway) you must understand the behavior of both, and you must be able to make them talk.
There - I believe I've made a point. I also avoided all those nasty big words. Sorry I was too loquacious before.
Big Bang and Creation really do describe two different things - just think for a minute. The earth is a tiny bit of fairly exotic material as far as BB is concerned. It's where the action is as far as Genesis goes.
Hawking's theories (as of a few years ago) are alternatives to the Big Bang. He doesn't like it. I don't know where he stands now. May I suggest again that you examine some serious works on any given subject before you dismiss it. Again... what are these alternatives?
I have no need to rationalize God - he's already rational, in the non-mathematical sense.
I was very clear on the fact that you're not terribly biblical yourself - my comments on Genesis were aimed at a more general audience.
Alden
[ July 21, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Stradling ]
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Mike-
Fire away. Can't guarantee I have any good answers. Good point, BTW - natural selection is pretty clear on a short time scale. Case in point, cows and chickens (and turkeys! My goodness! They could never live away from a farm!)
Alden
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Alden,
Cows, chickens and turkeys!
*snort*
You aren't opening the door to a discussion of the genetically modified organisms upon which the whole of civilization is dependent are you?
One of my questions isn't really a question so much as a bit of confusion about one of the points you make.
You mention that modern science leaves a lot of room for a god, God, or G-d, or "big pink pixie in the sky". I completely agree, but the magnitude of room left over for even the "20 scandanavian men in tights who control the universe" is staggering. (refs to other threads) So, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this? (apologies for being vague and confused)
mike
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Simply illustrating that animal morphology can change with the selection of breeding pairs. Nothing groundbreaking. Natural selection follows the same vein.
Certainly. My point is simply that there are no data in the scientific canon to make any useful comment on God's existence or lack thereof - in response to the silly assertions of others.
One must look to data-gathering channels outside the realm of present scientific understanding to understand the nature of God. That doesn't, of course, imply that He is not constrained by the universe. Again - we don't know much at all. I know enough through the channels aforementioned to assure all involved that Scandanavian men are NOT running the universe. 'Course, nobody'll believe me unless they do the experiment. Oh, well.
I was replying to the specific assertion in j0ntar's post - that science and religion were somehow merging together to create something new. This, IMHO, unlikely, considering the points I have made concerning their respective natures. I think they are widely separated parts of the same thing - something we haven't even the first idea how to imagine.
Perhaps it can be described as follows: I don't believe there will be any great advances coming anytime soon from a merger between interior design and cross-sectional measurements of the Z boson weak coupling.
Alden
Posted by Mormoniacal (Member # 5333) on :
quote: The Book of Mormon As many of you are Latter Day Saints you'll be more knowledgeable on the subject than I but I'll just go by what i learnt at school and from my LDS ex-girlfriend.
Translated in the last one or two centuries by Joseph Smith though not a new book by LDS accounts, this is the 'missing testament' (?) which Smith received from Moroni on Golden tablets, translated and dictated to his wife (without her ever seeing the tablets) through a curtain in the next room (That is the point which always bothered me. Especially as my ex had never been taught this particular fact and disagreed heartily before checking with her parents and finding i was infact right). The tablets came direct from heaven no? But still they had to be translated by mortal hands and by a young man who, by his own admission, was poorly educated (although i have a strange feeling he was given the gift of Babel???).
This is a point which is little known (or seems to be) outside of strictly Mormon circles, and makes for some very aggravating discussions: the Book of Mormon did NOT come direct from heaven. For some reason the methods of teaching about it and the LDS church in school have rendered this fact almost unknown, and obviously reduces most people's view of its credibility. The Book of Mormon is, very simply, a HISTORY. In fact, it is an abridgement of very extensive histories kept by the societies of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jerodites, although predominantly the Nephites. When it was on the Earth in the posession of Joseph Smith, its credibility as a historic record was confirmed more than once. It is sacred text because these peoples went through many important spiritual experiences, both as individuals and as societies as a whole, and these express universal truths as the bible does. There are many benefits to the knowledge in the Book of Mormon, more than I could relate here, but one of the major ones is that it was translated only ONCE, direct from the original abridgement, which was done by the prophet Mormon. (that's why it's called The Book of Mormon... notbecause we worship a guy named Mormon! ) I was just reading through this thread, noticed your misconception, and had to get this off my chest!
[ July 22, 2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Mormoniacal ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Alden,
I think you touched on my second question (now that that synapse has fired again). Again, not so much a question but an opinion.
I've never really understood the science vs. religion debate(s), as I've never personally viewed them as being in opposition to one another. As you note, they seem like very separate human activities and so it's an apples vs. oranges comparison to begin with. (oversimplifying?)
mike
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:My point is simply that there are no data in the scientific canon to make any useful comment on God's existence or lack thereof
Stradling...Am I to assume, then, that you accept Gould's idea of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria?
I'm not so sure that science and religion have nothing to say to each other about the question of God; however, it is true that up until the present science hasn't said much that would really contribute to the debate. Maybe science just has not learned yet how to ask the right questions, or to ask them in the right way.
I know you said that you give no credit to non-Mormon speculations; however, you might be interested in (if you have not already discovered) Sir John Polkinghorne's speculations about how God acts in the universe and some things he has said about God following the rules he set up. Polkinghorne is an Anglican clergyman who was a physicist in his first career. I found some of the things he has had to say on this topic to be awfully Mormon for an Anglican. Maybe it was just me, or maybe I was misinterpreting what he said. I don't know. I wish I had the link to the specific interview in which he was addressing this issue. If I can find it tomorrow, when I am more fully awake, I will post the link.
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
LMA,
I don't want to put words in Stradling's mouth, but I don't think that's what he was saying, at all.
flish
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
lma-
A quick parousal of Gould's definition of majesteria indicates to me that we're in material agreement. I get the impression that he feels that never the twain shall meet - I think the gulf is simply to wide for us to cross right now.
I specifically _didn't_ say anything about religion not having anything to say to science. That being said, I'm skeptical of most attempts by religious people to take the scriptural canon and extract "proofs" of its accuracy by appealing to science. I am sure, however, that God is well aware of the laws of the universe, and that indications DO exist in His words of things we have recently discovered or have not yet seen.
I believe in a principle called 'personal revelation'. In that sense, I think religion can be a great source of scientific knowledge. My personal opinion is that this is a large factor in our present whompingly fast advances in out understanding of the world's workings. Acknowledged or not.
I'm quite interested in the speculations of all philosophers and religions - I know for a fact that all humans have access to God, and that most theologies and philosophies contain lots of true principles. The question, however, wasn't about _speculations_ - it was a request for authoritative statements. I'm not trying to formulate a theory - I want to look at the raw data. In that sense, even Mormon speculation is verboten because it is also NOT authoritative. It may be moot, however - no responses so far. I guess everyone thought I was a such-and-so religious fanatic/bigot and left.
I would love the link on Polkinghome, though. I've enjoyed the few things I've read from him.
Alden
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Mike-
The debate is IMHO the result of jumping to unwarranted conclusions on both sides. People do that when they feel threatened (at least I do). It takes a bit to calm down and figure out just what is really going on. Some people never really get past their first assumptions, though.
Others get mileage out of holding onto their first idea. One might say, Well, enough of the hard work and obligation - science tells me I can go do what I want. One might also say, well, I don't have to think about this - I can just use the same old ideas and call anyone who disagrees with me an enemy to God. Both are examples of laziness. Easy outs are fun in the short term, but you get left behind - you stagnate. Progression, again IMHO, is a fundamental human need. If you don't get it, you begin to regress.
To be more careful about definitions, though:
Reality and revelation don't come into conflict.
Science's practitioners and religious people often come into conflict.
A caveat - I've just noticed an enormously imprecise point in all of my posts. When I say religion, I'm talking with the actual dealings of God with man on the earth. I can't say that the tenets of religions other than LDS and the parts of Christianity which agree with LDS theology are not in conflict with science. I haven't examined the tenets involved with enough thoroughness. I am sure there are theological points that are ruled out by science because they stray too far into science's domain to be interpreted back out.
I also need to be very specific about whom I am calling God. He's the one that spoke to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith and Gordon Hinckley, and that identifies Himself as our Father.
As mentioned before, other God types are not ruled out... but where the characteristics of God are important to my argument, I'm only using a particular case. (The one around which reality is built)
Alden
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Stradling...
Sorry I misunderstood or mischaracterized what you said. It was very late when I was reading this thread last night, and I haven't had a good night's sleep in almost two weeks because it's been so hot and humid around here. I'm used to the heat, but this humidity is out of character for this part of the country.
I haven't found the Polkinghorne link yet, but I'm still working on it. I ran across it a little over a year ago when I was working on a paper about the relationship between science and religion for a theology class I was taking at university. While I am LDS, I attended a Mennonite Brethren university for my upper division work. It was an intersting experience. Anyway, if I find the link I will most definitely post it.
By the way, I've been enjoying your posts a great deal.
Edit: to deal with a stray comma that just didn't belong.
[ July 23, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by PhysicsGriper (Member # 5410) on :
I wasn't really expecting to be "attacked" so to speak, but generally, I believe that people tend to twist my views around for the sake of twisting them around. Not just religious views, but many different views. In fact, pretty much everyone tries that, I just wanted to close all loopholes before they started. And to sum it up as Isaac Asimov did, while there may be a God, it cannot be proven yet, and there's no real evidence to support his existance, so I have doubt. It's possible that in time it will be proven that a god could exist, but not for now.
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Alden,
Agreed on the some of the sources of the debate(s). Jumping to conclusions, holding onto the first independently-realized thought on the issue, among others.
You've mentioned a couple of times, I think, a possible common basis for what would appear to be distinct human activities. understanding, progression, etc? Am I misreading you?
flish
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
PG,
I hope I didn't contribute to your sense of being attacked with my posts.
mike
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Alden,
Is this discussion over?
flish
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Sorry for the lag. Had some work come up.It always seems to.
I think humans have an innate need to get better at things. That can be understanding literature or walnut growing or stock trading or charity. Frustration describes a state in which one cannot realize a goal, and it irks us. I attribute this need to the fact that we're children of God, and we're hardwired to grow internally, not just physically. When progress slows or halts, people sicken and die (re: the elderly in nursing homes in front of TVs.) I don't know whether this attribution is correct, but I suspect it's not too far off.
This is a unifying thread of human activity, though - that I can say with confidence. There are forms of progress that are eventually more useful than others. Many need to be followed for long-term success. For instance, I'm in one (physical sciences) where that progress is possible - until you get older and perhaps a bit slower, and the young'uns pass you up, and your understanding progresses slower, and your career slows down... and frustration is common and often severe. Other pursuits (like child rearing) don't display the progress quite as clearly, and frustration is often felt as the child you're rearing doesn't respond quite as you'd wish... maybe for a while. If you're lucky, though, the results will be good enough that the child will continue to rear themselves after leaving the home, and you can have the satisfaction of seeing their progress and in sharing in it to some small degree.
The concept of progress and learning is central to Mormon theology. People have _speculated_ that God is still progressing in the accumulation of knowledge and power - I'm unconvinced. However, He speaks of eternal progression as a principle of eternal life - which He also equates to being like Him. I wonder what's really progressing in that sense. As I sit here and think about it, I think maybe He gets His sense of progress from His children and creations. Perhaps there are much larger goals and realms out there that we don't even know enough to imagine.
I know this - when I am not progressing in something, I'm regressing in everything.
Alden
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
very well said.
am in complete personal agreement with your last statement.
mike
Posted by PhysicsGriper (Member # 5410) on :
To the person who said they hoped their post didn't offend me (I don't have a good enough connection to go back and look it up) the thought never even occurred to me, no offence was taken.
At any rate, here's how I see things: I could make all sorts of claims that are irrefutable. I could say that time travel is possible. I could say that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. I could say that for no particular reason there's a green nerf ball in the middle of the Andromeda galaxy. I could say that there is a God.
The simple fact of the matter is, we don't know. For the first two, I seek proof rather than many meaningless buzz-words and vague, vague extrapolations from saying "Well, if we take the imaginary root, things could travel back in time and faster than light" or "Well, if you do this, it looks like we might have copied the atom, so the copy is probably from a parallel universe!" For the fourth one, I feel that more work must be done before we can make rash decisions.
Posted by j0ntar (Member # 1352) on :
seems i have missed a lot in the last few weeks. regardless, i have one question?
Am i the only one here without a preconception of what god is? also more to the point am I the only non-mormon?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
jOntar, you are not the only non-Mormon. I belong to the churches of Christ. Several other people in this thread don't sound particularly Mormon, either, though I could be wrong.
As for preconceptions about God, I suppose that depends on what you mean by a preconception. Certainly I have ideas about who God is now. Where I obtained them is not clear to me--more so than usual, as I began reading at an unusually early age and may have been reading bits of the Bible as early as three or four. Or not.
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
I don't think the idea of God is particularly useful without a preconception. Specifically - I would not believe in God (and didn't, for a while) if He wasn't willing to verify his existence to me. That verification having happened, the capacity to imagine other kinds of God has become useless to me. As far as understanding Him and his character, I certainly have my work cut out for me. However, I don't suffer under the ambiguities of 1) Existence doubts or 2) Not knowing where to look for sources of info.
Knowing God involves at least two steps - knowing where to look and looking. I think some people are better at naturally knowing where to look than others. I think there are others that are better at actually looking when they know where to look. There are an infinite variety of experiences that result as a combination of these and other factors such as honesty (meaning willingness to accept reality, whatever its consequences), need, etc.
So - I think that it's unlikely that one can lack a preconception regarding God, though one can vigorously avoid looking at it. Even if one manages such a feat, I question its point.
If God exists, it's a good idea to get looking for info on what and who He is. The best source for that information is God Himself, since it's pretty clear that humanity is not endowed with any consistent insight on that topic, and it's difficult to separate the value of human sources on their own merits. If that God is someone or something which cares what humans do, one must assume that He's willing to communicate with them, if only to tell them the rules.
If not, well, why think about it? Ideas like "God is a subconscious race mind" or "God is a life force that flows throught the universe" or "God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do" require no change in anything one does, and are just unsubstantiated and unprovable creation myths. They class with all the sorts of speculation that give trivial results - no effect means sure, they could be right, but who cares? Who can tell? My feeling is such things are intellectual bellybutton-lint hunts. If one wants to ask questions like "Why life? Why the Universe?", one should take paths which offer answers. Otherwise, you're wasting perfectly good time that could have been used posting on Hatrack or something.
Alden
btw - it is my feeling that a majority of the people in this thread aren't Mormon. Just so happens that the biggest loudmouth here is. Posted by Glass (Member # 3325) on :
Stradling, I wonder why ideas of God as a force, or non-conscious entity flowing through the universe are irrelevant and useless. Maybe they are meaningless words that allow SOME people to say, "Yeah, I believe in God." and then go back to not caring about the things of spirit anymore. (Things of spirit here being used to define anything that falls into line with a bettering of oneself.) But, I am unable at this time to judge which ones do this, and which ones believe God to be less a being and more of a Tao-like force, and then use this belief to understand acts of kindness, morality, and self-improvement as a way of acknowledging something higher in this universe. Take some Jews, for example. There are many who do not believe God to be a person. They believe He is a force, a spirit, a drive to do good, and to better the world through little acts of creation. Maybe it seems silly, or pointless, but if it makes someone want to do good,and gives them some semblance of meaning, then what's wrong with that?
Also, here's a quote that troubles me: "Ideas like "God is a subconscious race mind" or "God is a life force that flows throught the universe" or "God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do" require no change in anything one does, and are just unsubstantiated and unprovable creation myths. They class with all the sorts of speculation that give trivial results - no effect means sure, they could be right, but who cares? Who can tell?" Are there any creation myths that are substantiated and provable. Certainly none I've read. And, we've seen that some Jews will still follow the law, even when believing that "God is a life force that flows throught the universe." (You could argue here that tradition plays a part. And, I'll be forced to admit you're right.) And, everything you've said about these beliefs can go for any other religion, exception being "God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do." Though, I'd wager that thought can wander into Christianity from time to time. (Not that I'm bashing Christianity! I'm not, I promise. I'm only saying, being absolved of guilt sometimes makes us wonder what else we can get away with.) So, I agree with you Stradling, but then I disagree. These can be useless ideas that serve no purpose, but what form of spirituality can't?
[ August 02, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Glass ]
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Thanks for the well-thought-out comments. I'll agree fully with you that even the low-commitment ideas of God are fully beneficial to those who believe in them, and make them better people. I was addressing the usefulness of exploring God's nature when there are no observables - when God is disinterested in humanity in specific or in general.
quote:A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -Stephen Crane
I'll contend that the God described in Christian canon is an interactive God that has stated to humanity through intermediaries repeatedly that He is available for consultation and has specific interest in the conduct of His children (us). There are observables one can test, and the creation myth is in fact provable (on an individual basis) with Him. I think He's also capable of making His proofs in a general way, and will do so in the appropriate course of time.
So, in summary - I feel that speculation as to the nature of God without appeal to Him is pointless, in that there is no useful results to be generated. One has the whole cosmos and all its effects, known or unknown, to reference if one doesn't have a starting point. For that reason, I'm grateful for the (supported) preconceptions I have about God.
Alden
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There are observables one can test, and the creation myth is in fact provable (on an individual basis) with Him."
Which observables, exactly? Many people have told me, for example, that God is willing to talk to you if you open your heart; the majority of these people are clearly wrong, if only because the majority of them do not actually agree about what God was telling them -- which implies that either God is lying to them, or they're not all talking to God.
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
I know you people lean very heavily toward science on this side of the Hatrack community. I can’t argue the existence of God through science. What can I say - I’m a woman, blame it on my Venus nature. Why I believe in God? Mostly it is a feeling or recognition connected to an event. These are some of the events:
Having a horrible earache when I was five, lying in bed in agony, being told to tough it out, saying a child’s innocent prayer, and having the pain abate.
Watching a baby born and take it first breath.
Learning about the workings of a single human cell and it's complexity.
Realizing that all the planets in the solar system line up on the same plane.
I just can’t comprehend complex systems coming about thru random means. The plainness of the nose on my face screams, “This was made.” And as a mother, I wonder why the clothes just don’t come out of the dryer folded, if order is the natural outcome of life.
[ August 04, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: EllenM ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
EllenM,
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I am emotionally obliterated by it.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself absorbed in the broad heavy-handed brushstrokes that brought that emotion to the surface.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself puzzling out the geometries and symmetries of the clouds and the haystacks.
Sometimes I forget the painting altogether and wonder at what he was living through at the time he painted the piece I'm looking at.
I don't know what he knew. I see aspects of his creations that resonate with me and others that seem alien. But, I do like trying to understand them from as many viewpoints as possible.
mike
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:"There are observables one can test, and the creation myth is in fact provable (on an individual basis) with Him."
Which observables, exactly? Many people have told me, for example, that God is willing to talk to you if you open your heart; the majority of these people are clearly wrong, if only because the majority of them do not actually agree about what God was telling them -- which implies that either God is lying to them, or they're not all talking to God.
In my experience, you have to ask God before He asnwers, maybe they were just asking the wrong question.
Hobbes
[ August 04, 2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:"God is so darned merciful that we're ok whatever we do" require no change in anything one does
This is a personal pet peeve. I was at a youth group a while back (I think April) and we broke up into groups (this was all highschoolers, I was in the Senior guy group). We were discussing what burdens we were shouldering (things like over eating, under eating and onanism) and someone said that they knew that what they did was OK because Christ would forgive them no matter what, but they decided to stop since they had to live with the people around them. It's rather frustrating when people use Christ to pretend they have no responsibiity for their future.
Hobbes
[ August 06, 2003, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
EllenM
quote:Realizing that all the planets in the solar system line up on the same plane.
Umm....they don't.
Sorry. God therefore does not exist.
I do, though.
--DOG
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Hey! A talking dog! There's an observable!
quote:Which observables, exactly? Many people have told me, for example, that God is willing to talk to you if you open your heart; the majority of these people are clearly wrong, if only because the majority of them do not actually agree about what God was telling them -- which implies that either God is lying to them, or they're not all talking to God.
Well, Tom, I can't decide how to address this with you. I can't fathom how a fearless critic with 11553 posts to his name on Hatrack River, of all places, could have avoided getting a coherent answer to such a simple question, if only from a Mormon standpoint. I'm fairly sure it's been discussed.
But hey, once more can't hurt. Remember, folks, I'm going to do this from a strong theistic standpoint, with assumptions that God participates in the human experience on a daily basis.
Points are as follows:
1. God is the loving father of the human race in some useful sense. 2. God is capable of individual communication with all human beings. 3. God has strong motivation not to reveal Himself unambiguously under arbitrary circumstances for the good of the individual - the person must be at a point in testing and instruction that the information will do good rather than harm to the individual's progress. 4. Human beings are at present in a period of instruction and testing. Or trials. (Those words carry subtle connotations that throw them off the meaning I seek.)
If God is working according to (1), (2) and (4), He is not likely to leave people without communication and information. This is deeply simplifying the issue, but I can't write a dissertation here. There has to be a flow of info. However, too much specific information in inappropriate circumstances invalidates (3). So God seeks out individuals who are capable of receiving the necessary detailed information without violating whatever strictures (3) places on His communication with man. These individuals then spread the detailed information to their neighbors and community. The listeners are then free to conditionally accept or reject the message. Integral to the message is the instruction: Ask if this is true. Those who accept the data ask, and get some level of confirmation. For more details, look at Alma Chapter 32 in the Book of Mormon. These confirmations pile up as the listener asks more questions and solves more problems. The successful listener inevitably converts over to an instructor,receiving detailed information, and the cycle expands. Individuals recieve proof that God exists - but their capacity to communicate that result is limited, to prevent problems with (3).
Now, the cycle almost inevitably breaks down over generation issues and active opposition. There are other sources (Satan) trying to disrupt the cycle with disinformation, distraction, and corrupted data. Correct ideas remain, but the cycle might be broken in several ways. The authority (verifiability) structure that God sets up can be destroyed or corrupted; corrupted truths set up contradictions in the logical structure of the information. One primary point of attack is the instruction to ask God for confirmation - without that, the information becomes hearsay, and can mutate extremely quickly. However, in compensation, human beings are capable of individual communication with God at some level even when completely ignorant of his character. He confirms truth, no matter how small, to those who ask. Often, they don't even know they're asking. However, truth is never really lost completely from humanity - it's just difficult to discriminate the purest truths from those that have been modified and corrupted.
So - religious people tell you to open your heart and God will speak to you, as He has to them. What you're not taking into account is that they're not on Gigabit ethernet with Him - they're tooling around with a 2800 baud modem, for the most part, getting yes/no answers - basic conscience input. By far, most of the doctrine you'll see is rehashed and corrupted stuff that's been floating around forever, and that has been adapted into a sort of framework, and people are trying to fit the answers they have from God into that structure. You'll inevitably see contradiction. And yet, God isn't lying. Nor are the people involved.
Of course, God is also capable of restarting the cycle and instituting direct connections with high bandwidth and good data integrity checks. People who have been working with small connections can come in and have uncluttered information to put into their framework. The first thing that happens is that they are told to start with the verification cycle - know for yourself - and are encouraged to absorb as fast a possible. This process makes it possible for God to increase the amount of direct communication available to the people in question, and each individual soon becomes a high-rate channel as well. The point, as Moses said, is for everyone to have Gigabit ethernet: "would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets".
Now, of course, I know for myself that the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a prophet. You don't. You can, if you want, but it's your option - the observables are there for you, assuming you really wish to look. That doesn't mean that all Baptists are going to hell - it means that is they wish to hook in to the same nformation source, they have a very easy time and comparatively little to relearn. <extend argument to all religions>
Heck, you can go get a concrete example - anyone'll give you a Book of Mormon. There is no way to explain it without appealing to something outside human capabilities. This isn't opening up for a "truth of the Book of Mormon" argument here - this is a simple statement of fact from one who has studied it extensively. If anyone wants to discuss that further, let's open another thread. The point here is served by saying that there are concrete places to look - if you will do so. The experiment is repeatable. Therefore, it is an observable - just not one that one can present to Joe Six-Pack in a scientific outreach presentation. It comes only through individual channels. Only. See (3).
OK. Let the demolition derby begin. *sigh* I may be out of touch for a couple of days, but I'll try to take part in the free-for-all I anticipate from this one.
Alden
[ August 05, 2003, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Stradling ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Tom, I admire the fact that you can ask logical questions amid all this "I know god exists, and you could too if you just tried and knew where to look." talk.
I, on the other hand, will merely take this opportunity to use my new favorite smilie.
Seriously, though...if there is a god, he must be getting pretty bored up there. I mean, back in the day, he had some pretty important stuff to say, and he wasn't afraid to say it. "Look at me, I'm a burning bush. Don't kill people, or you'll burn in hell!"
Nowadays, he's whispering to some old guy in his bedroom. "Yeah, um, so I don't think you guys should be drinking coffee down there."
Talk about overmanaging.
I'll bet his solitare game is amazing, though.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:EllenM,
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I am emotionally obliterated by it.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself absorbed in the broad heavy-handed brushstrokes that brought that emotion to the surface.
Sometimes when I look at a Van Gogh painting, I find myself puzzling out the geometries and symmetries of the clouds and the haystacks.
Sometimes I forget the painting altogether and wonder at what he was living through at the time he painted the piece I'm looking at.
I don't know what he knew. I see aspects of his creations that resonate with me and others that seem alien. But, I do like trying to understand them from as many viewpoints as possible.
mike
This has to be the best Flish post I've ever seen. And I totally understood it. Bonus.
Eddie - If you're still in the PNW, Mr. Apparently Has PC Access Again, give me a call. I want to make your last visit here up to you by NOT being a huge and ridiculous goober. If you know what I mean. Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Frisco-
If you don't wanna look in the box, you don't hafta. Just don't make dumb comments about what's in the box. It makes you look... underinformed. Logic has nothing to do with Tom's post - he oversimplifies the system, then proves it wrong. It's called a straw man.
I kind of thought Tom was trolling (mildly), but decided to give a good answer. I'm sure you're trolling, so I won't even address the absurdity of your other comments.
Add to the discussion next time.
Mike - enjoyed that post.
Alden
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Interesting logic, Stradling. As a member of the church of Christ, I should conclude that God does not exist.... Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
I'm not familiar with the details of the Church of Christ liturgy. Why?
Aside - I assert that all people have some connection to God. Even sans logic, the conclusion that God lives is a natural one in the literal sense.
I'm just showing that it's possible to produce a consistent system that answers Tom's objection. No proof was offered - and no proof of nonexistence can be extracted. If your givens (God talks to man, etc) are different, the structure I offered clearly doesn't work. No surprise there. Careful drawing conclusions.
Alden
[ August 05, 2003, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Stradling ]
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
OK - a quick parousal shows the statement
quote: ...assumes the primacy of the Bible as a source for understanding the Good News and as a foundation for all statements of faith. It recognizes that the Bible, though written in specific historical times and places, still speaks to us in our present condition. It declares that the study of the scriptures is not limited by past interpretations, but it is pursued with the expectation of new insights and God's help for living today.
from the United Church of Christ web site - there are a few other flavors I found, but I assume this has something to do with what you believe. Is this the issue to which you refer?
Alden
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Stradling, don't be silly.
Perhaps, because you're a newbie, you assume that I have NOT asked.
Hobbes here asked, and got an answer, and I believe he joined up.
Me, I asked -- and DIDN'T get a reply. So I'm not a member of your club.
Now, the traditional religious response to that -- from almost ALL religions that encourage this kind of inquiry -- is that I didn't ask in the right way. The problem here is that the "right way" is generally said to involve opening one's mind up so far that ANYTHING would seem true, with enough repetition; the process suggested for hearing the voice of God is, interestingly enough, IDENTICAL to the process used in brainwashing.
So, well aware that I'm fully capable of brainwashing myself into believing something, I asked as honestly as I know how -- of a number of religions, mind you, including Mormonism -- and got no response. I'm certainly able to KEEP asking, but I'm confident in my ability to eventually convince myself of ANY untruth if I harp on it over and over, and deny any skeptical sense of inquiry.
So, since I got no PERSONAL answer, I look at those people I know who claim to have received answers. As I've said, there is no consensus among those I know who claim to have heard from God as to what God wants, what RELIGION He prefers, or how He wants them to behave. Many of these people sin more frequently, in more traditional ways, than I do; many of them are no happier, no more satisfied, and certainly no more consistent. In other words, I see no universal indication that these people consistently benefit from their communion with a higher power -- and no consistent messages to suggest that this communication is in fact occurring.
To speak in parables for a moment, it's as if I sent seven people into a room to ask someone for math advice, and all seven people come out doing the problem differently -- and five of them actually get the wrong answer. Which advice is correct? Did ANY of them talk to the math guy? What, then, do I do when I go into the room myself to talk to the guy, and find it empty -- only to be told, by all seven people, that the guy will appear if I KEEP re-entering the room, close my eyes hard enough, and really believe in him?
Your "observables," Stradling, don't meet much of a decent standard. They're entirely subjective, entirely personal, and entirely unreproducible in a controlled situation. You can say that, in your personal experience, you've felt the presence of God and therefore believe; I respect that (as, for example, I respect Hobbes' decision) -- but to say that this method is one that's available to everyone is, quite frankly, a slap in the face to people who have sincerely searched for your God and come up with different answers.
[ August 05, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Tom:
To speak in parables for a moment, it's as if I sent seven people into a room to ask someone for math advice, and all seven people come out doing the problem differently -- and five of them actually get the wrong answer. Which advice is correct? Did ANY of them talk to the math guy? What, then, do I do when I go into the room myself to talk to the guy, and find it empty -- only to be told, by all seven people, that the guy will appear if I KEEP re-entering the room, close my eyes hard enough, and really believe in him?
Thanks for that. Really. I found it to be thought-provoking.
I would just ask you to think about one thing, and I am not criticizing your fascinating analogy. Maybe the five people who got the anwer wrong got a whole lot closer than they otherwise would have?
Does that make sense at all? I am not explaining it well. You mentioned that some of your "believer" friends sin more often and in more traditional ways than you do. Maybe.
But the point is (IMHO) NOT that they are better than EVERYONE else because of their belief, but that THEY are better than THEY otherwise would have been, if they did not believe. Try not to judge them too harshly.
Frisco: "Yeah, um, so I don't think you guys should be drinking coffee down there."
On its face, the the LDS Word of Wisdom may seem like an insignificant thing, but you have to look at it in the context of our society.
This society does all kinds of things to the human body that aren't good for it: illicit drugs, improperly-used prescription drugs, plastic surgery, steroids, ephedra, anorexia, etc.
I think when He gave us this law of health it was to help us have a greater appreciation for the health of our bodies, so that we would have a healthy attitude, and a respect for our bodies and the miracles that they are.
Sure, a little coffee is no big deal. But the underlying healthy attitude which the entire law engenders is a big deal. Earlier societies had to spend day and night just producing enough healthy food to survive. In our luxury, we have too much free time to "experiment," and some of those experiments aren't that good for us. Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
"Perhaps, because you're a newbie, you assume that I have NOT asked."
Well, I've certainly been put in MY place.
Yeah, I know I haven't followed the million myraid arguments here back and forth over religion and politics. They get mired so easily. I've been lurking for a while, and seem to remember you mentioning your result earlier. However, I'll never claim to be a Hatrack guru. Truly, I have no time to become one.
Because I couldn't (and still don't) know your personal religious history and experiences, I could make only one statement I thought safe - you don't know the things I know. You know something else. I really am capable of accepting the fact that there are different ideas out there in the world. I'm certainly not capable of troubleshooting your spiritual life and connection to God. Nor do I desire to do so.
There is danger in parables. Case in point - the seven walk into the room with a math problem... and come out with different answers/techniques. I have been the man in the room, and will tell you that 2 out of 7 is a pretty good success rate among undergraduates, these days. 'Course, I'm just being facetious. That's not the REAL problem with the parable.
I don't think you can map the problem of different people in different religions into an example of one door into one room. That's why I wrote that whole pile of stuff above. I know that not everyone you talk to is asking in the way and about the things I mentioned. In the same way, multiple doors don't really do the trick, either.
Simple-minded repetition of the question is, as you correctly point out, brainwashing, and that's not a good basis upon which to build a worldview. I definitely don't recommend it. Nor do I recommend closing one's eyes and wishing real hard. It is a good idea to check "office hours". By which I mean, look for good reasons it didn't work.
If you're capable of judging consistency by human behavior, I have some problems I need you to work out for me, 'cause you're extracting useful info from one of the most chaotic and multifariate systems imaginable. In the same sense that I know nothing of your internal state other than the tiny trickle of info that words convey, you know nothing of these others, really, of their contentment or consistency as related to their communication with God. If you make religious decisions based primarily on your observation of the people who practice it, you're using suspect data. The life of the best kind of religious person is, at most, a beacon, giving you some idea of where to go to find the thing they have.
My observables have to meet a few rigorous standards. They must be solid enough to help me make decisions with confidence that appear ludicrous to those who don't know what I know. Not only do I risk myself, but my spouse and children. I's say they're as solid as they can be made to be. I'll never publish them in Physical Review - but I will live by them.
As far as a "controlled situation" - who ever heard of one of those? No such animal. The simplest experiments we do are BARELY under controlled circumstances - and that's because we choose the problems so as to be able to ignore a thousand sources of error. In something as complex as a human being, there is no such thing. I said they were personal and inaccessible to others. I think I even gave a possible reason for it. However, I DID observe them - and the data are recorded. I'm fairly sure you'll see them eventually, one way or another.
Slap in the face? Only if you want to take it that way. I'd say it's a hand on the shoulder and a gesture in the right direction. I admire sincere searchers enough to share what I have with them, even knowing that I will inevitably take some slaps myself before the day is through. Life is rough. I hope that you and anyone else who felt a slap will accept my apology. I don't aim to demean - I'm just pointing out something I've been shown.
William - I envy your gentle tone, and think your point is well-taken.
Alden
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Observables?
A child falls down a well. Actually, for this discussion, let us include all the cases where children fall down wells, or are struck by stray bullets, or are kidnapped, molested by priests or popular pop rock musicians, etc.
Parents pray, people pray, the country prays for the child's safe rescue.
Some of the children are rescued. Most are not.
Now, go to another country, where they pray to a different god. What are the statistics for that country?
Now, go to another country, where they don't pray to any god. What are the statistics for that country?
I put it to you that there will be no difference whatsoever in the statistics of how many are rescued, or how many are killed or otherwise destroyed by their experiences.
Typical religious responses I expect to hear to deflate my premise:
1) We do not (or, better yet: can not) understand how God works.
2) Maybe God answered the prayers in a way we did not expect.
3) God loved [child's name here] so much, that He took him/her to heaven to be with Him.
4) God cannot be tested
Follow up question: If we do not or can not understand how God works, and the world's response to situations does not apparently change with respect to how much "God" is invoked, then what difference does the supposed existence of God make in any practical sense?
For every one person who thanks God for helping him win the lottery, there are 6.75 million people who did not win the lottery. For every person who can claim that God saved their child's life, there are thousands who can just as legitimately claim that "God did nothing to save my now-dead child". Unless, of course, you want to change the rules, and redefine what "save" is (or, if you're Bill Clinton, what "is" is).
You will bow wow before me!
--DOG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'll never publish them in Physical Review - but I will live by them."
Then you understand, of course, that these are not reproducible "observables" that can, in any logical argument, actually be CALLED "observables." There's no control. There's no reproducibility. There's no quality of reliable prediction.
The most we can say about this, as an "observable," is the following: under certain conditions, one specific person had been led to believe that he had communicated with God.
This is a great observable -- and to that one specific person, of course, it might be all the evidence he needs. But it's lousy as a recruiting tool, or as the basis of any logical argument with people who don't already accept the premise.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
*looks in box*
Hey! It's empty!
*closes eyes tightly*
Oh, no. Wait. It's a chocolate cake.
Call me a troll, Stradling, but you obviously understood my opinion on god. We even use the same word.
I am, as you put it, underinformed. But only because there isn't exactly a wealth of verifiable information on god. None, to be exact. I am not, however, ignorant of the opinions of others. I've also put a lot of my own time and effort into looking for god, but found nothing. Do I wish he were out there? Absolutely.
"I don't believe in god." "Well, you obviously didn't look." "Oh, but I did." "Probably in the wrong place, then." "Where's the right place?" "Who knows?" "Where did you look?" "Oh, I prayed." "But I did that." "Probably not the right way. Try again."
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
To believe or not to believe, that is the question.
Well, there you have it. The existance of God is really a matter of belief, there is no way to prove its existance one way or another. I happen not to believe in God, I'm an aetheist.
The one thing I do know exists is religion, and most are adament that their way is the only way and that if you do not believe in that religion's particular God then you are doomed. I can't subscribe to that logic.
Zealots frighten me because they have blinders on and will deny anyway of thinking but their own.
I found "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown presents a very interesting theory on Catholicism.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I happen not to believe in God, I'm an aetheist.
Wait...you think ae is a god?! I mean, the Begging the Question thread is good and all...
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
OOPS my bad, I can't spell for dren. Should be atheist. Got carried away there.
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
DOG, I thought that's what I was taught at college and I went out on the internet and found this: The orbits of the planets are all more or less in the same plane (called the ecliptic and defined by the plane of the Earth's orbit). The ecliptic is inclined only 7 degrees from the plane of the Sun's equator. Pluto's orbit deviates the most from the plane of the ecliptic with an inclination of 17 degrees.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: EllenM ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Er...wrong "Church of Christ", Stradling. Perhaps I should've said "churches of Christ", but I dunno if that'd have given you the right answer or not.
The churches of Christ operate, essentially, on the basis that God's silence is normal--that there has been no new communication from him in roughly 1900 years. From what I can tell, most of us seem to simply assume that your conclusion from points 1, 2, & 4 is invalid for some reason; a few consider 3 to be a universal condition--no one is at such a point in their lives nor will be until radical change (the end of the world) occurs. Few people have given it much thought, any more than most of the Mormons I have met were prepared to look at it from our perspective; it seems to be a blind spot.
It's worth mentioning at this point that we emerged slightly earlier than you in the 1800s, having the experience of the Great Awakenings. The norm at the time was that you expected God to reveal himself to you in an ecstatic/mystic manner, and if he didn't it must be that you were a reprobate, doomed to damnation. The Restorers were, for the most part, people who had struggled for such a revelation for years without receiving one.
And yes, I am aware that you are not employing rigorous logic meant to prove to people that God exists. I just found that following your reasoning led me to odd conclusions if I applied it to my belief system.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
EllenM,
Yes, I know that Pluto's orbit deviates from the ecliptic by about 17°.
What level of deviation from the ecliptic is sufficient proof for the non-existence of God?
Would you still believe in God if Pluto deviated from the ecliptic at 18°? Maybe 19°? Maybe you're a devout person, and would require at least 25° deviation before you'd entertain any doubts?
And what about Kuiper Objects, eh!?! They're all over the place! Kuiper, objects, then! Proof of the non-existence of God! Finally, we're in agreement!
--DOG
Posted by Mialith2713 (Member # 5246) on :
I believe in G-d, but a different form than most. My idea of G-d is that G-d is all that is good, all that is wise. There is no G-d of fire, G-d is embodied in the fire. When the world moves, that is G-d moving us. G-d is nothing and everything. G-d flows freely throughout our world, for G-d created it. G-d is embodied in ki, or greater, divine, everything above us. G-d is embodied by chikara, or strength, energy, power.
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
*reads DOG's post and grins* Dog is a really cheeky dude.
[ August 05, 2003, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: EllenM ]
Posted by Mialith2713 (Member # 5246) on :
Adeimantus, it's nice to see another Jew.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
A little too cheeky, Ellen. He reads kind of like a program designed to troll the forums and make obnoxious comments. In fact...I'm not sure I believe there is a DOG.
Okay, so I'm joking. Don't take that too seriously, please, DOG. Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
I'm sorry, am I really that obnoxious?
Or am I simply posting concepts that you do not agree with, in ways that are perhaps blunter than you would like to see them?
I am that I am--DOG
I am what I am (and that's all what I am)--Popeye
Do be a Do Bee--Miss Kitty (Romper Room)
Do me a doobie--[insert name here]
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Ah DOG, I bow to the Budda in you (as Ben Stein would say), and I see that your nick is no accident.
However, for those of us who do not believe in God, then no arguement exists that will convince us that there is one (or several if that's your desire), just as believers will not be swayed by our logic. That does not mean that personal experience will not be effective (in either direction).
Of course there are any number of natural phenomena that cannot be explained with todays knowledge, but that does not mean a natural, physical explanation does not exist, it just has not been found.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
DOG, as I said, I was making a joke--one that I had assumed your alias was intended to invite. If not, I apologize.
Far from being offended by your bluntness I find it refreshing. Most people nowadays feel they must be PC and refrain from anything that might irritate people--even I am overly willing to tread lightly, sometimes. But I was raised in the "strictest school" of the debating tradition of the churches of Christ, and at least in theory I agree with Alexander Campbell: "Insofar as a man is intelligent and beneficial [trans: benevolent] he will be controversial [trans: prone to debate]." (Unfortunately Campbell had a fondness for Latin-derived verbiage which sometimes renders him opaque.) Sometimes to serve truth one must be less than kind.
[ August 05, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Ralphie/Alden,
Glad you liked that one post. That's just sort of a distillation of thoughts at the moment.
Alden,
Regarding your longer post above, my initial reaction is "that's one hell of a construct you're building there, mister", but as someone semi-like-minded, as far as I can tell, I appreciate the effort.
mike
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
*tosses bone to DOG*
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Filleted,
How appropriate! Thanks. <<gnaws bone>>
Mac,
Yes. A Joke. I get it.
I am trying to be blunt and refreshing, but not too politically incorrect. Just enough.
I do like that Campbell quote, though. It explains why I keep finding myself drawn to this subject.
Question: Why does an atheist think about the existence of God about a hundred times a day?
Answer:
(BTW, I'm no Turing Machine)
--Waiting for TODOG
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
DOG, I do appreciate you willingness to play "devil's advocate” and perhaps get me to examine the why of what I believe.
The unexamined life is not worth living. Socrates
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
*tosses bacon-flavored snausages DOG's way*
EllenM,
how about the over-examined life?
flish
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
Yes, us neurotics can examine life too much, but the other side of the coin are those who at best dismiss and at worst attack anyone or anything that dares diverge from their idea of a perfect life.
[ August 06, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: EllenM ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:as, for example, I respect Hobbes' decision
Awwwww
As matter fact I have not joined Tom, but I see it as a quite likely event in my future.
As for what I said about the question, let's take this example. Say Mormons are right, and The Book of Mormon is true. If someone asks God if Christ lives, if the bible is true, then of course they'll still get a "yes" (or whatever, not sure I'd describe the answer quite as a simple yes ), and yet that doesn't change that The Book of Mormon is true. I realize that this doesn't cover all cases of people claiming influnce from God, but that's kind of the tract my mind was on when I made that stament.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:As matter fact I have not joined Tom, but I see it as a quite likely event in my future
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Wow - I leave this alone for a few hours...
OK. Here we go.
Tom - Yeah, fine. I know that there's not a proof sitting on a shelf in the library. The observables exist, as I can verify - but as I said before, there is no way I can pass that directly to you, given the present state of affairs. I think we've all run into that difficulty. I can also tell you about quarks, and how to build an accelerator to test them. It's hard, takes a lot of belief and repetitive work. Lots of people don't get it right. Most people only believe in them 'cause others say they work. Knowing about them doesn't necessarilty make you happy. You see my point, I'm sure, despite the flaws in the analogy. Fin.
Dog - While I understand you have Doglike powers, I don't know where you got your statistics. Yeah, children die all the time. It's tragic. Life is tough. Prayer hasn't ever been intended to be a gizmo that gets you divine favors if you grovel. It helps you come in line with God's will and perhaps act in His name. I know you're being a devil's advocate (hellhound? ), but I think the point must be addressed. God seems to have a problem with lotteries, as far as I can tell - doubt he helps people win them much. Can't see how it's much of a blessing. Countries where they don't pray to any God? Don't think they exist.
Frisco - you're still trying to hit me for points. Sorry you didn't get an answer. Mine didn't come through praying 30,000 times, or whatever. Look in other directions, and keep working.
Unohoo - Zealots occur in all human pursuits and disciplines. The religious ones are taking some heat right now - it's a skewed viewpoint. As an aside,“A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts” - Finley Peter Dunne. Religion (as I know it) does more to root them out than any other discipline I know of - they're too damaging to the goals we espouse.
Ellen/DOG - Pluto is questionable as a planet, just FYI. The debate is ongoing, and reputable places list the number of planets as 8.
Mac - Yeah, everything changes when you swap a few basic postulates. Can you toss me a link? It's hard to Google for it - too many results.
Mike - I just thought the way you put it was cool. Yeah, it's one heck of a construct - but if the postulates work, I think the rest of the logic hangs together pretty well. I'm pretty sure of the postulates, myself, but that's individual. Besides, is there really anything that has a simple explanation?
Hobbes - Point well made - and an important clarification. I think the other cases are also semi-included - harking back to the idea of truth is truth wherever you find it.
Sorry for the cursory answers.
Back to work.
Alden
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I know that there's not a proof sitting on a shelf in the library. The observables exist, as I can verify - but as I said before, there is no way I can pass that directly to you, given the present state of affairs. I think we've all run into that difficulty. I can also tell you about quarks, and how to build an accelerator to test them. It's hard, takes a lot of belief and repetitive work. Lots of people don't get it right. Most people only believe in them 'cause others say they work.
One of the biggest differences between the accelerator analogy and the faith reference is that everyone who's followed the instructions to build an accelerator has come up with the same result, and says the same things about the accelerator. That makes it easy for people who HAVEN'T built accelerators themselves to, in fact, trust those people who say they have; it would require some kind of accelerator conspiracy, otherwise, and people conclude that this is unlikely.
However, people who often follow the exact same instructions to contact God DO come up with different and often mutually contradictory results. If one guy building an accelerator according to the numbers said he fired an atom and got a canary at the end, and the other guy said he fired an atom and a fish fell out of the sky onto his desk, how do we know which of them did it right? Do accelerators make canaries or fish?
Posted by Mankind (Member # 2672) on :
quote: This is a great observable -- and to that one specific person, of course, it might be all the evidence he needs. But it's lousy as a recruiting tool, or as the basis of any logical argument with people who don't already accept the premise.
No, it's actually a great recruiting tool. It worked for me for two years. "God told me, and he'll tell you, too." Lots of people got baptized that way.
quote: However, people who often follow the exact same instructions to contact God DO come up with different and often mutually contradictory results.
That's right, they do. And that's why it's impossible for anybody, anywhere to rely on anybody else for thier knowledge of God. My own feelings about what I "know" do you absolutely no good at all, and they never will. The only thing you have to go by is the degree to which you trust the people telling you about experiences they had, and those are only valuable insofar as they cause you to go off and perform the experiments yourself.
As for subsequent lack of results, my own judgements of the scenario of your experiments is as worthless to you as my own recounting of my experiences. It's your experiment, you are free to perform it however you wish, and weigh the results however you wish.
[ August 06, 2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Mankind ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
How can you know the same instructions have been followed? Really? Those instructions involve something that is subjective: humility. It involves a little commitment on the individual's part before they know the results. Is it true commitment, or is it to look good for the people around you, or is it an if/then proposition?
And the results allegedly involve not a natural law whose results can be reasonably predicted, but an intellegent divine being who alledgely knows you better than you know yourself and has access to knowledge you don't have.
These are the reasons why this kind of inquiry is not within the method of science, but still remains a valid way to search out certain truths. Not all truths can be proven by science. Prove to me that you love your spouse (or mother, sibling, best freind, etc etc). It is true and you know it, but there is no way that scientific methodology can prove it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is true and you know it, but there is no way that scientific methodology can prove it."
I would argue that you're wrong. Scientific methodology would first establish a definition of "love," then describe common indicators. It would also then work to establish blind standards that could be used for observation and interrogation on the topic.
The problem that we have with this God thing is that the same standards which apply to hearing the voice of God are generally the ones that we use to determine brainwashing and self-delusion. So it's hard to tell the difference, and it's considered offensive to even point this out.
[ August 06, 2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote: Laurenz, you believe in god and yet not free will, didn't god (certainly the christian god) give us the gift of free will?
Proteus,
I never said the christian God. I am not a christian. I tend to think the bible is bogus in the sense that it can be manipulated into anything you want it to be by just deciding what parts to take literally.
But no. I am a religious person in the sense I believe in god. I don't claim to know anything about this god and what he wants therefore I do what I feel is right which is much easier for me than some book where half of it was written before christ was born, and the other half not much after.
Anyway, no. I don't believe god gave us freewill. I think we are like any other species who makes decisions based on how they feel about something. HOw they feel about something is based on they're DNA structure combined with their personal experiance.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I think that science could determine lust and brain chemicals. But love? You really think we could break it all down into equations and predictable observations?
That is a whole lot of faith, there.
Right at the synapses, the uncertainty principle is hard at work. In higher brain activity, there is no way to determine if a brain synapse will fire or not. It may or may not. There are probabilities, sure, but what happens can't be exactly predicted.
I think it is interesting that our very thought processes are undeterminable.
[ August 06, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You really think we could break it all down into equations and predictable observations?"
Sure, if the definitions are tight enough.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
If you can't define a thing, then how can you ever say whether it exists or not?
"I sort of saw some thing--some guy, I think, but maybe it was one of those inflatable kiddie pools, blowing in the wind--hanging around my car last night..."
Question: What color were the guy's eyes?
--DOG (curled up at MANKIND's feet, gnawing on FILLETED's bone, drooling on MANKIND's shoes)
Mmm...Snausages!
[ August 06, 2003, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Then I'm going to say it again, Tom. You are a man of great faith. You just place your faith in something different.
Except this is interesting: "Sure, if the definitions are tight enough."
Definitions are based on human assumptions. Assumptions are not scientifically verifiable, by definition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The ASSUMPTIONS are not verifiable, but the assumptions frame the testability of the hypothesis.
For example, let us define "love" as "a feeling of great adoration." Clearly, this is insufficient to establish any scientific verification of "love" as a physical process. In order to scientifically verify that one loves a family member, it is necessary to define "love" in such a way that it CAN be measured or demonstrated.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Tom> Quite true. Unfortunately the futility of such endeavors should be clear. I believe Postman used the example of measuring "beauty" by the size of a woman's breasts (is Dolly Parton really prettier than Heidi Klum?), and love is even less tangible than beauty. More than likely by the time you achieve a definition capable of scientific scrutiny it will also fail to accurately describe the subject.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Stradling...
Here's a good basic FAQ, which will explain why I find the LDS amusing and intriguing: FAQ
A somewhat detailed analysis of our beliefs, by Alexander Campbell: The Christian System
I'm still hunting for a useful text on God's current activity; I have some at home but can't find them on the web. Feel free to browse through the other texts linked from TCS; just be warned that some may be offensive. (Especially Delusions: An Analysis of the Book of Mormon by A.C.)
[ August 06, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
I'll be darned if it isn't a hen's teeth argument of the beard!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
A word on definitions. According to modern geometry, the words: point, line, incident, between, and congruent are undefined terms.
We can attempt to define them, but we wind up using circular arguments, so we simply leave them undefined.
Instead we use these terms within axioms (which this thread has so far referred to as assumptions), such as:
For any two disinct points, there is a unique line that is incident with both of them.
Every line is incident with at least two points.
There exist 3 noncollinear points.
Then, using these axioms, we attempt to prove geometries which appear to be true. We accept the geometry as true if there are no contradictions in the argument. We call these theorems. In this way, we get a sense of what the undefined terms mean.
We accept the axioms as valid if a set of axioms are not internally inconsistent. That is, as soon as we find that one axiom contradicts another (or itself), we cannot accept that axiom anymore. The biblical axiom: "The bible is infallibly true" cannot be accepted on this basis.
Sometimes statements which we have accepted as axioms can be proven from the other axioms in the set, at which point they are elevated from axioms to theorems.
And sometimes axioms which are consistent in one system are invalid in another. The three axioms listed above are consistent in any geometry, but Euclid's "Given any line and any point not on that line, there is exactly one line through that point which is parallel to that line" is not valid in elliptical or hyperbolic geometries.
The axiom "there is a God" is an axiom of this type. It is perfectly valid in theist logic, but completely invalid in atheist logic. Hence, to bridge communication between the two groups, we are forced to accept the tautology: "There is a God, or there is not a god."
Like it or not, that statement is the best tool we have for the two groups to live with each other, and it's not much to go on.
[ August 06, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote:define "love" in such a way that it CAN be measured or demonstrated.
Love is subjective. People feel it and express it in very different ways. There are aspects of it that can be put under the microscope, but that doesn't even begin to encompass the human experience of love.
There are simply things in this world that defy observation. I can give you three specifics that the scientific community recognizes is beyond observation:
What happened at the moment of the big bang and before?
What is in the middle of a black hole?
Just exactly where and just how fast (at the same time) is the little electron?
These are no "god of the gap" things. These are simply things which we cannot scientifically observe, at all, but which we know exist. Why? Because we see the results. We can observe the results, but not the actual occurance.
Glenn,
I like what you said, a lot. That axiom is really all we can definately say. Whatever you choose to accept, that there is a god or that there is no god, is a leap of faith.
Don't tell me that you can't have faith that something doesn't exist. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying you have faith that the world is as you believe it to be. There are only natural rules, there is no consequence that you can be aware of after death (so you must therefore consider that this life is all that you experience and make judgements based on that), and many go so far as to believe that it is all just one very large and complicated reaction to the big bang that can, when we have the tools, be fully predicted. That everything, eventually, can be known by scientific methodology. That is a lot of faith.
[ August 06, 2003, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Love is subjective. People feel it and express it in very different ways."
Then I would argue that they're not all feeling the same emotion.
If two people, looking at two completely different shades of blue, can call them both the same color, it's clear that we haven't sufficiently defined the shade for the purposes of identification. By the same token, there are clearly more specific behaviors and emotions that fall under the SUBSET of "love"-type emotions that can, on their own terms, be identified and classified.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Exactly true, Tom.
Some people think wanting hoochie is love. Some think that sacrificing your desires for the needs of your partner is love. Some people don't love at all, but lie about it in order to get something else they want.
I submit that experience with God is as complicated to define as love is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, yet, being able to determine whether or not someone has actually communicated with God -- as an example -- does NOT really pose much of a definitional problem; it's more of a situational one, in this case.
Posted by AnonymousNC (Member # 1544) on :
Please don't assume this is a troll post - it really isn't.
I am just curious if it is true that Mormons believe that Jews came to North America hundreds of years BEFORE Jesus of Nazarath's birth? I had heard something about there being some tie with Native Americans and Mormonism? Are Native folks supposedly these Jews decendents?
I was raised in an agnostic/atheist environment where being Christian was kind of looked down as being ignorant and needing a crutch - so I have no "faith" instilled in me like the majority of Americans = especially in my area of the country!
Mormons were always just "The Osmonds" to me until OSC. While I was in love with Donny Osmond as a nine year old, it didn't exactly inspire any desire to understand his religion. I've been reading OSC for years - before he moved here to my home town. I've known he was a Mormon and there were Mormon themes to his work - and I own most all of it. Unlike Donny, OSC has made me curious about Mormonism. Since the only Mormon church here is the Church OSC attends, I don't really feel comfortable going that route for answers. Kind of seems too stalkery to go to the mans church because I'm curious about his religion. I love his books and the columns in our local paper but I'm not out to follow him around town.
Most sites that I've found are either by Mormons for Mormons or by folks who definitely hate Mormons. Can any of you recommend a site (or book) that gives good BALANCED OBJECTIVE info on Mormonism? Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
A small rambling comment.
I sense a bit of a science vs. religion/god undertone in some of the posts here. I object, as a scientist, to references to The Scientific Method, as the scientific activity is often a lot of creeping around in the dark of intuition and being surprised by random or unforeseen events, observations, and measurements.
There's been a bit of back and forth on the nature of assumptions in mathematics and science, and the relation of this to having "faith". This is partially accurate, but only half the story. The "faith" that is involved here is the faith to carry out the experiment (or derivation and proof) based on the plausibility of the assumptions. It doesn't end here, though. That faith only lasts until results are obtained.
"Faith" in science doesn't rest on the plausibility or narrative capacity of the unprovable assumptions and definitions. It rests on predictability. If my assumptions, and my particular niche model of the natural universe have predictive capacity, I have faith that I'm on the road to understanding. If my model (understanding) doesn't report the answers I find in my measurements, then that disagreement sends me back to the black board to revisit my assumptions.
If my understanding (model) can predict something about the world (potentially obscure and only of interest to those voyeurs of the sex lives of sea urchins), I have faith that my understanding is somewhere in the regime of truth and I'm on the right road.
$0.02
mike/flish
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rambling, yes.
It seems that you are discrediting the system you in fact are using. But I think it's just your language, not necessarily your logic.
I'm afraid you'll have to clarify.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think a lot of people get blind faith and faith confused. I do not, hope to never excerise blind faith. I know I certainly always did this, and so do most people I know, think of blind faith whenever they (I) hear the word faith. They are not the same at all. Faith is believing something is true based on previous experience where blind faith is just believing something because you want to.
Hobbes Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Amka:
I don't have a problem with the "atheism takes faith" argument, although I know a lot of atheists who do.
A lot of evangelical types use it as a sort of "you're another!" type comeback, meaning that if we can accuse them of being wrong because they base their beliefs on faith, that we are wrong because we base our beleifs on our faith in science. But it's not the same thing.
My feeling is that it's less important to convince others to believe as we do (this works for both sides) but to accept that both sides are entitled to our beliefs, and that it doesn't imply animosity.
The Churches are doing that more and more. Interfaith councils and reconciliation between churches, and so forth. But the bridge between theism and atheism seems unbreachable.
I tend to look at what gays have done to find acceptance, the most important being to define themselves rather than accept the definition imposed by others (it used to be classified as a mental illness). Theists tend to define atheists as being immoral, and belligerent. In fact they seem to define us as evangelical, which is pretty ironic.
So I'll say it once again: Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more.
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Glenn,
Did you glean anything from my post?
mike
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Filetted: Well, I get a sense that you are both a scientist and a theist (this from previous posts, not the current one), and that you find it upsetting that people on both sides seem to see science as being the nemesis of religion.
Without microanalyzing your post line for line, My guess is that you see science as seeming to verify your position. But I didn't want to respond to your post because I'm afraid that might not be what you are really saying. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
The last two paragraphs are particularly muddy to me.
Posted by Glass (Member # 3325) on :
I don't know if this was taken care of on the last page. I like to skip through posts rather than read them all when there are so many. I read Stradling's response and his response to a response to his response. And, I still don't understand the ability to prove creation myths. Maybe I'm just not up to snuff intellectually with the rest of you guys, but it makes no bloody sense! Verifying based on assumptions based on assumptions? 1. I assume God participates in humanity because of His/Its love and care for us. 2. I assume God gave certain men theophanies allowing them to tell others about Himself. 3. I assume the men who wrote it all down got the whole message right.(Or that they weren't deceiving themselves.) And, those who edited and preserved the message never changed anything. 4. I assume the validity of 1 and 2 based on the validity of 3, since the message is how we know God's loving and caring, and that God is the one who gave the message to them. And I assume the validity of 3 based on 1 and 2, since a loving caring God who really wanted us to know about Him would not let His word go astray. (That is assuming He's a loving, caring God!) Don't mind that last bit. Just a bit of fun. I love listening to myself think! But, seriously, how do we say creation myths are provable, and on an individual basis???? This sounds like another argument for the universe and reality being non-existent except in relation to our perceptions.
[ August 08, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Glass ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Glass, it helps us take you seriously if you read the rest of the thread. Really.
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Glass - perhaps irrelevant is a better word. Solipsism is to be avoided.
No, because I believe in Richard Dawkins' theory about memes... Nobody could ever prove his/her certain god to me (and a lot of tries were just ridiculous, because it all worked like: "if you just open your heart/mind to god, he will come" - I don't like to manipulate myself, thanks...), so I believe it is one of the biggest memes in human history... I don't believe in a "soul" as well, I believe in brains, nerves, hormones etc. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh - and I hope I didn't offend any believers, but that's how I think... Still I find various religious concepts interesting, regarding how they change or how they could change society, in positive and negative ways.
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Glenn,
Thanks for the response.
Yes, I tend to think the science/religion conflict is ficticious and it upsets me. Not so much the conflict, but the lack of understanding that leads to the proposal of the conflict in the first place. I think the questioning impulse is inherent (in both), and the dichotomy is born of insecurity regarding culture and education. That's a damn shame.
flish
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
I think about GOD a lot (since DOG spelled backwards is GOD, just like GOLDFISH spelled backwards is HSIFDLOG), and I've come to an amazing realization;
I don't think that anyone really believes that GOD exists. I think that most of us want him to exist, and that some of us really want him to exist, but that no one in the world thinks that he really does exist. He's a fiction.
You can't invite Him over for dinner. You can't have Him come over and help you clear your property of large stones (some of them might just be too big..) He is not a physical thing. He is not real.
Does anyone here think that GOD is a physical thing? What does he look like? What color are his eyes? More importantly: what does he smell like? Even more important than that: where does he keep the Snausages?
As a DOG, you all know that me and my kind are always barking at spirits, right? Wrong. DOGs can see spirits--it's just that there aren't really any spirits to see. It's sort of a foolish gift.
We're actually barking at imaginary rabbits. Sorry.
--DOG
[ August 10, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
quote: More importantly: what does he smell like?
I reckon the canine theologians have been chewing the fat (err.. rawhide) over that one for quite some time.
quote: Even more important than that: where does he keep the Snausages?
In heaven, duh! (stale kibble is kept in hell, where water dishes are scarce, shedding is not allowed, and panting is strictly limited to accompaniment by "gnashing of teeth")
quote: We're actually barking at imaginary rabbits.
I thought it was squirrels. I have so much to learn in the ways of DOG.
[ August 10, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: filetted ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
There are those that believe that DOG barks at imaginary squirrels, and there are those that believe that DOG barks at imaginary rabbits.
There has been much bloodshed among the followers of DOG, because of this difference.
To be honest--you're right. Sometimes it's squirrels, and sometimes it's rabbits. Sometimes [he whispers] it's cats.
--DOG
[ August 10, 2003, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Dog saw AnnA was goD
[sorry, I couldn't resist ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
"Dog, how are we to tell the difference? Should we eradicate the squirrels, the rabbits, or... the.... you know... those self-grooming pompous slit-eyed things?"
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I do hope that you are NOT referring to felines . . .
And just to throw some twigs on the embers here - my pastor said today that "faith requires imagination" . . . chew on that!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think your right Dog, some people do believe in God because it makes their lives so much more comforatable and easy. Some people believe because their parents told them, some because their parents told them not to. But some people have spent years trying to find out if He does, and have come to the concluesion that He exists. I know that for a long time I assumed (as you do) that people believe in God and an after life because they couldn't deal with death as the end. But many people believe because they have proven to themselves that God has touched their lives, and they are comforted by it.
Hobbes Posted by Nessa Nu (Member # 5471) on :
But *how* did they prove god to themselves? Is/are these proof(s) objective? Would these proofs convince any atheists?
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Hobbes,
how about accepting death as "food for worms" and extrapolating outwards rather than inwards?
flish
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I don't know, depends on the Athiest. For myself, I've found that before I could be convinced that there was such a thing as the Holy Spirit that can influence and answer me, I had to do some very intense self analysis to make sure it wasn't just me talking to me.
Some Thiests do think that they're proof should be good enough for everyone else, but most realize that it is something that can be proved to yourself but not to others. Because when you ask a question, God will normally just answer you.
Hobbes Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
hobbes,
how about extrapolating outwards instead of inwards?
flish
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
When I was about 7 or 8 I thought about death. I realizied that my entire conciousness would end and my being would cease to exist. I tried to contemplate the virtual end of the world, sleep from which there was no waking. It was night time then and I got pretty badly scared by it. I was afraid that one day I'd walk into school and get shot through stomach, all my plans and ideas an realizations would be wiped out copmletely and my life would become meaningless in its non-existance. But I still got up the next morning and went to school, and kept doing it despite the fact that I knew no matter what I did, nothing would matter.
In fact, that has been my number one fear, that nothing I do will matter. That 10 years down the road I'll just be a distant memory to people I knew, and 100 years after I die I'll just be a statistic in a goverment database some where. I was deathly afraid that my life would mean nothing and I would accopmlish nothing of importance. But that didn't make me believe that God exists, I lived with it for years without changing my mind just to ease my worries. And I am not very strong in that department, so if I can do it, others can do it. And others do do it, many people live their lives constantly in the face of that realization because they wont bend to it and admit to something they don't believe just to make it go away.
I now believe something that has made it receed a little, but I am very confident that I did it not to ease my pain but because I believe the truth. Can it be proved? Not likely, but that is what I believe.
Hobbes Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
you're a silly person.
[ August 11, 2003, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: filetted ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
who's gonna laugh at that, or take it seriously.
aside: "dude, you really might consider an alternate career, the 60s ain't here yet babe"
[ August 11, 2003, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: filetted ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
he said..
"sanquine silence"
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
"hey hatrackers*
"flish gives up a bit of childhood madness that NOBODY in his life has ever heard*
good for you to let it pass. good for me to let it go.
every little bit of madness evaporated
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Can I get a light over here?
[ August 11, 2003, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: filetted ]
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Like you Hobbes, I struggled with these concepts and eventually came to accept that there is no God or afterlife. I didn't go through the fear part, but I had a really weird dream one night while I was working through this stuff that I was stabbed (in the stomach, coincidentally) and while waiting for the ambulance, I died. Well, as I'm quite alive (to my family, friends, and co-workers), not only did I explode the myth that you will die by dreaming you died, but I also exploded the myth of God for me as the end of that dream was absolutely blank. I woke up, and thought, 'So that's it, there is nothing after death.'Now obviously, regarding the existance or not of God, this is my conclusion. And, in times of crisis or danger, I do not pray. I really am an atheist.
Bottom line: You cannot scientifically prove that God exists. Some people have anecdotal evidence that is sufficient for them that God exists, but this will not hold up under Scientific scrutiny as the obversation is not repeatable. There are just too many observations available to disprove the existance of God. That is why this is a matter of faith. You either believe in God or do not believe.
I'd like to recommend a book that talks about scientific theory. It is called "General Systems Thinking" by Gerald Weinberg. I think it is out of print, but you may be able to find it in the library or on half.com.
[ August 11, 2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: unohoo ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Imagination isn't needed, eh?
*Shakes head sadly and wanders off*
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Shan,
quote:my pastor said today that "faith requires imagination"
Of course he did, Shan. That's because he knows that it's all made up.
unohoo,
quote:There are just too many observations available to disprove the existance of God. That is why this is a matter of faith
Like what? Statues with bleeding eyes? Trees carved with the image of Mary Magdelane (but only if you look at it...just the right way)? Seven miners rescued from a pit?
For every statue with bleeding eyes, you'll find a charlatan with a squeeze-bulb and some pig's blood. For every image of Christ in a block of ice you'll find someone with an ice-pick. For every seven miners saved, you'll find hundreds killed in an East Indian ferry accident.
There is no God. Wishing won't make it so. Delusions won't make it real. Believing in it hard enough, and getting some warm-fuzzy feeling from your belief will not bring a thing into existence. By defining God, you'll only come closer to the realization that it's all made up. It's a story, told to children to make them feel safer in a randomly dangerous, and threatening world.
Please note, however, that although the alleged existence of God has not made the world a nicer place to live in, the actions of some people--driven by their belief in God--has. But, then again, there are always the Crusades and pedophilic priests to pretty much ruin that argument.
--DOG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, DOG, I think the alleged existence of God has, to some extent, made the world a nicer place to live. I don't think a lot of the morality we take for granted nowadays, and which we've struggled to philosophically justify for centuries, would have been so commonly accepted if we couldn't use religion as a carrot and a stick.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
But it's not God that made the place better, it's the people who follow and/or promote him.
God cannot have made the world any better, since He does not exist.
I think, though, that we are in agreement, and it's just a little semantics between us.
I guess that it's either too much--or, perhaps, too premature--to hope that we've outgrown our baby shoes at this point in history.
-DOG
[ August 11, 2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
With respect to the statement "God does not exist."
If you go to church, you will no doubt hear the preacher say "We KNOW that God...." such and such. He doesn't qualify his statements with wishy washy terms like "believe."
But a preacher doesn't really expect that there are atheists in church, so it's reasonable to make the assumption that everybody is reading from the same page, and bases their arguments on the same assumption.
For a long time, I thought that for an atheist to say "there is no god" is arrogant, and unnessesarily rude. But it's no ruder than saying there is a god, it's just a matter of where you are, and how well you know your audience.
I believe in ettiquette. That is, it is worthwhile not to piss people off without cause, so following some simple rules that help grease the wheels is worth doing. Within a group of atheists, I have no problem saying there is no god, because that's the assumption I operate under. But in mixed company, I'm careful always to say: "I don't believe in God" if the subject comes up.
I wonder whether people here would be willing to refrain from absolutes, for the sake of ettiquette, on both sides of the issue.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Glenn,
You're right, and I apologize.
There sort of isn't really a God.
--DOG
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
And faith kinda sorta implies believing things that can't necessarily be seen, tasted, felt or smelled.
You know, it takes a great deal of imagination for a child to learn to read, but that doesn't mean that reading is not believable. Maybe God is a verb, rather than a noun.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
quote:And faith kinda sorta implies believing things that can't necessarily be seen, tasted, felt or smelled
Actually, "faith" implies believing things that specifically cannot be seen, tasted, felt or smelled. If you could physically sense them, you wouldn't need faith in them. You'd be foolish to say "I have faith that my right elbow exists."
The reason you have to have "faith" in God is that God does not exist. Religion needs to find a way to get you to abandon your reasoning skills in order to be able to accept the proposed existence of a known non-existent object. WHat it does is 1) state that you need "faith" to believe in God, and then 2) declare that all beliefs (I believe the moon exists, I believe that the speed of light is a natural limit, etc.) require "faith," thereby trashing "knowledge" and elevating "faith" to the level of "truth."
BTW, if anyone here starts into existential solipsism, I'll bite them on the leg! "How do we know what exists?" Indeed! If you can sniff it and pee on it, it exists. What else do you need to know?
quote:Maybe God is a verb, instead of a noun
What, do you write theological copy for Nike? A verb instead of a noun? You could only say that about a fictional concept, not an actual/real thing. What the heck does it mean, anyhow? God implies action? Again, God as not-real-object.
Shan, you're doing a great job of making my case for me.
--DOG
[pants, drools, and starts to foam at the mouth...]
[ August 11, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: DOG ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"By defining God, you'll only come closer to the realization that it's all made up. It's a story, told to children to make them feel safer in a randomly dangerous, and threatening world."
Oh? C.S. Lewis would prob'ly have disagreed with you, Taerg Dog . In case you don't know, he was an aetheist who believed he logically came to the conlusion that there must be a god. Unfortunately, Lewis happened to pick an idea of God that is, I believe, a bit oversimplistic, and most Christians share that view. The reason, Taerg Dog, I think, for your aetheistic idea quoted above, is that you also have an oversimplistic view of what God is supposed to be. Why, I wonder, are so many people like that?
[ August 11, 2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Suntranafs,
Or, should I say, "Sfanartnus"...? Hmm.....
The reason I may have an overly simplistic definition of God is that if I get too complicated in that definition, it all falls apart.
It's like a Gundam model from Bandai. Sooner or later, all you're left with is two legs, an arm, and part of the body armor.
No, but seriously: I have been asking people for a reasoned and reasonable definition (or description) of "God" for a very long time, and all I get are simplistic responses--if I get any responses at all.
By default, I've had to come up with my own. And, since it my own description, it's oh, so very easy for me to tear it down.
--DOG
(This deserves a longer, and better thought out response, but I'm exhausted!)
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Little do you know that I was an excessively vocal agnostic for the longest kind of time. (Chuckles)
And no, I don't write ads for Nike - I'd sure make better money if I did - hmmm - you have a good idea there . . . Thanks!
No, one of the ways I came around into having a belief, trust, faith (if you will) in the presence of some ordered being that I can't possibly define or place bounds on, was through "doing" -
and I am merely posing the possibility that although down through the ages God, Goddess, Spirit, Higher Power, Heavenly Father, Mother Earth, Zeus, Athena (whatever you care to call that indefinable something) was defined as such, that really, God is not a noun, person, place or thing) after all - that rather, God is a verb - an action.
You might care to check out this book I just finished, which was excellent: Why Christian? For Those on the Edge of Faith by Douglas John Hall. The author's probably lucky it's the 21st centry, otherwise he'd have been burned at the stake. I highly recommend it.
Here is a particularly interesting quote from the book:
" . . . faith understood as trust repsects the integrity and freedom of the person: it assumes personal decision, just as all profound human relationships do . . . it also maintains - and this is just as important! - our freedom to hold back and to doubt" (p. 92)
Miguel de Unamuno said that "Faith that does not doubt is dead faith" -
I agree!
Keep questioning, DOG!
*Edited for a silly spelling mistake, doubtlessly not the last)
[ August 11, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Nice bit of philosophy on God being a verb, there.
Dog said: "...seriously: I have been asking people for a reasoned and reasonable definition (or description) of "God" for a very long time..."
Ok. The space time continuum theory holds that anything you can imagine, ever have imagined, or ever will imagine is out there, somewhere in the Universe(or multiverse if you want to say that). And that, my friend, IMNSHO, is God. Everything. Material and immaterial, immaterial in material form, material in immaterial form. Everything. The mind and heart and soul of both the universal unconscious and the individual conscious.
By all means, go ahead and try to rationalize that the God I'm talking about doesn't exist. Since an argument that claims to prove the space-time continuum theory wrong is doomed to logical failure (unless one's argument consists only of the initial assumption that the latter theory is wrong, thus 'begging the question'), I'm afraid that you'll have to assume that nothing exists and that, in short, you do not exist. This theory is acually held by a group of philosophers(I forget the name), but I personally have yet to see the practical application of this philosophy.
In the words of Albert Einstein, and this is an approximately direct quote: "There are two ways to live your life. One is as if everything is a miracle. The other is as if nothing is a miracle.
[ August 11, 2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
That's right folks, I just invented an abbreiviation for In My Not So Humble Opinion!
*watches while you turn green with envy*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thanks, suntranafs - whaddya think, tho - should I go in for writing ads?
(yes, i know - more spelling errors)
[ August 11, 2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Dog, you took what I wrote completely out of context and then misinterpreted it. I said, essentially, that there is much evidence to dis the existance of God. How did you get from that that I was trying to say that there is a God? Also, I said (paraphrasing myself ) that to believe is a matter of faith. It is impossible to prove definitively that there is or isn't God. That's why there is faith, or not.
How do I not believe in God? Oh, let me count the ways.
-I do not feel a need for God -I find some use God as an excuse for things that go wrong -I find some use God as an excuse for things that go right -I think that life as we know it does not depend on the existance of a superior being -There is very clear evidence that all life on earth evolved from events on earth (forinstance, I've read that we humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana) and so on
However, just because I do not believe, does not mean that I do not respect anyone else's belief. It is my choice to interpret the evidence I see one way, and another's choice to interpret the evidence differently. Nor will I try to convince anyone else to think as I do unless that person is asking me to. Likewise, I hope that those who do believe in some higher omnipotent being will not try to persuade me that they are right and I am wrong.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Hey, unohoo, no problem. Just take a gander at my theory and you can believe that there exists not one but many "higher omnipotent" beings that are, in fact, not God!
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Okay, suntranafs,you say
quote: The space time continuum theory holds that anything you can imagine, ever have imagined, or ever will imagine is out there, somewhere in the Universe(or multiverse if you want to say that). And that, my friend, IMNSHO, is God. Everything. Material and immaterial, immaterial in material form, material in immaterial form. Everything. The mind and heart and soul of both the universal unconscious and the individual conscious.
I'm not a physicists, *but* I've read some things about the theory of relativity, and I don't remember it saying anything of the sort. I think the theory basically states that space/tinme exists and is continuous. How does this equate to flotillas of omnipotent beings? Can you point me to a reference?
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
unohoo,
You're right: I found my error:
You said: There are just too many observations available TO disprove the existance of God
I think that what you are saying you meant to say is: There are just too many observations available WHICH disprove the existance of God
And we're good to go.
I have a question: why are people so eager to say that "It is impossible to prove definitively that there is or isn't God."?
The implication inherent in that approach is that you therefore have to accept every theory which proposes the existence of a unproveable object. Are we to accept pixies, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, loch ness monsters, compassionate conservatives, etc., etc.?
This is getting soooooo old. If you propose (and, unohoo, I know now that you don't!) the existence of something, be prepared to prove it. If one proposes something defined by an inherent resistance to proof, then why bother proposing such a thing at all?
Sun
quote:The space time continuum theory holds that anything you can imagine, ever have imagined, or ever will imagine is out there, somewhere in the Universe
Which space-time continuum is that? Not any that I've heard of, outside of the realm of pure sci-fi. Think of it: for every radioisotope that decays now, there is another universe where it decays now, instead. First, current scientific thought is that our universe has a finite life, and will not cycle through an infinite number of cycles. We (this) may be "it." Secondly, there are "orders" of infinity: Infinite(1): Set of all rational numbers; Ininite(2): set of all subsets of all rational numbers. Which infinity are you proposing?
And no, I can't sniff gluons. And they may not actually exist. Electrons as waves may not actually exist. Electrons as particles may not actually exist (I feel much more comfortable talking about electrons, as you can tell). Something exists, and depending on what tests I perform, it may respond as a particle or as a wave. Others may perform the same experiments, and get the same results. When someone performs the same experiment, and gets different results, then the scientific community rallies together to kill the person who comes up with the wrong results, and buries the body in a 55 gallon drum somewhere in the Meadowlands (near Jimmy Hoffa).
No, that's not right. They typically acknowledge the unexpected result, and attempt to seek out the cause.
Pretty much everything in life acts this way. If you behave a certain way in a certain situation, you come to expect a certain result.
And how does religion fare? It is inherently untestable. It wants to be untestable! It constantly makes premises which fail to be supported by physical reality, and then just changes premises. It seems to be a pretty useless premise.
quote:immaterial in material form, material in immaterial form. Everything. The mind and heart and soul of both the universal unconscious and the individual conscious.
What sort of nonsense is that? Material in immaterial form? Blue in Green form? Apples in chair form? If you want to say that God is everything, and everything is God, then great.
You still have not defined "God." You've begged the question.
But God as the creator of the universe? A conscious, controlling entity? All-knowing/all-seeing/all-powerful? Loves us as a father loves his son? Not a sparrow falls without but God knows of it? Christ as the bringer of the Black Death? No. I don't think so.
--DOG (now foaming copiously from mouth & ears)
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
No, sorry... that's not really what I meant. It's as much philosphy than scientific theory- I'm not even sure I have the name right. It is, however, scientifically and logically impossible to prove wrong. And, arguably, it is also scientifically impossible to prove correct.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Sun,
Of what value is a theory which cannot be proven wrong? Which denies the person considering the theory even the possibility of disproof?
The universe is not infinite. But how do you know the universe isn't infinite!?
There are not an infinite number of universes. Oh, but maybe there are!
My dad can beat up your dad! Oh, no he can't! My dad can beat up your dad times two! No he can't! Yes, he can!
At this point, I'm going to spin around three or four times, take a good, strong sniff of my ass, and curl up and go to sleep.
--DOG
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
LOL you do that. "Of what value is a theory which cannot be proven wrong?" In this case, to prove that you cannot prove that there is not a God.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Shan> Random thought of the day...a eulogy fragment for one of our preachers by another: "He waved no plumes, wreathed no garlands, but struck from the shoulder and at the vitals. He was barren of poetry and destitute of imagination."
Curious thought about faith...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Sermons must have been quite something -
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Shan, do you read Madeleine L’Engle? Her non-fiction books have some glorious stuff about faith and imagination. Particularly in The Rock that is Higher and Walking on Water.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
On having to prove a positive assertion:
Again, this is a situational case. Nobody currently liveing invented the idea of God. That happened in the remote past, and we can't expect that/those persons to come back and support their propositions.
Belief in God is an issue of social momentum. God is everywhere, in terms of public opinion, so it's hard to claim that any one person or group of people have to prove he exists. I don't think that anyone has to prove the truth of an assertion that they make because they heard it somewhere, and it makes sense to them.
However, when someone makes the claim in an attempt to convert someone, either from non-beleif or from some other religion, they do have to support their claim, if they want to be taken seriously.
BTW, C.S. Lewis' claim that he was once an atheist is highly questionable. I don't have any quotes handy, but he makes references to "being angry at god" while he was an atheist, as well as other claims that presuppose the existence of God. One can't be angry at something that one doesn't believe exists.
Posted by Loki (Member # 2788) on :
Test
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Glenn,
quote:I don't think that anyone has to prove the truth of an assertion that they make because they heard it somewhere, and it makes sense to them
Let me chew on that one for a while...
When it comes to one's personal beliefs, then I agree. I shouldn't have to explain all my beliefs to another (then what the heck am I doing here!?! ).
But what about when a person, or group of people, start to (try to) impose their belief system on another group...at that point, I start to ask questions.
But I guess the same would apply to me, then.
--DOG
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Shan> It's church-of-Christ culture. Classically, imagination is downplayed because of the importance of fidelity to the Scripture. I found this quote in a book on Christian education; it also documented that we produce very few artists and many more engineers than theoretical scientists.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hi dkw - Read Madeleine L'Engle a lot in my younger years - perhaps worth another read now in my 30's - especially since my son and I like to read together -
Maccabeus - Church of Christ culture . . . never been exposed to that - interesting.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Definitely re-read with your son, but she’s also got some great fiction with older protagonists (I don’t want to say “adult novels,” but you know what I mean) which you probably didn’t read when you were younger. Plus the non-fiction reflections on faith and writing and art and such.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Duly noted - thanks for the suggestion. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Shan> So what church do you belong to?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, see - I am kind of a mongrel mix. I was raised in a very divided household - LDS father and Roman Catholic mother. Consequently, I now attend (for the last 10 years) an ELCA Lutheran church. In the intervening years, I bitterly protested anything and anyone that professed a belief in God and attended an organized religious establishment - 13 years worth of fighting it all.
My pastor says I am one of the most eclectic christians he has ever met, but he's okay with that - he also thinks seeking and doubting and questioning (and imagination) are all wonderful things in growing one's faith, nor does he spout off at me that I am a poor member (or no member at all) if I don't buy into all the doctrine they teach.
Long answer to a short question. Sorry. Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Yes, I believe in God. I would believe science if they ever, truly proved God didn't exist, but they can't even prove evolution. And, it really makes much more sense to believe a book, part of which dates back 5000 years, and some of whose prophecies have come true, than to believe the masses of atheists, which have really only become "masses" the past one or two centuries.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
I don't believe that god exists outside of my mind. Every time I speak or type or think about the word I create god, so I can't claim he doesn't exist.
However, I know for certain that the christian god does not exist outside of my imagination. A god that knows that future, claims to love us and sends some of us to suffer for eternity cannot exist.
I've heardn this explained away as "God gives us freewill," but that's just it, with an omniscient being in charge, there is no freewill He controls us through our mere creation. He did not have to create us, thus preventing some of us from hypothetically suffering forever.
I've also heard other explanations like "god cannot see the future," or "god was lonely," or sometimes just "god's ways are mysterious," which is the worst cop out answer of all.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:However, I know for certain that the christian god does not exist outside of my imagination. A god that knows that future, claims to love us and sends some of us to suffer for eternity cannot exist.
Saying "the Christian god" really doesn't work, as all religions have different beliefs regarding Him. See, I believe in "the Christian god", but I do not believe in Hell or any eternal damnation. The word in the Bible, Hades, was originally literally translated to "the common grave". Like you just said, a loving God wouldn't make you burn in hell forever. And it would make even less sense that he'd give his creation's soul to his enemy (Satan).
[ August 13, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I dis agree with your first post, Da_Goat, but I think your second one is spot on!
However, I see no condridiction between evolution and the Bible. I mean, clearly the Bible provides a very simplified explenation of Creation (not wrong, but very very simple). After all, it says God created the universe in one day, and yet, a day is measured by the roatation of the Earth, which was created yet so how can a day exit, or time exist before the universe was created? I think that when the Bible says that it took seven days, it does mean a literal seven days, but rather 7 distinct periods of creation.
Hobbes Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Da_Goat, you said:
quote: Yes, I believe in God. I would believe science if they ever, truly proved God didn't exist, but they can't even prove evolution. And, it really makes much more sense to believe a book, part of which dates back 5000 years, and some of whose prophecies have come true, than to believe the masses of atheists, which have really only become "masses" the past one or two centuries.
Can I take that to mean you are a "Flat Earther" as well?
The bible was written by humans and they were largely guessing, trying to fill in the blanks that they could not explain. There were many more things that were mysterious to them, so they invented this higher being to help explain these mysteries. A lot of the stories in the bible were moral lessons for the believers, i.e. a coda on how to behave.
What do you mean that science can't prove evolution? I thought there is enough physical evidence that does prove evolution, and while science has not filled in all the blanks (missing links, etc.) we have plenty of evidence in the DNA to show that life on earth evolved and is linked to each other.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:The bible was written by humans and they were largely guessing, trying to fill in the blanks that they could not explain. There were many more things that were mysterious to them, so they invented this higher being to help explain these mysteries. A lot of the stories in the bible were moral lessons for the believers, i.e. a coda on how to behave.
Unohoo, if Thiests try to use phrases like "I believe" and "I think such and such is true" can you try too?
quote:What do you mean that science can't prove evolution? I thought there is enough physical evidence that does prove evolution, and while science has not filled in all the blanks (missing links, etc.) we have plenty of evidence in the DNA to show that life on earth evolved and is linked to each other.
There's some pretty big missing links (and I don't mean from apes to humans) in evolution in terms of the fossil record. However, missing fossils isn't the same as being dis-proved. Personally I think that evolution can not explain somethings, but it's basically true.
Hobbes Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
quote:Yes, I believe in God. I would believe science if they ever, truly proved God didn't exist
Da_Goat: I agree. I believe with my whole heart and soul that the wind and the waves are caused by 750 foot tall invisible orange Leprechauns, because science has been totally unable to prove that they don't exist.
Trust me, though: you don't want to know how those Leprechauns cause the wind and the waves.
So, then, am I free to put in any unproveable term I like in the proof? There are ancient Irish texts describing the Leprechauns...for all I know, they may predate the Hebrew texts (I assume those are the 5000+ year old documents to which you referred).
It's one thing to keep an open mind. It's another thing to have one's mind so open that all your brains fall out.
And prophecies? Puh-lease. Of all the Bible, how many "prophecies" have come true. For the sake of fairness, you may only reference the prophesies which are proven as accurately and precisely as science has proven evolution. None of this "Eagle with two heads" nonsense. If you're going to accept that over-interpreted squiffle, then I don't see why you have any problem at all with the allegedly unproven theory of evolution. Let's have some real prophesy: Names and Dates; Real Events; Actual Places; Nouns and Verbs!
Ready, steady....GO!
Hobbes,
quote:Unohoo, if Thiests try to use phrases like "I believe" and "I think such and such is true" can you try too?
Yeah, that's nice, but when a Theist says "I believe," they usually mean "I believe in an unproveable entity, or the alleged actions of said unproveable entity." When an atheist (or, if you like, a rationalist) says "I believe," they mean "I believe in something that has a reasonable amount of support and proof, and is therefore a pretty reliable statement of fact."
There's quite a big difference. At least, that's what I believe.
---DOG
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Dog, I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to pretend they don't think that their believes are true, just don't state them as facts. It's been mentioned before, but if you were in a Church, saying "God is my Father" is acceptable since all present accept your believe as truth too. If you were with a group of Athiests saying "God does not exist" would also be acceptable. When your with mixed company, can't you state your beliefs as if you thought they were the truth but realizied that not everyone else did?
quote:Yeah, that's nice, but when a Theist says "I believe," they usually mean "I believe in an unproveable entity, or the alleged actions of said unproveable entity." When an atheist (or, if you like, a rationalist) says "I believe," they mean "I believe in something that has a reasonable amount of support and proof, and is therefore a pretty reliable statement of fact."
Some of us feel that we've encountered enough evidence to make God a reliable entity in our lives. Before you start saying that no rationalists are Thiests, remeber that just about all great minds have been, including those in the 20th century (Einstein for instance).
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
For the record I'm not comparing myself to Einstein in any way, just pointing out that there's plenty of highly intelligent people who believe in God.
Hobbes Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
[strong irony]Pascal, for another[/strong irony]
At the risk of repeating myself:
All I've ever heard or read here is emotional and anecdotal "evidence of God."
In addition, after repeated requests for some sort of definition of what GOD is, no one here seems to really know. Or, at a minimum, be willing to say. Apparently, GOD is whatever you want It to be.
It's sounding less and less like a real thing, and more like an imaginary playmate.
--DOG
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's true Dog, a lot of the evidence Thiests have for God is emotional and anecdotal. Which is why most of us don't think that our evidence is prove for others, but that doesn't mean it can't be prove for us. I'd like to give you a non-thiest example of this.
Let's say your in love with someone. You know your in love because of how you've acted around them and how you feel when your with them. This person your in love with becomes very important in your life. You make various sacrifices for them and in return, they do things for you (not in a barter situation but just generally you help each other out). If someone else asks if your in love with them you know for sure that you are, but how can you convince them? All you have is emotional and anecdotal evidence.
Hobbes Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:All I've ever heard or read here is emotional and anecdotal "evidence of God."
Which is why the only God I believe in is the one that I personally have come to know.
Then it's a matter of trust to believe that others have had the same anecdotal experiences that I have -- and there are those that believe in the same God that I do whom I feel that I can trust, others that I don't, and others that I'm not sure. But I'm never 100% sure -- except for when it comes to my own 'anecdotal' interactions with God.
EDIT: Hobbes you continue to impress with your perceptive comments. Very nice.
[ August 13, 2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
Some of these are unprovable (born of a virgin) but many are specific (sold for 30 pieces of silver). Obviously just being sold for 30 pieces of silver doesn't prove Jesus was the messiah, but that's one of over 300 similar prophecies that were made of which Jesus fulfilled EVERY ONE. Please see the link, and even look up the verses before you try to shoot this down. Keep in mind, no one debates whether or not Jesus existed, just whether he was God, or just a guru of sorts. Maybe "hearsay" isn't enough to prove the existence of God (aka Jesus) to you, but remember, hearsay is how we know Napolean was at Waterloo. (Except that there are fewer written accounts of Napolean being at Waterloo than there are of Jesus' resurrection.)
Elementary. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Paula, it's worth noting that it's easy to fulfill prophecies if you're writing the stories after the fact. Even DESPITE this, the authors of the Bible had to really play with Jesus' lineage to make a few of 'em work.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
On this point I agree with Tom, fullfilment of Prophecies within the same text as made the prophecies isn't real proof. Then again, it's not disproof either...
Hobbes Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Has anyone read "THe DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown? This is a murder mystery, *but* it is imbedded with a very different theory about Christ and Mary Magdelin (sp?). Apparently, there are christians who think that Jesus and Mary were married, and that she was a good girl, not a prostitute at all. Also, there seems to be enough evidence of this that one cannot dismiss it out of hand just because the Catholic view of this is the most popular. In other words, people who are adherents to the alternate theory feel that the Catholic POV is a lot of propoganda.
It's an interesting book in addition to being a good murder mystery (one other genre I seek out to read ).
Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
quote: On this point I agree with Tom, fullfilment of Prophecies within the same text as made the prophecies isn't real proof. Then again, it's not disproof either...
I understand you guys' point of view. Some of it seems a little farfetched. But the proof isn't in the same text as the prophecies. No one sat down and wrote the entire Bible front to back. The Old Testament was written much earlier and is a different text. In fact, it's made up of many different texts that are only in the same book because of the related subject matter. Of course, the people who wrote the NT stuff already knew what the OT prophecies were. But that's to be expected. Why would they have bothered to write about the experience if they hadn't known it was special?
Plus, some of the prophecies are still being fulfilled today. Example: Several times Isaiah points out that the Gentiles will turn to him and the Jews away from him. That's pretty specific, if you ask me. AND we are experiencing it for ourselves and therefore have firsthand evidence.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Hobbes:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein.
Yes of course there have been great thinkers who believed in God, but Einstein was not one of them. The NY times did an article a couple of years ago with respect to level of education vs. religious belief. They found among scientists working at the leading edge of their fields, the correlation with atheism is very high. IIRC, among biologists it is greater than 95%. The lowest numbers were among mathematicians, at about 45% (again, IIRC)
In other fields, atheism is still higher among the more educated, with the exception, of course, of theology.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Thank you, Glenn.
So how come I'm an atheist, then?
--DOG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But the proof isn't in the same text as the prophecies. No one sat down and wrote the entire Bible front to back."
You don't understand, Paula. What we're saying is that it's perfectly possible that the people who wrote the New Testament -- or people who were alive at the time and consciously seeking to make those prophecies appear fulfilled -- either lied about what happened to make the prophecies fit, or else deliberately worked to make "true" certain interpretations of those prophecies.
As long as the actual events and authors of either book are in doubt -- and BOTH are -- no prophecy can be considered "evidence" of anything.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
I seem to recall reading somewhere (not in the Bible, but about the Bible) that Jesus' disciples had him ride into Nazareth on a mule, and through a back gate, so that He would fulfill a prophesy.
I've probably got the specifics half wrong, but the situation, I believe, is accurate. Any one care to help clear this one up for me?
Again, nothing like reading the answers before you take a quiz.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I never really looked into Einstein believing in God, I simply assumed from the quotes he keeps making....
*Makes note not to do something so foolish again*
Your right Glenn, the more educated you are the more likely that your athiest (by percentage). My point wasn't that education leads to faith, rather that rational thinking doesn't require a lack of it.
Hobbes Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I'm curious whether any long-term studies have been done on that correlation between education and atheism to find the cause. The assumption seems to be that the schools produce rational, critical thinkers who then reject religion. But there is an alternate hypothesis (unfortunately usually couched in a rant) that certain atheist thinkers have produced a "culture of atheism" in higher education that pressures people to abandon religious belief. A third possibility, not much discussed, is that atheists go to college more often for some reason--perhaps they lack other outlets for their thought that for theists are fulfilled in a religious calling.
Anyone want to suggest some more testable hypotheses?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dog, what you’re referring to is actually stated in the Bible. Although it was a donkey, not a mule. Matthew 21:5 is one of several times that the gospels of Matthew and John state that something was done specifically “to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet.” Although I don’t know where you got the back gate part, or the idea that it was the disciples’ idea to do it that way.
It sounds like you’ve been reading one of those exposés that get all excited about pointing out something that everyone who paid attention in Sunday School already knew.
Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
TomD-
No, I absolutely DID understand what you were saying. What I'm saying is that the OT isn't in doubt. It doesn't matter whether you believe the prophecies or not. We have very old texts with someone making a prophecy. That's not doubtful, that's proven. As far as the NT goes, you're right, it is in doubt. But so is every other piece of historical text you read, simply because you weren't there. If you can say that you don't believe the NT because maybe they had motives, then that's a good reason not to believe MOST of history.
DOG- Yep, there are several places that say "He did blank to fulfill the prophecies." But that doesn't usually mean that he purposely set out to do that. A better way to describe it is that he had to go through/experience certain situations because that's what the prophecies said he would have to do. The biggest reason that they keep pointing that out is so that people who read it will have text that shows each situation where he fulfills a prophecy. Specifically, the ass reference is a very good example for my case. Jesus sends them to another village where he is able to tell them the exact location of the donkey that they're looking for. (Oh but maybe he went there during the night and tied the donkey there himself!) Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Hobbes
You aren't the first person to make that mistake. After all, he said that the lie had been systematically repeated.
What's really annoying is people who, when faced with the quote above, insist that it was "fabricated" by an atheist conspiracy, when in fact, it was organized christianity that took Einstein's phrase: "God doesn't play dice" and ran with it beyond all context.
Einstein was referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at the time. He wanted to believe that the laws of physics would be revealed to be predictable and understandable. "God" was merely a suitable metaphor.
An historical case that's relevant to this comes from the pythagoreans, who actually were a religion, in addition to the intellectual heirs of Pythagoras.
The Pythagoreans believed that the universe could be described in its entirety using integers, or ratios of integers. (rational numbers) But they were stumped by the square root of 2, since it is the length of the hypotenuse a right triangle whose legs are one unit long. They assumed that it could be described by a rational number, and set out to look for it.
One of their members came across a logical proof that the numerator and the denominator of sqrt 2 (assuming it is a rational) are both divisible by 2, even when the fraction is completely simplified. By their own logic, this can't happen, and so by the nature of "proof" they were forced to admit that sqrt 2 was not rational.
The result was that they took the guy who proved this out and drowned him.
As to the story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey: Didn't Jesus actually tell his followers to steal the donkey? (or at least borrow it without asking) That one always got me.
Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
Jesus told them to take the donkey (the Bible doesn't specific who, if anyone, it belonged to) but that if anyone questioned them about why they were taking it, that they should say "The Lord has need of it" and that the owner would let them have it. It doesn't say if anyone actually questioned them or not.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Yes, Twoson, and every Christmas, I tell my children to go to such-and-such a firehouse, where they will find a proper Christmas tree.
Prophesy? Coincidence? Join us, as we go in search of...
And I apologize if I sound like a newbie Sunday School student (apparently, I'm not the only one here like that, though). Never been to Sunday School; what little I've studied the Bible, I had to do on my own.
Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
This is what it boils down to.
I choose to believe the Bible because it's quite likely to be true. (Among experiences I have had.) Others choose not to believe it because it hasn't been 100% PROVEN to be true. Both are valuable positions to be in and I understand both sides.
No one likes it when a Christian brings their "feelings" into a debate because they are unproven to anyone but the "feeler". But I'm telling you, if you had been in my situation and known what I have known, you would not have a single doubt about God. Unfortunately, there is no way for that to happen. And there's no way you'll ever know anything similar unless you give it a decent chance. But if you go in doubting, forget it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And if you go in NOT doubting, rest assured that you'll brainwash yourself.
So, really, you're screwed either way.
-------
That said, Paula, note that you fall back to the point we were making earlier: you don't believe based on any historical evidence, despite your claim of "fulfilled" prophecy, but rather because non-reproducible personal experience has confirmed the "truth" of what you believe, and you therefore choose to perceive the existing evidence as validation of those beliefs. That's all people were saying in the first place. Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
Hmmm...I guess that's right. But I do believe the "hard" evidence is more convincing than the arguments against it.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Nothing wrong with a culture that pressures people to reject religious belief under the pretense of critical thinking as long as religions are proseletizing as ardently as they do. It's about time atheism started spreading its views.
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Duragon C. Mikado wrote:
quote: Nothing wrong with a culture that pressures people to reject religious belief under the pretense of critical thinking as long as religions are proseletizing as ardently as they do. It's about time atheism started spreading its views.
The only problem with that is atheism is not a belief construct. The reason some religious people proselytize their beliefs is to get converts to their system of beliefs. (Note: there are some belief systems that forbid proselytizing, Judaism being the one I am most familiar with.) When I say I am an atheist, I am saying that I do not believe. I am of the opinion that while there are still things that are not explained, still wonderful mysteries to be solved, doesn't mean that these mysteries don't have a solution or scientific explanation. I am saying that I do not believe in God because I think that there are explanations for everything in the universe as we are aware of it, but that we just haven't found all the explanations yet. Personally, I hope we never find all the reasons because that would take all the fun out of life.
I recently read a delightful book by Richard P. Feynman, "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" which is a compilation of various lectures he gave over the years. (For those who do not recognize the name [Feynman], he was a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, is considered to be the father of nano-technology, and won a Nobel in physics for his work in quantum mechanics.)
Posted by SeasonalSnow (Member # 5548) on :
Hmm... PhysicsGriper--
quote: while there may be a God, it cannot be proven yet, and there's no real evidence to support his existance, so I have doubt. It's possible that in time it will be proven that a god could exist, but not for now.
Well, I don't know about that. 'Proven' is a very subjective thing. I definitely agree with you on the topic of heaven being a bit over-the-top, though. I think life is good enough already. Then again, the idea of not doing anything after you die is disconcerting, to say the least. I don't know, or claim to know what happens. I figure I'll find out...
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." --Albert Einstein
Posted by SeasonalSnow (Member # 5548) on :
And I believe in something. Whether or not that something is God, you can all decide. Posted by Peruru Dragoon (Member # 2545) on :
I believe there is some higher being that could be 'God' but I'm not really sure. Somebody or something had to create Humans and everything else in the Universe.
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
SeasonalSnow wrote:
quote: Well, I don't know about that. 'Proven' is a very subjective thing
Actually, I dissagree. There are very rigorous rules that are followed when you are "proving" something in science. So if you a scientist in field X were to say that A is proven by experiment described, then other scientist can recreate that experiment and repeat your results. If it is not repeatable, then A is not proven. If it is repeatable, then it is proven. There is no subjectivity about it.
That is why I maintain that you cannot "prove" there is a God. There is no repeatable procedure available that proves there is a God. There is also no way to prove there is not a God. That is why one either believes in God or does not believe in God. Should someone ever develop a proof of a God, then one won't have to believe for then it will be fact which won't require belief.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Peruru,
quote:Somebody or something had to create Humans and everything else in the Universe.
This is an old one. What created that "Someone or Something" that did all the other creating? Or are some things less subject to the need for creation than other things?
And, if an intelligent entity created everything, who is to say that it has all the other qualities we ascribe to it? (Things like love, infinite knowledge, Gave it's only begotten son, etc.)
And if we were created by non-intelligent processes, then there's no God there, is there?
Unohoo,
quote:That is why I maintain that you cannot "prove" there is a God. There is no repeatable procedure available that proves there is a God. There is also no way to prove there is not a God. That is why one either believes in God or does not believe in God. Should someone ever develop a proof of a God, then one won't have to believe for then it will be fact which won't require belief.
I must be taking stupid pills, or something:
Why do so many people believe in a "thing" that by its definition cannot be proven? Is it a "club" thing? Is it from fear of death and the unknown? There's this concept out there that is fraught with contradictory descriptions and definitions. Every time someone tries to pin it down as meaning something, some situation occurs to discredit the claim. Yet billions of people believe in not one, but hundreds or thousands of published variations on the same basic theme!
I just don't get it.
To paraphrase a common theme here:
quote:There is no repeatable procedure available that proves "X" exists. There is also no way to prove that "X" does not exist. That is why one either believes that "X" exists, or one believes that "X" does not exist.
I propose that there is no meaning or value to that statement. I similarly propose that "X" is immaterial (not as in "spritual" and without material form, but as in "without true meaning or value")
What is the point in acting upon a belief that defies proof (and disproof)? And what if "X<>GOD"?
What if: X=Little Green Men X=Leprechauns X=Alien space rays, out to get you X=Dogs that talk and tell you to kill people X=Republican claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction
At some point, they dose you up with Prozac and put you in a room with heavily quilted walls.
--DOG (froth, froth, froth)
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Dog:
quote: What is the point in acting upon a belief that defies proof (and disproof)? And what if "X<>GOD"?
What if: X=Little Green Men X=Leprechauns X=Alien space rays, out to get you X=Dogs that talk and tell you to kill people X=Republican claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction
These are things that people do believe in. It is a good starter list. But, I can "prove" that gravity exists, for example. It does not require that I believe it exists to exist in my mind. It's existance is independent of me. Therefore, it is meaningless to believe that gravity exists as its existance can be proven (repeatedly). Furthermore, if I choose to not believe that gravity exists and therefore walk off the top of a very tall building, I will not float safely away (unlike Arthur Dent) and gravity will have its way with me and I won't exist (anymore). (Edited to correct a stupid spelling error that even I, the world's second worse speller, can see. )
[ August 16, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: unohoo ]
Posted by Glue (Member # 5550) on :
I always said you could tell a lot about a person from his or her beliefs. I don't believe in God.
I don't believe because I don't need to believe: I know. He is everywhere. And I think in order to truely know faith you need to cast away religion and find a place that makes you feel calm. For me, that's sitting under my back yard tree under the sunlight.
Most religions are exclusive, not inclusive. They tend to say that their 'way' is the right one while others are not. That's not the case. There is no one 'way.' And this is because to be 'whole,' you have to have a relationship with God, not just faith. This is why I never believed I was ever close to God sitting inside a church listening to sermons.
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
True Glue,
Sometimes sitting underneath a tree in the backyard under the sunlight is just sitting underneath a tree in the backyard under the sunlight.
flish
Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
I agree with Wheat Puppet. I don't think that Ender Wiggin 2004 understand what Wheat Puppet meant, but I could be mistaken. We can prove that human evolution took place, and I think that Wheat Puppet didn't mean that she just thinks evolution took place, she's talking about a deity or a past race of ancestors. We can prove, as I said, that evolution takes place and took place, but we can't prove that there is a deity or god of any kind, so I think that Wheat Puppet means that we can believe whatever we want - a belief in a god(s), a belief in their NOT being a god(s), or something else.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Sorry to jump in and go back, but I have something that needs to be challenged:
["It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."]
-- Albert Einstein.
Ok I can believe Einstein said that. What I take issue with is what GlennArnold added on to that:
["Yes of course there have been great thinkers who believed in God, but Einstein was not one of them."]
ARGH! Let's look again at what Einstein said: "I do not believe in a personal God" Correct me if I'm wrong, but do I not see a personal in there? Could someone explain to me why this would be added if the individual in quetion did not, in fact, believe(or at least definitely not disbelieve) in some sort of God? Eienstein also said: "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" Please explain to me how that is not God. That's pretty much the one I believe in. Just because Joe Conventional Christian says the only God is his God, That doesn't mean there aren't other ideas of God. Quite the opposite, in truth. Furthermore, in my view, the latter conventional god actually fails to meet my definition of God (all powerfull, all knowing).
I do not understand why aetheists and christians alike have to talk as if the only conception of an all powerfull, all knowing God is the one taken by the majority of the populace. It's Stupid! I can GUARANTEE, if you look in the dictionary under "god" you will not find the first definition to be 'The christian god accepted by the general populace'. So quit using it that way, Please!
[ August 25, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Sorry, seems I go a little carried away back there. Didn't mean to sound irate(sp?).
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
Good post, Sun.
That's why I've been asking for a good, workng definition of just whT GOD is for oh, so many years now.
There is none.
If anyone wants to say UNIVERSE = GOD, and NOT impose all this omnipotence, omniscience, omniphillic stuff on It, then that's a great and meaningless description of GOD, and one that I can certainly, undeniably, and without any useful purpose whatsoever, embrace.
--DOG
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
LOL
You just think it's meaningless. There's more to the idea than you might think.
[ August 28, 2003, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Suntranafs:
Einstein made this statement in response to the rumor that he was "a scientist who believed in God," which had been perpetrated by what we would now call the "religious right."
He called that rumor "a lie."
Einstein did in fact say that while he didn't beleive in a personal god, he did believe in "Spinoza's God"
That is, a god that is not outside of nature, but is in fact, nature itself.
Whether Einstein believed in God is a matter of perspective. Another quote:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."
A reasonable perspective is that Einstein was a deist, rather than an atheist. Deism is essentially the idea that religion must be determined by a rational interpretation of the natural world, rather than any religious text, doctrine, or tradition. Deism was a popular idea among the founders of the United States, especially Thomas Jefferson.
Other quotes from Einstein:
(referring to a quote that had been used to prove that he believed in God)
"The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word "mystical." I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
(in response to an 11 year old who asked if scientists pray)
"I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
While I don't doubt your collection of quotes is true, and I take issue with none of them, I think that perhaps the overall impression of your post misleads the reader, for it gives only the tiniest representation, in a rather narrow-minded way, of the beliefs of a great and far reaching mind. In short you remind me of the blind men and the elephant. I'm guessing you're familiar with the story?
Posted by Ksig (Member # 5625) on :
blind men and an elephant? Maybe i'm having a brain lapse... sorry to interupt your discussion.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Basically he's claiming that my quotes only give a very selective picture or Einstein's religious views. Each blind man can only feel a small portion of the elephant, and so comes up with a very different description of what the animal is like.
Given that in most of the quotes I gave, Einstein was actively trying to describe his religious views, and that in the first one he was actually responding to a rumor that was based on one quote taken out of context by people who had a religious agenda, it's actually pretty ironic that he would make such a claim.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Ksig;
There were three blind men, who all came upon an elephant one day (or, you can make it night; it really doesn't matter).
The first blind man grabbed the elephant's trunk, and not knowing what he had, proclaimed, "It must be a giant snake!"
The second man grabbed the elephant's tail, and not knowing what it was, also proclaimed, "You are right--it is a giant snake!"
The third man also proclaimed, "Yes, it must be a giant snake! Hold on..."
Sun,
Does it bother you that much that Einstein was an atheist? Are you grasping at straws (or, perhaps, giant snakes?) trying to somehow justify religion as valid because Albert Einstein believed in God? And if he didn't (and he didn't) does that somehow weaken your belief? How many geniuses would it take to turn you...to the dark side?
[ September 08, 2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
quote: ...in the first one he was actually responding to a rumor that was based on one quote taken out of context by people who had a religious agenda...
Glenn: Case in point. In the quote "I do not believe in a personal God" Eienstein is responding negatively. He is trying to de-bunk an untrue rumor. He is saying what he does Not believe in, he is not saying what he does believe in. To use a vulgar example, if I say "I do not screw cows", how much have I really told you about myself as a person or about my beliefs? Should you go on to assume that I do not like cows, that I hate cows, that I think that all cows should be exterminated, or that I don't believe in cows? Granted, I'm blowing your inteligent and worthy discussion way out of proportion, but you see the ideal.
[ September 15, 2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
ssywak: That wasn't quite the story of the blind men and the elephant that I heard but I guess it'll work. You asked: "Does it bother you that much that Einstein was an atheist?"
He wasn't. As Glenn said, he was a deist. There's a vast difference.
You also asked: "Are you grasping at straws (or, perhaps, giant snakes?) trying to somehow justify religion as valid because Albert Einstein believed in God?"
Not trying to justify nuttin', an' if I was, it wouldn't be " religion".
Your next question: "And if he didn't (and he didn't) does that somehow weaken your belief?"
Well if he dis-believed in God(and he didn't ), then I'm not going to say "weaken", but it might alter my belief as to his degree of genius. That's right, I just implied that, in some respect, stupid people don't believe in God. Not in all respects. Certainly the contra-positive isn't necessarily true (that'd be: People who don't believe in God are stupid)
"How many geniuses would it take to turn you...to the dark side?"
LOL. Good question, but no number could. See last for reasoning. 'Cause they would't be geniuses. IMNSHO, there aren't any evil geniuses, and the crazy ones aren't really rounded geniuses. So basically, there's no way, for I am a jedi!!! ROFL
[ September 15, 2003, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I said it was a reasonable perspective to call him a deist. Right after the quote where he called himself an atheist.
The problem is not in quoting someone, but in putting words in their mouth, which is what you are consistently trying to do. You put words in my mouth when you claimed that I said Einstein was a deist (which I didn't), and you continually put words in Einstein's mouth when you twist "don't believe in a personal God" into "do believe in some kind of God."
He never said what he could be called from the perspective of suntranafs.
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
I find it interesting that some of you find it really important to think it important that Einstein, a truly great physicist, did or did not believe in God, or was an atheist or a deist. IMO, it shouldn't matter to the believer in God whether Einstein or anyone else believes in God, just as it shouldn't matter to the agnostic or atheist that he [Einstein] or anyone else doesn't believe in God.
I don't believe in God. I don't care who does or who doesn't, as long as the believer doesn't try to foist their beliefs on me. I am, however, interested in why others feel as they do.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Kind of amazing how polarizing religion is, really, given that even religion refers to itself as "faith" and "belief."
Essentially, religion is purely a matter of opinion, hence the cascade of different Christian religions, all of which claim to believe in the same thing, but somehow believe in it differently enough that they feel it necessary to split off into a new church. Same for Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
In answer to the original question - which has little to do with OSC, BTW - Yes I do believe in God.
I have spent the last ten years of my life trying to answer that question.
I have studied Chritianity, Islam, budhism, and others. The reason that I came to the conclusion that God exists and he exists in the Christian sense of the word is because much of the bible - the new testament to be specific can be historically verified. Jesus came to earth, he did the things that the Bible says he did, so his teachings must hold truth.
More than that though - the universe has to have a creator. Everything man knows has a limit. Everything that we know is finite. Something that is not finite - something that is its own explanation for its existence - must have started it all.
The reason that I make the jump from an infinite creator to the Christian definition of God is because of the Bible and the verifiable truth that it presents.
[ September 16, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: mickey_mouse ]
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
In response to some of the science quotes and statistics that have been presented.
Science explains a lot about how things work, but nothing about why they work in the first place. For instance:
1)Gravity attracts matter on all levels, but why, not how - why in the first place?
2)Light travels in partical form that in turn travels in waves - so what - why?
3)We exist and came from a long line of incredible history - why?
4)The solar system was formed from a bunch of colliding matter and burning gases - why?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Mickey:
quote:Science explains a lot about how things work, but nothing about why they work in the first place
God loves us--Why?
God created us--Why?
God exists-Why?
I really don't think that religion has any better answers. I don't even think that it provides a valid "purpose" for living, when you get right down to it.
quote:The universe has to have a creator. Everything man knows has a limit. Everything that we know is finite. Something that is not finite - something that is its own explanation for its existence - must have started it all.
So, even though the sum total of all of Mankind's experience, throughout the thousands of years of recorded history, and all reviews of the far distant past through scientific exploration indicate that everything has a finite limit, you claim that things exist without a finite limit?
Except for your assumption, what proof do you have that such things can exist? Infinite number theory doesn't work here--we're talking about (allegedly) real things; not "concepts."
"God" as a concept is fascinating. "God" as a real thing does not exist.
IMHO.
--Steve
[ September 16, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Ryuujin (Member # 5659) on :
One big reason why a high percentage of "Great thinkers" dont belive in a God is they cannot accepts somthing that goes against their nature. One of the biggest parts of Christianity is that you have to have Faith. Some people cannot rationalize this concept but it is used daily but in a different manner.
Along those lines a lot of people do not beilive in God because they cannot rationalize why God does what he does. Namely that He can (and will if you ask) Forgive your sins. no matter what sin it is. People just dont like to accept this because it is not in our nature to do this.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
From Glenn Arnold's Post:
quote: The problem is not in quoting someone, but in putting words in their mouth, which is what you are consistently trying to do. You put words in my mouth when you claimed that I said Einstein was a deist (which I didn't), and you continually put words in Einstein's mouth when you twist "don't believe in a personal God" into "do believe in some kind of God."
Actually, when I said that, I was posing a question, not twisting anybody's words. I did not say that one statement definitely logically means the other. However, to me, at least, it seems a fairly reasonable hypothesis that a genius would at least have some reason for putting "personal" in- and no other reason comes to mind right off hand.
quote: A reasonable perspective is that Einstein was a deist, rather than an atheist.
That is what you said. I'm very sorrry! I didn't see the difference. After all, you didn't say Eienstein said that. No, it was just plain you who said that. Ok, everybody, from here on out, Glenn is the judge of whether a perspective is reasonable, even if he does not share that perspective, because he has the mandate of heaven on logic. j/k Glenn. Sorry I misquoted you, but you did say Eienstein belived in Spinoza's God, and posted a link saying that that 'God' is nature, and that would essentially make Eienstein a deist.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
unohoo said: "I find it interesting that some of you find it really important to think it important that Einstein, a truly great physicist, did or did not believe in God, or was an atheist or a deist."
Well, the thing is, I don't really. For one thing he's dead But mainly, even if he wasn't, it wouldn't bother me if he didn't believe in God because I think people should believe whatever seems most right to them.
"IMO, it shouldn't matter to the believer in God whether Einstein or anyone else believes in God, just as it shouldn't matter to the agnostic or atheist that he [Einstein] or anyone else doesn't believe in God."
Well, basically, it shouldn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, Glenn, but what's going on here is that you're arguing with me because you don't think I should argue in religous discussions 'well, Eienstein was really smart and he believed in God', just as I don't think you should be able to argue 'well, Eienstein was really smart and he didn't believe in God'. Technically, though, I'm a bit on the defensive in this argument, because I'm not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, and we believers in "Spinoza's God" tend to have our religous beliefs stomped on unintentionally by Aetheists and Christians alike.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Ok, see here an example. I was going to use to show my case that I didn't really care much what Eiestein believed, 'specially considering I didn't agree with him, and then I saw the word "supernatural", and I thought, wow, Eienstein was a pretty friggin smart guy! Only, of course, because he shares my opinion .
Glenn said Albert said (in response to an 11 year old who asked if scientists pray):
"I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being"
See, I don't think there's any such thing as, root word speaking, "supernatural", much less a supernatural Being (I don't happen to think God is a Being). Basically, what Eienstein is doing here is being a scientist, he's logically leaving open what he can't prove, and he's scientifically hypothesizing probabilities (or in this case, an improbability and apparent fallacy). Btw, I'm not saying that Eienstein ever necessarily prayed in the general sense.
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
Ok first off... Everyone read these. I don't care if you're atheist, theist, deist or other. I just sat through 2 hours of reading this and associated posts just to reach a giant conclusion that everyone is operating on some sort of fallacy.
Are we all acting on fallacies? Are there any people who don't (or who never) act on fallacies?
And are you going to present some thoughts on your own, or reference us to these other (quite interesting, I might add!) sites?
--Rodya
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
Actually, I will commit no logical fallacies. Ready? My basic axiom is that logic is utterly irrelevent. Many operate under this axiom but then do not explicitly state it. Thus the people who spout illogical words get frustrated that everyone is disecting their words and the people trying to give the speakers illogical words a logical context get frustrated that no matter how often or how thoroughly they PROVE that the words of the speak are illogical the speaker DOES NOT CARE.
The simple fact is there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in god.
Either your reason is deductive which proves something true or false and you pick axioms which not everyone can agree on so they become mired in subjectivity.
Or your reason is inductive and the best you can come up with is that I'm pretty sure something is true.
The theists here use deductive reasoning and pick axioms like the Bible is true, the world is a complex place, or everything has to have an origin. The Athiests almost ALWAYS deny the these axioms so no matter how eloquent the words or precise the reasoning, they are doomed to fall upon deaf ears.
And the atheists, most at least, are using inductive reasoning so it is IMPOSSIBLE for a thiest to find evidence that god exists. The simple fact is that there is no ACTUAL evidence to prove the existance of god. To the same end there is no ACTUAL evidence that god doesn't exist, but that is irrelevant to inductive reasoning.
If two things are preposed and they are exclusive, or at least not directly related to each other, then if A has more evidence then B, A is true. But the nature of the evidence must fit the mindset.
Example france exists. A. France does NOT exist B.
1) There is a great deal of talk about france over the years. 2) France is mentioned several times in history books. 3) Many things bare the name of France, I.E. French. 4) I've met people who claim to have been from France. 5) There seems to be little point in lying about the existance of France to fit any sort of social/economic/political agenda (the idiot "freedom" things aside) There fore I have fairly solid proof that france exists. Inductivly then, I can say france exists so long as the evidence for not seening france isn't greater.
1)I've never been to France 2)France is an abstraction so it is possible to argue that it does not physically exist as reality. 3) I only see my prespective so everything else might be fake.
Now if my mindset is based on the material world I will say that france exists. If I my mindset is based on the cognative world... evidence becomes a bit more nebulous.
For inductive reasoning it is IMPOSSIBLE AND THEREFORE A LOGICAL FALLACY to try and get someone to prove a negative.
[ September 24, 2003, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Svidrigailov ]
Posted by Ryuujin (Member # 5659) on :
quote:"Second I believe god is the creator. In that vein I'm quite convinced god is dead viz" -Svidrigailov
Just Wondering how you can come to this conclusion..
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"I want someone to comment on something I've said so I can edit this post and say that I never said that."
Excellent plan Can I do that to?
Great link on fallacies, but I was way too lazy to read all of your second one.
As for this: "The simple fact is there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in god." DUH. Their is absolutely no logical reason to believe in anything! That, in fact, would be a fallacy(begging the question, I believe). Logic is useless without some sort of accepted premise such as x=x. To believe something is to assume- to accept without logical proof.
"it is IMPOSSIBLE AND THEREFORE A LOGICAL FALLACY to try and get someone to prove a negative."
Yes... that's true...
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"The simple fact is that there is no ACTUAL evidence to prove the existance of god."
Now that I don't think is technically true at all. Even if I were to say you had a point on that I'd still say that you're leaving out the Deists.
"To the same end there is no ACTUAL evidence that god doesn't exist"
I don't think that's right either. I think that before I could agree with that, you'd have to give me a thorough definition of evidence as yours does not seem to match with mine.
"but that is irrelevent to inductive reasoning."
I disagree. I think that it is irrelevant to inductive reasoning Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
This isn't the normal conversation a like to get into so I'll stay brief and hope I don't cause any waves. Suns. the reason it is impossible to prove that there is no god is a rather simpe idea. How can you disprove something when the other side can always come back with that is how god works. Hidden behind this or that, or god has a reason for everything whether every bit of logic anyone could ever come up with would point out otherwise. Besides how can you say there is no god, when they only evidence you can produce is because "I couldn't find him." The other area of how there is no evidence to prove that there is a god is also feasible, because there is none. Not anything I have ever seen has proved beyond a doubt that there is a god. You have the bible, you have artifacts, you have a whole bunch of different religions that theory of probability ould suggest that one would be right, and all other types of things. However those are all circumstancial. In refering to the deism I assume you are talking about how if there is a creation then there must have been a creater. That is just one more theory. Whether orn not it is true is anyone's guess. For all we know could have always existed, how are we to know. I know many would argue that there has to be a beggining; however, that idea is flawed. Isn't it conceivable that since time may never end that it never begun. If a line has no end does it have to have a beggining? ~Treaty~ sign below x__ LockeTreaty __
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
A 6 year old named Jessica has an invisible friend. Let's call him Dave. Jessica explains that Dave is all powerful and all knowing. Jessica's parents, trying to wean her from her need for this friend that they assume is imaginary, ask Jessica why they can't see or hear Dave. Jessica explains that you can only see or hear Dave if you really believe in him. When Jessica's parents ask her if she can get Dave to do anything to help them believe in Dave, she replies that he doesn't feel like it right now, but maybe later. A power outage occurs later that day, and she exclaims, "See?! Dave did that! Do you believe me now?"
My question is this: if it's reasonable or even probable that Dave doesn't exist for this six year old, why isn't reasonable or even probable that God (as an omnipotent, omniscient invisible friend) doesn't exist for adults?
quote:I just can’t comprehend complex systems coming about thru random means. The plainness of the nose on my face screams, “This was made.”
Ellen M (2nd page 1/3 way down)
This seems to be a common theme when talking about belief in God. Because we don't understand something, there must be a higher being behind it. The Native Americans, Norsemen, Greeks (a relatively advanced society) and Romans (another relatively advanced society) all created mythologies that explained weather patterns and earthquakes and Nature. Why are their beliefs mythologies but belief in God is not a mythology? By the way, Ellen M., not only is the solar system relatively flat, but the Universe (from all that we know of it) is essentially flat as well and getting flatter as it expands. There have been a lot of theories put forward to explain it. God may as well be one of them.
quote:3. God has strong motivation not to reveal Himself unambiguously under arbitrary circumstances for the good of the individual - the person must be at a point in testing and instruction that the information will do good rather than harm to the individual's progress.
-Stradling (2nd page, 1/3 way down)
I totally agree with Tom Davidson's brainwashinging points about this. I think it also lends itself to the six year old's argument that "he doesn't feel like it right now". You could possibly point to the Bible's stories (I believe in the Old Testament) of prophets who came into towns and proved to people and rulers that God existed through tests. That contradicts the "arbitrary circumstances" theory. Unless you use the obvious out that the people in those towns must have been at the proper point in testing and instruction otherwise God would not have revealed himself to them.
quote:If you go to church, you will no doubt hear the preacher say "We KNOW that God...." such and such. He doesn't qualify his statements with wishy washy terms like "believe."
-Glenn Arnold (4th page, 1/8th way down)
I can only speak to Catholicism, being an ex-Catholic myself, but the Nicene Creed which is said every Sunday by everyone attending church (including the priest) begins, "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth..."
quote:Let's say your in love with someone. You know your in love because of how you've acted around them and how you feel when your with them. This person your in love with becomes very important in your life. You make various sacrifices for them and in return, they do things for you (not in a barter situation but just generally you help each other out). If someone else asks if your in love with them you know for sure that you are, but how can you convince them? All you have is emotional and anecdotal evidence.
- Hobbes (4th page, almost at the bottom)
But that love exists only in yourself, and how it coordinates your actions. You created it. If God exists only through your belief(and other believer's beliefs) and you're not claiming an Entity that can exist without you or other people who believe in him, then your argument makes sense. But I think the God most of us are discussing here is believed to have created everything and so must be an independent entity.
quote:Along those lines a lot of people do not beilive in God because they cannot rationalize why God does what he does. Namely that He can (and will if you ask) Forgive your sins. no matter what sin it is. People just dont like to accept this because it is not in our nature to do this.
- Ryuujin (5th page, 7/8ths way down)
Why God does what he does is assuming an awful lot. First, you assume he's responsible for everything going on. Second, you assume he can do something about it. It would be to God's advantage not to let us know what his limitations are. Third, we like to have someone to blame and hey God is convenient and never seems to get angry when we blame him. As always, God works in mysterious ways and probably has some big plans for us and who are we to question him. Thus, everything is sufficiently confusing and vague to the point that we have no hope of rationalizing why God does what he does.
Actually, if you look at the people in our prison system, most if not all of them want to be forgiven for their "sins" (the breaking of laws). How many children expect to be forgiven when they do something wrong? That saying "I'm sorry" makes it all better? I would expect from the children I've encountered that a majority do. I think it is absolutely in our nature to accept forgiveness of sins. It's the victims, who are outraged by the crimes and who demand vengeance, that sometimes do not forgive and train us that victims do not readily forgive. We then might anthropomorphize this putative "God" (making him perhaps in our own image because of our arrogance) and ascribe the victim characteristics to him. Our nature upon being born, however, is (IMHO) to accept automatic forgiveness. I personally think that if there is a God, he would be absolutely willing to forgive our sins, because as our Creator he would know our flaws and the likelihood of those flaws that he must have intentionally built in. He would accept sins as a given and just say "ah fuhgeddaboutit". That is not why I don't believe in God, though.
quote:The simple fact is there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in god.
- Svidrigailov (5th page, almost at the bottom)
I disagree with this. Religion (and therefeore belief in God(s) which is a prerequisite) plays an important role in society. It gives us security, because we're in the hands of a higher power. We are less afraid of death. We have a stronger sense of community (humans are a gregarious species - it's likely that it's hard-wired into us). We gain a moral superiority because of the mutual exclusion of religion (who doesn't like to be "right"?). There are many benefits to believing in God, and therefore there are logical reasons for believing in him, though it may not be logical to say he exists.
But I still don't believe in God. I would guess that the main reason for it is that I have never had a personal experience with God, and I think the real believers in him have. If belief in God was based on so much fact, as people have said it is, then it seems like people would believe in him more as they become more educated, but instead they believe in him less. I know I have become far less likely to believe in him as I become more educated about religion, science and psychology.
quote:My major gripe is that religion of every kind is man made.
-Proteus (1st page, bit more than half way down)
I totally agree. And because of the benefits of religion (some of which are listed above) we are more likely to believe in it.
quote:I am trying to point out that Science and Religion will and are coming together to create something new.
-j0ntar (1st page, half way down)
I thought they already did that. Isn't there Christian Science for one and Scientology for another?
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
You are correct. There are logical reasons TO believe in god. But no logical reasons to BELIEVE in god.
I was imprecise. You are correct that there are many reasons to believe in a supernatural being. But as an abstract idea independent of the ramifications of the idea itself, there are no solid logical reasons to believe in god.
As for you Suntranafs.
1. I'm not leaving out the deists. There is still no logical reason to believe in the existance of god. Especially in light of the fact that newtonian physics has been supplanted by a much more messy brand that doesn't lend itself well to great watchmaker theory.
The fact of the matter is, as far as we know god does play dice with the universe. Thus the pre-eminant deist that the world is divine by the nature of its ordered structure is inherently flawed.
2. If you are going to critisize my spelling I would appreciate it if you kept silent. If you have some ACTUAL point of discussion or if my spelling and grammer are so imprecise that they cloud the issue then I am open to comment. If spelling is such an important subject to you, I will be PROUD to be the subject of your scrutany. AFTER you go through the ENTIRE FORUM and correct EVERY SINGLE SPELLING error. Until such time, I find minor spelling corrections increadibly annoying I would ask that you not bother me with them.
[ September 24, 2003, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Svidrigailov ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Jonny said, in response to
quote: The simple fact is there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in god.
"I disagree with this. Religion (and therefeore belief in God(s) which is a prerequisite) plays an important role in society. It gives us security, because we're in the hands of a higher power. We are less afraid of death. We have a stronger sense of community (humans are a gregarious species - it's likely that it's hard-wired into us). We gain a moral superiority because of the mutual exclusion of religion (who doesn't like to be "right"?). There are many benefits to believing in God, and therefore there are logical reasons for believing in him, though it may not be logical to say he exists."
Those are not Logical reasons- They are practical ones. There is a serious difference.
Svidrigailov stated: "...newtonian physics has been supplanted by a much more messy brand that doesn't lend itself well to great watchmaker theory." Excuse me, but think I 1. Am well aware of which parts of Classical physics are archaic-I've studied physics a fair bit.- 2. do not know the meaning of this "watchmaker theory", and 3. Do not know what it could possibly have to do with the case, as 'watchmaker' seems to imply creator-and that concept does not neccessarily have anything to with the concept of 'God'.
"The fact of the matter is, as far as we know god does play dice with the universe. Thus the pre-eminant deist that the world is divine by the nature of its ordered structure is inherently flawed."
Your definition of deist is far too narrow. A deist doesn't neccessarily believe in any God having to do with an 'ordered structure. Furthermore, there's nothing in the philosophy that says God can't play dice- just that he is the dice.
"If you are going to critisize my spelling I would appreciate it if you kept silent...."
Well Sorrrry! It was a joke, for crying out loud! Everybody makes spelling errors. Heck, I had to check the spelling with M. Word just to be sure! If I'd realized that would annoy you so much then I can assure you I never would of said anything.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
sunatrafs wrote:
quote:Those are not Logical reasons- They are practical ones. There is a serious difference.
Practical and logical are different adjectives but are not exclusive of each other. There's overlap. To illustrate, I'll use a ridiculously popular example from Star Trek. In Star Trek II Mr. Spock says, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." I think we can all agree that this is a logical statement (would Mr. Spock say anything less? ). It is also a practical one. By the same logic, if a decision to believe in God benefits you more than it harms you, then it is both practical and logical as well. Practicality is very often logical. The actual logic? Premise: Actions that benefit me more than they harm me will improve my life. Premise: I want to improve my life. Premise: belief in God(an action) benefits me more than it harms me. Conclusion: I should believe in God. If you accept the premises, then the conclusion follows.
It is perhaps illogical that I personally disbelieve in God. I believe all three premises. The actual doing part of it though is hampered by my pursuit of absolute truth, of understanding how things actually work. The probability that God actually exists seems to me to be very low, and gets lower as my education about religion, science and psychology continues. The people who started and propagated the various religions may have done a lot of people a lot of good, but it doesn't mean that what they started or believed is true.
Edit:
quote:Well Sorrrry! It was a joke, for crying out loud! Everybody makes spelling errors. Heck, I had to check the spelling with M. Word just to be sure! If I'd realized that would annoy you so much then I can assure you I never would of said anything.
Actually, that should be "...I never would have said anything." Hee hee!
[ September 25, 2003, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
If a man I hate has money and I can kill him without being caught then it is not only practical but logical that I kill him.
You've stepped over the bounds so now I can pull out the fallicies. If you said there are logical reasons WHY people believe then I could say nothing. That you say it is logical to believe is not correct.
You are stating prudential reasons for belief NOT rational reasons. Thus, you are being illogical.
As for your spock example it is NOT LOGICAL. It is only logical if you accept that the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many. This follows under utilitarianism by J.S. Mills. But, if you examine a philosophy like nietzche's you would see that the needs of the one outweight the needs of the many so long as the one is better than the many.
FURTHERMORE,if the needs of the many do harm to the one it is only logical to do harm to the one if you accept both utilitarianism and cost-benefit. That is, the cost to the one exceeds the benefit to the many. Thus you could argue one person dying so many would live would be logical because it meets the axiomatic requirements of both utilitarianism and cost benefit.
You could only say that one person dying so that many could have chocolate milk (or a soy equivilant) would only follow under utilitarianism, and even then assuming that the one couldn't do better good for the many alive.
If you use Perreto(sp?) Optimality as your analization tool then no matter HOW MUCH GOOD the harm to one would be for the many, it is still immoral and illogical under that moral system. Perreto (sp?)Optimality states that a moral action is one that benifits the most agents while doing no harm to any other agents.
As for you suntranafts... You are correct, my definition of diest is far to specific. My definition is derived from the classical (1700s) incarnation. Primarly European.
None the less. There is no reason to assume that there is a god/spirit/force intrinsic to the universe any more then there is reason to assume that there is a god/spirit/force idependent of the universe (i.e. christianity)
Posted by Ryan_Larsen (Member # 5530) on :
Hello friends! What an interesting conversation we're having in here. I thought that I'd throw in my "two cents" and see what happens.
First, let me state the obvious: it is foolish, vain and unreasonable for anyone to claim that anything is impossible. To do so would be to claim omniscience, considering the vast amount of space and time that exist in this and all other universes combined. It simply does not follow "logic" to imply impossibility.
Which brings me to my second topic: logic itself. To me, logic is but man's feeble attempt at omniscience. Truth is not relative. If something exists, it exists and no matter how many people disagree, it still exists, whatever that thing is. For example, man's logic once stated that to break the sound barrier was impossible; that to do such would cause an effect much like many modern scientists believe would occur if the speed of light were breached. Even that theory itself is beginning to be questioned by rather unpopular scientists. Man's logic is flawed because of our lack of omniscience. A blind man can scientifically and logicaly prove (in his own mind) that clouds do not exist over and over again, but that will not change the fact that those who have seen and dealt with them know that they exist.
Our inability to "see past our noses," as it were, brings up another rather interesting point. As we focus on our relatively brief time on this earth, our vision is incredibly clouded. Even when it comes to social economics and other "trivial" things our failure of foresight is a crippling stumbling block. We, as a human race, use our logic to try to explain our reasons for being, almost as if we were the only beings in existance.
To even presume that they who claim to know God exists are incorrect is like a blind man boastfully claiming there are no clouds. Boast all you want, because there are people who see those same clouds every day, there are people who fly through them, there are people who study them. The same is true with God. I dare anyone who would like a challange to prove to me that there is no God....
I'm affraid that, just like the airline pilot laughs when someone insists that there are no clouds, I'll be laughing at this claim, because I know, through countless experiences, from the supernatural to the mundane, that there truly is a God.
So, next time you look up into the sky and see billowing white, remember that the human mind is limited and often times flawed beyond folly.
Eternity and existance are rather large things, after all, it would be a shame to have to search them all just to prove me wrong.... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ryan, the problem with your claim is that you could, quite simply, be completely and totally delusional.
In fact, given that I know several people who claim to have directly experienced God (as I said before on this thread), and several of them completely disagree with you on the nature of that God, at least SOME of you are either lying or hallucinating.
So why not try to prove to me that there IS a God, or else prove that you are NOT lying or deluded? In general, the ball's in the court of the person making the outrageous claim in the first place, not the one asking for evidence.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:If a man I hate has money and I can kill him without being caught then it is not only practical but logical that I kill him.
I guess you're comparing this to the Spock quote, but I don't think it's quite the same thing. Who cares if the man has money? If you can kill him without being caught, then there's one less person around that you hate. This is assuming of course that you don't like feeling hate and that killing this man doesn't have other negative consequences like guilt or harming his family/friends. Kind of an ends justifies the means thing there in your statement, though. Hmmmmm, this does compare to the God argument. Thanks for pointing it out.
quote:You've stepped over the bounds so now I can pull out the fallicies. If you said there are logical reasons WHY people believe then I could say nothing. That you say it is logical to believe is not correct.
You are stating prudential reasons for belief NOT rational reasons. Thus, you are being illogical.
As for your spock example it is NOT LOGICAL. It is only logical if you accept that the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many.
Damn! If Spock isn't logical, then how can I trust anything in Science Fiction? Thank you for the post Svidrigailov! I must learn to be more careful about what I'm saying.
It definitely is PRB(Prudential Reason to Believe). I bow to your superior knowledge of logic. My argument wasn't about a search for truth. My conclusion was that I should believe that God exists, not that God actually exists. I'm confused about the semantics here, specifically the difference between reason and logic. Is logic, according to your definition, always about finding actual truth, and that you can trace each premise in a logical argument back to what actually exists? Why can't subjective truth, if you accept it as a premise, lead to a logical conclusion? (I have problems with the "actual truth" thing because it always leads back to cogito ergo sum for me and there really doesn't seem to be anything you can prove after that because everything is filtered by the senses).
Would my argument have been better if my conclusion was, "One way to improve my life would be to believe in God?" instead of "I should believe in God"?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Ryan,
I'm afraid that, just like the Engineer laughs when someone insists that when you spin a ball around your head on a string, and then let go of the string the ball shoots off in a lateral arc, I'll be laughing at your claim of the existence of God, because I know, through countless experiences, from the awe-inspiring to the mundane, that there truly is no God.
So, next time you look up into the sky and see billowing white, remember that the human mind is limited and often times flawed beyond folly.
Works for me. You must be wrong, then.
--Steve
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
quote:It is foolish, vain and unreasonable for anyone to claim that anything is impossible.
So it’s not impossible that god doesn’t exist right? Any time you make an absolute you make both a positive and negative assertion. First is that what you are asserting is true. This is the positive aspect. It follows, though, that anything that is against this specific “truth” is inherently untrue. The more specific the claim, the large the negative is. “God exists.” Thus the belief that he world began from coincidental causes is false. “God exists and he gave his only begotten son for us, and any who will accept him as their redeemer will be saved.” Thus all religions other than Christianity are wrong. Furthermore any who do not believe in god are wrong.
Do you notice how the scope of the negative increases? Good. I’m glad you do.
I make no claims. Thus all the negatives still exist. If I don’t claim “god exists” then “God does not exist” still remains. So if I make no assertion then I am left with only negatives.
quote: To me, logic is but man's feeble attempt at omniscience. Truth is not relative. If something exists, it exists and no matter how many people disagree, it still exists, whatever that thing is. For example, man's logic once stated that to break the sound barrier was impossible
This is a true statement. “To me, logic is but man’s feeble attempt at omniscience”. Fine to you it is thus, but to the rest of us logic is as stated by Merriam-Webster:
quote:a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning
Logic is not “man’s feeble attempt at omniscience.” Furthermore no one claimed “truth is relative”.
quote: If something exists it exists no matter how many people disagree.
This is also a true statement. Equally true is “If something does not exist it does not exist no matter how many people disagree.” Take it how you will.
quote:A blind man can scientifically and logically prove (in his own mind) that clouds do not exist over and over again
A man can NEVER scientifically and logically prove (in his own mind OR to the rest of the world) that clouds do not exist). It is a logical fallacy to try and prove a negative. Your statement holds no water.
quote:We, as a human race, use our logic to try to explain our reasons for being, almost as if we were the only beings in existence.
Would you prefer we use superstition and mythology?
quote:I'm affraid that, just like the airline pilot laughs when someone insists that there are no clouds, I'll be laughing at this claim, because I know, through countless experiences, from the supernatural to the mundane, that there truly is a God.
Let us apply another analogy shall we? An airline pilot KNOWS an invisible hand holds his plane up. So he flies to a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet and turns of his engine. He KNOWS there is an invisible hand holding him up so he has nothing to worry about, right? Now, either one of two possibilities (generally speaking [must avoid false dilemmas] can occur here. 1) he is a fool and is about to dash himself upon the face of the earth. 2) There really is a hand holding him up.
I’m not saying there is a hand or isn’t a hand, but I’d rather not be flying if these are the kind of people making the decisions.
quote:My conclusion was that I should believe that God exists, not that God actually exists. I'm confused about the semantics here, specifically the difference between reason and logic. Is logic, according to your definition, always about finding actual truth, and that you can trace each premise in a logical argument back to what actually exists? Why can't subjective truth, if you accept it as a premise, lead to a logical conclusion?
Actually you can form a logical conclusion if your premise is flawed. However, it is very likely your conclusion will be flawed. It would, however, be logically sound even if it was completely wrong. In regards to your questions of reason and logic, in this context I’m using reason to mean a support for an argument. I’m not using it as a definition of the 1700s like reason is man’s capacity to think. It could be use in that capacity but for now, I’m merely using to mean a support.
quote:Would my argument have been better if my conclusion was, "One way to improve my life would be to believe in God?" instead of "I should believe in God"?
Actually both of these are inherently different from your first statement. Either would work. You didn’t say “I should believe in god” you said “It is logical to believe in god”. So, reiterating either of these two new states would be perfectly a-ok… super-duper… fine… good… alright… correct…
For the rest of you… let this be definitive. LOGIC IS A TOOL. It supposes nothing and so it can’t be inherently flawed within itself. It is like a mental hammer. You can use it to build a house, you can use it to club someone to death, and you can use it as a paper weight. Logic doesn’t even suppose that logic is correct. It all depends how you use it. So stop complaining about logic being flawed because it can’t prove god. Thomas Aquanius used logic in the pursuit of god and it worked. Not everyone would accept his axiomatic statements, but within the framework of his underlying principles it was used correctly.
*shakes his fist* Let that be a lesson to you.
[ September 27, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Svidrigailov ]
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
I just realized how long that post was... Have fun with that.
Posted by Ryuujin (Member # 5659) on :
quote: First, you assume he's responsible for everything going on.
He is not responsible for everything. Because he gave us free will to choose. but he does know everything that goes on.
quote: Second, you assume he can do something about it. It would be to God's advantage not to let us know what his limitations are.
First he can do something about it. secondly he has no limits.
quote: Third, we like to have someone to blame and hey God is convenient and never seems to get angry when we blame him.
Yeah we like to blame things for our problems. But If you take a look in the Book of Job do you know what happens? A mans Faith is put to the Ultimate test and it is not just to prove to satan that God know Who his people are but it is to show us that someone like Job can lose everything and still have faith and not even Curse God for it.
quote: God Does allow things to happen to us. God Created us to love and be loved. To truly love, we must be free to choose not to love. if God intervened every time we chose not to love, we would not be truely free. He will not violate our freedom, or freedom of another, to protect us to protect us. Of course God is not powerless. He sent Jesus to enter our world and break the cycle of sin and death. Forgiveness is available for those who sin, Sustaining power is available for those who suffer. God is able to turn all Problems, even those brought on by evil choices, to work toward the accomplishment of his purpose. -Study bible foot note
[ September 26, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Ryuujin ]
Posted by Ryuujin (Member # 5659) on :
Svidrigailov on a side note Do you work in Mathmatics?
[ September 26, 2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Ryuujin ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Here's what I previously wrote:
quote:The actual logic? Premise: Actions that benefit me more than they harm me will improve my life. Premise: I want to improve my life. Premise: belief in God(an action) benefits me more than it harms me. Conclusion: I should believe in God. If you accept the premises, then the conclusion follows.
Here's what Svidrigailov said:
quote:Actually both of these are inherently different from your first statement. Either would work. You didn’t say “I should believe in god” you said “It is logical to believe in god”. So, reiterating either of these two new states would be perfectly a-ok… super-duper… fine… good… alright… correct…
Svidrigailov- 2 points. 1) Obviously you can see that I did say "I should believe in God". 2) I never said "It is logical to believe in god”. You will not find it any of my posts, which is puzzling considering how much attention you paid to the way I worded things in previous posts. Just because I said you were right in a previous post doesn't mean I'm not going to be checking the facts in all your subsequent posts! (I'm just teasing you a bit -sadly, it makes me feel better that I can point out that you were wrong) It was a really long post, though, and thank you for taking all that time to respond!
Ryuujin - it is hard to respond to your post because you did not really provide any logic or evidence that refutes my points. All I can say is that I'm glad you have such strong faith in what you believe in - it's admirable.
Posted by Ryuujin (Member # 5659) on :
Thanks Johnny
quote: But I still don't believe in God. I would guess that the main reason for it is that I have never had a personal experience with God, and I think the real believers in him have.
Just a question for you. You said you were an ex catholic have you tried another type of christian church? such as the Christian Missionary Alliance? because it seems to me that you do belive in god and if the main reason you don't belive in god is because you haven't had a personal experience with God. Then the only thing i can say really is Seek and you will find. but when you look and you think you havent found God look agian he is there. and its somthing you have to do like you are looking for somthing that you lost. the only evidence i can provide is the bible. And to those who want to say the bible is not any evidence i have to say. go Read the whole thing and come back and tell me that agian.
Posted by Ryan_Larsen (Member # 5530) on :
My friends, I should have saved you all the trouble and written in my original posts all that I knew you'd say. You see, I was a "Mormon" missionary for two years, and each of your arguments have been used countless times by countless people. I don't know why I even posted to this thread... I knew what people would say before they even said it.
As has been noted, Steve, one cannot prove that something does not exist. Don't flatter yourself so much as to try to use my words against me. Its a sign of desperation and, I'm sure it doesn't truly reflect your intellect. Using original words usuallly shows a bit more sincerity.
I would like you to look through my original post and point out the spot where I said it was "impossible" for there not to be a God. Of course its "possible" for there not to be God, or else all of the "logical" people out in the world who claim he doesn't exsist would be singled out as the most stupid people on the planet. Its the very fact that it is possible that God doesn't exist that gives us our agency. But, just because something is possible doesn't mean that its true. Truth has to be found individually. Just because one claims that something exists, does not mean he claims it impossible that its opposite does not exist. I'm afraid your logic was flawed in that argument.
I'm also afraid that I never made the statement "knowledge is man's feeble attempt at omniscience." I deliberately did not make that statement. I said "logic is man's feeble attempt at omniscience." Please do not imply that I said something that I did not. No matter what the dictionary has to say about a word, its the people who create its meaning. You say that logic doesn't even suppose logic is correct... then why use it? How can a principle that does not agree with itself even stand? I'm just a little confused by that.
quote: Would you prefer we use superstition and mythology?
I would prefer that we find out truth for ourselves, not by jumping to conlcusions because people have "proved" a theory... kind of like that its "impossible" to break the sound barrier, or, if you sail too far into the ocean you'll fall off the earth. Logic, in itself is not inherantly bad, just like money is not inherantly bad... its what one does with it. In fact, if a person were to have all of the facts placed before him, logic would be a great help to him. After all, I'm sure God uses logic... it probably takes a lot of it to organize a planet. I should have made myself more clear... its man's logic that is flawed, not logic itself, and that is because we cannot see the whole picture. Sorry for the confusion about that. I completely agree that logic is but a tool.
What exactly is "knowledge?" Can someone truely "know" something flase exists? I don't think so. That would be called "false knowledge." I realize that we both think that our "knowledge" is the "true knowledge," so its pointless to try to persuade each other whether or not to believe in a God. I never even asked you to. I'm just saying you'd better make very well sure you're right, or you're going to have quite the shock at the white light at the end of the tunnel. My argument is that one must find out for himself. Just remember, I wouldn't suggest basing your life on a negative such as "God doesn't exist," or the antagonistic view of "maybe" because they are virtually the same thing. One is just more lazy than the other.... A fence-sitter has to fall off eventually, and the landing usually hurts.
So, what I'd recommend is asking the Big Man himself... pray. Its funny how many people are affraid to do that. Do it when you're alone if you think you're just talking to yourself. Honestly... how will it hurt?
I wonder how long this post is....
-Ryan
[ September 27, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Ryan_Larsen ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ryan, please read the rest of this thread. I think you'll find that several of us have TRIED to reach the "Big Man" himself, and got no response.
BTW, weren't you the Calvinist? Since when are Mormons Calvinists?
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
quote:My friends, I should have saved you all the trouble and written in my original posts all that I knew you'd say. You see, I was a "Mormon" missionary for two years, and each of your arguments have been used countless times by countless people. I don't know why I even posted to this thread... I knew what people would say before they even said it.
Just wondering, did you answer them as poorly as you’ve been answering us?
quote:As has been noted, Steve, one cannot prove that something does not exist. Don't flatter yourself so much as to try to use my words against me. Its a sign of desperation and, I'm sure it doesn't truly reflect your intellect. Using original words usuallly shows a bit more sincerity.
He was merely showing you how ridiculous and arrogant your statement sounds to us. By the way Steve, I hope you don’t mind me defending you.
quote:Of course its "possible" for there not to be God, or else all of the "logical" people out in the world who claim he doesn't exsist would be singled out as the most stupid people on the planet. Its the very fact that it is possible that God doesn't exist that gives us our agency.
Actually, no. The reason why it would seem that god allows agency is because he created the material world after the consciousness, i.e. soul. Thus the consciousness exists before the material world so it has volition within it.
quote:But, just because something is possible doesn't mean that its true.
Correct. Something that is possible is not necessarily true, but something impossible necessarily is. I never said it was impossible. So this statement simply reiterates a well established fact. Something possible may or may not be true.
quote:Truth has to be found individually.
That’s absolutely correct. All books trying to give truth are false because truth must be found out individually. Glad that we agree.
quote:Just because one claims that something exists, does not mean he claims it impossible that its opposite does not exist. I'm afraid your logic was flawed in that argument.
My logic is not flawed. Explain to me how you can claim “X exists! But it is still possible X doesn’t exist.” When you claim “It is true X exists.” You also claim “It is untrue X does not exist.” Learn more about logic before you go about criticizing other people’s logic.
quote:I'm also afraid that I never made the statement "knowledge is man's feeble attempt at omniscience." I deliberately did not make that statement. I said "logic is man's feeble attempt at omniscience."
The statement was meant to read “logic is not man’s attempt at knowledge.” I have corrected it.
quote:No matter what the dictionary has to say about a word, its the people who create its meaning.
That’s correct. But when people have an established language words have inherent meaning within the context of the language. If we were walking and you were to say “Did you see that large construction site?” It is implied that construction site is a construction site. Whether or not you’ve change the meaning of construction site to mean dog is irrelevant. If you say “look at the construction site” I’m going to look at the construction site not the dog. When you say logic is man’s feeble attempt at omniscience. I’m going to think you’re utterly ridiculous because within the context of the English language it is not. If you did, however, mean it as a philosophical statement… then you are wrong.
quote:I would prefer that we find out truth for ourselves, not by jumping to conclusions because people have "proved" a theory... kind of like that its "impossible" to break the sound barrier, or, if you sail too far into the ocean you'll fall off the earth.
You still haven’t presented an alternate form of epistemology and I’m beginning to question if you even know what you’re talking about.
quote:After all, I'm sure God uses logic
Why are you sure? If you keep making unfounded statements you should expect people to challenge you on them.
quote:What exactly is "knowledge??” Can someone truely "know" something flase exists?
Someone can not know something false exists. Which is why we are so puzzled by your vehement position that god exists.
quote:I'm just saying you'd better make very well sure you're right, or you're going to have quite the shock at the white light at the end of the tunnel.
That white light is caused by a lack of blood the occipital lobe. If I’m ever at this situation I will have a shock. It’s called defibrillation. Oh, wait you’re making some veiled threat that god will be displeased. Well if he/she/it is, it’s his own fault anyway for writing such garbage as he/she/it does. If god wanted me to believe he/she/it should have sent better messengers.
quote:Just remember, I wouldn't suggest basing your life on a negative such as "God doesn't exist," or the antagonistic view of "maybe" because they are virtually the same thing. One is just more lazy than the other....
How utterly patronizing and stupid. There is a GREAT DEAL OF DIFFRENCE BETWEEN AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM. One is not more lazy on the other. One is based on a deeper sense of skepticism and empiricism then the other. Agnostics say you can’t know if god exists or not are pushing a world view of strict scientific method. Atheists generally use the proof that theists arguments/documents are so ridiculous that if this is the best god could do then he/she/it probably doesn’t exist. It isn’t very scientific to be atheist, but I feel it’s much more gratifying.
quote:So, what I'd recommend is asking the Big Man himself... pray. Its funny how many people are affraid to do that. Do it when you're alone if you think you're just talking to yourself. Honestly... how will it hurt?
I always think it’s funny when Christians say this. I’ve prayed to Christ, the Buddha, Kali, Shiva, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, my ancestors, the cosmic Tao, and Allah. I’m terrified to pray any more because the only one whoever seems to answer is Allah, and I’m not disciplined enough to follow Islamic law so I stopped praying to Allah because I was afraid if I got any more proof of his existence I’d have to convert.
Ryuujin:
quote:He is not responsible for everything. Because he gave us free will to choose. but he does know everything that goes on.
First he can do something about it. secondly he has no limits.
Prove it. He is listing hypothetical possibilities on why god does what he does. You’re responding with metaphysical “facts”. It is intresting that you say he has no limits. This statement is illogical. If he has no limits then he is bound to himself. He can not exceed himself, thus he is his own limit. The old Zen koan applies. “Could god ever create a rock so big that he could not move it?” If he can’t, then he is bound by himself. If he can then he is bound by his actions. What if god made a system so complex or so simple that he could not control it? What if this was the universe. Who can say?
quote:Yeah we like to blame things for our problems. But If you take a look in the Book of Job do you know what happens? A mans Faith is put to the Ultimate test and it is not just to prove to satan that God know Who his people are but it is to show us that someone like Job can lose everything and still have faith and not even Curse God for it.
It’s funny that you use the book of Job because it was obviously written by a gentile and it was obviously written as fiction. It is well written, don’t get me wrong. But it hardly proves one should believe in god.
quote:on a side note Do you work in Mathmatics?
I don’t. Why do you ask?
I wish to bring up three more things.
The first, does anyone else find it slightly disconcerting that once you post it says “Sit tight we’re taking you back to: god”?
The second, I would encourage everyone to join me on Parachat to discuss this further. I should be on tell about 6. It’s currently empty so if you talk to me and I don’t answer, just sit tight I’ll be there in a second. I’m probably getting a sandwich or something.
The last thing, I’ve discovered a genius thought and I’m writing a parable. I’ll post it shortly. Wait with bated breath.
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
These seem to get longer and longer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's especially sad is that we're rehashing arguments that came EARLIER on this thread, which none of the newbies here have apparently bothered to read. And the saddest thing about that is that, in the early pages of this thread, I pointed out that this was just a rehash of dozens of other conversations we've had on this topic. Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
That's why I'm writing my parable, to do something new.
I actually read through the rest of the post and yes these are the same things over and over. Did I not, in my first post, say atheists and theists could find no common ground? That they were doomed to repeat the same things over and over again?
The saddest thing is that this is a rehash of previous conversations that rehash previous threads... and yet you're still here. Theological debates are like a sweet posion aren't they? Although you know you should walk away, you just drink more and more.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think I see what Tom's getting at. (((((Tom)))))
Hobbes
[ September 27, 2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
Wow, hobbes. We must have posted within seconds of each other.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I'm wondering why threads aren't grouped together by topic. After they're dormant for a certain period, they should just be filed under a topic like "religion/God". Obviously there's some separation already (Discussions about OSC, and Books, Films, Food and American Culture) and we could group things together even better. The sorting doesn't have to be done by just one person - there could be a commission or committee formed to do it. Then we could have arguments like "See post 3960" and "But 3697 proves 3690 wrong, yet 4015 and 4023 prove my position." Posts would get a lot shorter! And a few people would turn into Hatrack forum lawyers...Tom Davidson would have to be a Hatrack forum judge because he's seen all the threads and posted in half of them. He'd be too liberal for some, though and then you'd have to appoint a religious conservative to the bench to balance things...I'm getting too creative so I better go write something...
Posted by Ryuujin (Member # 5659) on :
quote: Prove it. He is listing hypothetical possibilities on why god does what he does. You’re responding with metaphysical “facts”. It is intresting that you say he has no limits. This statement is illogical. If he has no limits then he is bound to himself. He can not exceed himself, thus he is his own limit. The old Zen koan applies. “Could god ever create a rock so big that he could not move it?” If he can’t, then he is bound by himself. If he can then he is bound by his actions. What if god made a system so complex or so simple that he could not control it? What if this was the universe. Who can say?
One thing that you are not realizing is that god is beyond our understanding. and in answer to your "Old Zen Koan" i cannot exsplain the Nature of god to you because i do not know it. the only proof i can give is my faith and if you do not accept that as proof then i cannot offer any more then love and Prayer.
quote: It’s funny that you use the book of Job because it was obviously written by a gentile and it was obviously written as fiction. It is well written, don’t get me wrong. But it hardly proves one should believe in god.
Whats wrong with it being written by a gentile? I am a gentile my self. Jesus is the saviour to the gentiles.so i see nothing wrong with the fact of him being a gentile. as to the fact that the book is fiction that i dont see anything saying in the bible that it is fiction if it says so anywere please let me know.
[ September 28, 2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Ryuujin ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What's especially sad is that we're rehashing arguments that came EARLIER on this thread, which none of the newbies here have apparently bothered to read. And the saddest thing about that is that, in the early pages of this thread, I pointed out that this was just a rehash of dozens of other conversations we've had on this topic.
On the other hand, the dozens of threads we have had on the subject are themselves merely rehashes of the same arguments that have been given for thousands of years.
I'm not sure that is sad, though. It seems like you can't really come to good conclusions regarding hard philosophical questions like these without revisiting them time and time again. After all, even after all the rehashing of these thoughts, I'd be willing to bet the majority of this forum still misunderstand the reasoning in some way or another (if not everone on the forum!)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"On the other hand, the dozens of threads we have had on the subject are themselves merely rehashes of the same arguments that have been given for thousands of years."
True. On the other hand, you don't see Augustine showing up to put his two cents in anymore, either. Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
Wow, i can't believe this thread is still going, the last post i made was on here in July. Sweet.
Hi all.
Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
I won't get into the religion thing, but: Logic is inherently fallible because we can only base our logic and reason from what we know. (This might have already been said and I apologize) And even our knowledge is fallible to a certain degree.
Ok, fine, religion. Yes I do believe it is a "sweet poison." Belief in God and other supernatural beings, I believe, is a decision that is made by people just like choosing a political point of view. We dont choose our beliefs based on logic or reason, we choose our beliefs based on a mixture of popular beliefs, our parents, peers, and generally speaking, our state of mind.
This topic has beaten to death the relationship between logic and religion.
Most believe in God because they feel the need for a being such as God. They WANT to believe it. Redemption and the after life and pretty persuasive elements.
Personally, if i can digress, I believe religion causes more bad than good, spurs debates such as these which accomplish nothing, and causes many to kill in large numbers in the name of their God. Religion is just another thing which seperates us and makes us different. I'd like to believe in God, but organized religion is just too laughable for me.
Posted by Ryan_Larsen (Member # 5530) on :
Leave for a couple of days and look what happens.
Oh well, I'm not going to continue on this thread. You're correct. I haven't read through everything on it. I'm a rather busy person and I don't have hours to sit in front of the computer. I never meant to insult anyone, and I appologize if I did.
Gotta run to work. Hope everyone is having a marvelous day.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Tom,
You're right. All this stuff has been gone over thousands of times before. But it's so much fun! It's like reading EG for the 27th time, or watching Star Wars. Plus, it's participatory!
Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
quote: Personally, if i can digress, I believe religion causes more bad than good
I agree, Adeimantus. I have a Buddhist friend and a Christian friend. Whenever my friend who was Buddhist would (past tense because she moved away) leave the room or whenever she wasn't with us, my Christian friend would speak horribly about her. This disgusted me and when I eventually confronted my Christian friend about how angry her ignorant remarks made me, she took offense! I told her (as calmly as I could... ) that I thought Christians were supposed to be kind and accepting of others' beliefs, but she said it only counted for Christians. She angers me terribly. My friend who moved away was a kind and loving person - this is how my other friend should have judged her. Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
Wow, thanx to JonnyNotsoBravo. Very rarely will anyone quote me without the words "look what some fool wrote..." preceeding.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I dont really understand how anyone can deny the existence of God, we are here, there is something instead of nothing. Even if you do subscribe to the big bang theory, how did that extremely small concentrated piece of mass come to existence in the first place?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:It's like reading EG for the 27th time, or watching Star Wars. Plus, it's participatory!
Yah, EG doesn't come with e-hugs. ((((Ssywak))))
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I dont really understand how anyone can deny the existence of God, we are here, there is something instead of nothing."
It depends, of course, on how you define "God." If you define God the way most people do -- a sentient, extremely powerful being who cares about the people inhabiting the universe He created -- then the "something instead of nothing" argument is really silly, as it doesn't imply in the least the existence of a sentient creator.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Thanks, Hobbes--I don't think I've ever been e-hugged before...
Tom, et. al.
What if the universe was created when a time traveller from the 37th century accidentally went back to just before the beginning of the universe, and...
Can you prove that it didn't happen?
(sorry--just being silly)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well then they would've travled back in time, before time. Which doesn't reallysit too well with me. And no problem!
Hobbes Posted by Pelbar Spin (Member # 5791) on :
I really don't have time to read this whole post, and I never will. I see that that it is the same old arguments that no one ever wins. You aren't going to convince either side that you are right. I'm not going to say which side I'm on either, but I do have something..."American Gods" by Neil Gaiman puts a neat little spin on it. His idea is that gods were created, not just the idea of gods, but actual beings, by the faith of their followers. The ceremonies and sacrifices of thier believers gave them power and now it's dying. It's a good story line. And if I were you, I would give up on the unpleasant bickering, it's getting nowhere.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow, Pelbar. Did you bonk your head on the doorframe on your way in? Posted by Svidrigailov (Member # 5147) on :
quote: Can you prove that it didn't happen?
When will you people learn? You can't prove a negative.
quote: Even if you do subscribe to the big bang theory, how did that extremely small concentrated piece of mass come to existence in the first place?
You make the assumption that it HAD to come into existance. There is no reason to think that mass-energy has not existed for an infinate amount of time and will continue to exist for an infinate amount of time.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Ahh... see him make a good point. Pretty smart guy, svid, even if he can't spell!
...hem hem... inside joke, anyhoo... There is no logical reason that says that there has to have been a begining of time, so there's no particular reason that I know of to accept it as scripture or be all end all theory. I liken this logic, for example, to the logic of Tom Davidson's idea:
quote: It depends, of course, on how you define "God." If you define God the way most people do -- a sentient, extremely powerful being who cares about the people inhabiting the universe He created -- then the "something instead of nothing" argument is really silly, as it doesn't imply in the least the existence of a sentient creator.
Pelbar said: "...if I were you, I would give up on the unpleasant bickering, it's getting nowhere."
Who's bein' unpleasant(sp, svid?)??? This is what some of us do for fun
Edit: FYI, Tom's original post contained no bold type.
[ October 14, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Um, Earth to Arkady...I was joking.
Posted by Gabriel (Member # 5865) on :
No I don't beleive in God, Heaven, The Devil, or Hell. I've never seen him I've never got the Heavenly feel even after 10 years of going to church. I use to be an all out Penecostal Christian went to church every Sunday and Wednesday...Even went to church camp every summer...NOTHING...Never felt anything...So I gave up I don't go to church anymore and quite frankly the Theory of Evolution is looking pretty good right about now...
Posted by X12 (Member # 5867) on :
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
or the antagonistic view of "maybe" ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
because they are virtually the same thing. One is just more lazy than the other....![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
then you start to accept evolution as the means in which "God" developed man over the years( that is another issue). So you see, we can not be correct in saying that "the answer" is whatever we want to be when "the answer"is an event that took place. Furthermore, to help prove my point, one cannot say Abraham Lincoln assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. because they want it to be so. All one can do is pick which ever theory seems more likely to them; which ever theory has more evidence; which ever theory is closer to the truth. And if one chooses the wrong theory then they are wrong because it is false, therefore they can't be right simply because "they want to be." Thank you.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
This is a point which is little known (or seems to be) outside of strictly Mormon circles, and makes for some very aggravating discussions: the Book of Mormon did NOT come direct from heaven. For some reason the methods of teaching about it and the LDS church in school have rendered this fact almost unknown, and obviously reduces most people's view of its credibility. The Book of Mormon is, very simply, a HISTORY. In fact, it is an abridgement of very extensive histories kept by the societies of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jerodites, although predominantly the Nephites. When it was on the Earth in the posession of Joseph Smith, its credibility as a historic record was confirmed more than once. It is sacred text because these peoples went through many important spiritual experiences, both as individuals and as societies as a whole, and these express universal truths as the bible does. There are many benefits to the knowledge in the Book of Mormon, more than I could relate here, but one of the major ones is that it was translated only ONCE, direct from the original abridgement, which was done by the prophet Mormon. (that's why it's called The Book of Mormon... notbecause we worship a guy named Mormon! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
It's rather frustrating when people use Christ to pretend they have no responsibiity for their future. ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
Okay, so I'm joking. Don't take that too seriously, please, DOG. ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Yes. A Joke. I get it.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
), but I think the point must be addressed.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Yeah, it's one heck of a construct - but if the postulates work, I think the rest of the logic hangs together pretty well. I'm pretty sure of the postulates, myself, but that's individual. Besides, is there really anything that has a simple explanation?![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
. In case you don't know, he was an aetheist who believed he logically came to the conlusion that there must be a god.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I never really looked into Einstein believing in God, I simply assumed from the quotes he keeps making....![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
(((((Tom))))) ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)