I've been very quiet in the theological threads, as I find my opinions on these issues are rather outside of the norm. In my experience, many people feel very threatened by questions about their world-view.
However, this is a very enlightened group. Your knowledge of theology, collectively, is vast. I think I might be ready to explore some questions that I have always thought were interesting. I am often cast in the role of Devil's Advocate (pun intended), so I like to consider all sides of an issue.
Which brings me to my point.
It seems, to me, as though the Universe could exist without the need for a creator. Random chance seems to govern much of it. So, on both sides of the issue: Does the Universe really need a God at all? Why? Why not?
( BoB!)
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: It seems, to me, as though the Universe could exist without the need for a creator.
Like a child could live without a mother and a father?
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
The universe is governed by laws, not chance. Even if the effects of the those laws are unpredictable.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
It all comes back to the beginning. Science dictates that every action requires a cause. It is logical to conclude that God could start the universe. In other words, an act of God could be the inciting incident of the universe.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Creation without a Creator?
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Who created the creator?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Who was the first human being?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
If God is eternal you don't need to have him created.
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
I still say God exists, and finding God is the reason that our universe produces life at all...but I'm still not sure that there can be a beginning to the universe, or an end for that matter.
What if it's just always existed? It could recycle in an infinte loop...there's the big bang, and the universe expands. Eventually the space left in the centre of the ancient explosion is filled with so much anti-matter, that everything starts getting pulled back to the centre. After all matter in the universe meets at that one beginning point, it again explodes in another big bang.
Course that's just all speculation and babble. Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Why can't the universe be eternal? why must the universe have a creator yet the creator just always is and has been?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
"Creation", that is not what I called the Universe. In fact, new theories are in place that postulate that the Universe has always existed.
Using the anology of parents seems a little anthropomorpic.
On the other hand...
An intellegent observer has an effect on quantum events. Perhaps that is what was needed in the first place. In the thread about LDS and the existance of an actual physical being, I thought, why not a being who is not yet born, but will be born in the future, to exist in all times....
As you can see, I entertain many ideas.... Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
There was no first human being. That Adam and Eve story does have meaning, but it's obviously not reality.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: why must the universe have a creator yet the creator just always is and has been?
I don't know the exact specifications of The Creator, Born or Forever, but it appears to me that there is a great and brilliant creative spirit in the Universe.
Life is too complex and symbotic for there not to be.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, my conception of the universe does not require any sort of deity.
All of the arguments for the existence of a deity assume that existence requires creation, and that creation requires a creator. Neither of these assumptions can be proven or even strongly suppourted, particularly in light of how little we know about the "beginning" of our universe.
Belief in god is not is based on faith, not logic. And that's fine.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
what if the human species, as a whole, was like a child itself. When humans, as a species hadnt been around long and was still a baby, it needed lots of correcting and punishing and talking to's from the parent (God), but here of late, now that the human species has been around a while, it's an adult (albeit and irresponsible one). So now the parent doesn't poke his head in as often to make sure we're not sticking our fingers in a light socket or something.
Maybe I like cheese.
do you listen to yourself when you talk?
eh i drift in and out.
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
quote:The universe is governed by laws, not chance. Even if the effects of the those laws are unpredictable.
yes, but this doesn't necessitate the existence of a supreme being. The universe is governed by laws because if it wasn't, everything would be chaotic and we wouldn't exist because the necessary conditions for life wouldn't have presented themselves in a chaotic universe, therefore not allowing people like us to exist and ask these sort of questions.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
(By the way Thor, I feel all warm and squishy that you are posting in my thread.)
And you have some interesting points.
But great complexity can evolve out of randomness.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The universe isn't "governed" at all. Certain things behave in certain ways, which are sometimes predictable.
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
What governs the laws than?
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
The universe is not and has not been eternal, the radiation tells us so.
In all honesty I think it was more of the fact that the universe simply exploded after being packed into one point. Internal variations and pressure building up in that single point would have been enough to cause the explosion without a specific, human-based deity. To think of all the other millions of races of life that are probably out there in the universe, the vast amounts of other cultures and intelligence, and then believe a god in the human image, nature and language is correct one seems incredibly arrogant to me. What always got me was that any proof of god was far too specific to not only a narrow margin of time in extremely small regions of only pur planet, but they were incredibly culturally specific to segregated groups of people who then did an excellent job of teaching others and sometimes forcing their beliefs on others.
Sure, the parent-child analogies are nice, but when you think about it, they are quite ridiculous. We are projecting the primary relationship that exists in our culture onto scientific fact in a more than touchy feely way. It is beyond leaps and bounds in assumption.
[ August 22, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Odouls, good stuff.
10 points for a well placed family guy quote.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think the fact that the universe is going to die with a cold, dark whimper rather than collapsing in on itself suggests that there is no god, or if there is, he isn't a loving god Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
ODouls: I love Family Guy!
I think that believing in a universe without God takes more faith than beliving in one with God. There's more logic and evidence in God's favor.
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
Hey Duragon, it's not like the creation of the universe couldn't recycle itself. Ever heard of the big crunch? (and yeah yeah, I know, it's just a theory)
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
::takes a bow::
The credit for the baby human species thing goes to Berin Kinsman of http://www.unclebear.com Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
quote:There's more logic and evidence in God's favor.
Where'd you pull that one out of? While i don't begrudge anyone their personal beliefs, it is all a matter of faith.
Can you back up your statement at all? with facts?
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
Oh and Duragon, I better point this out before the wrong impression but yeah, I'm not crazy enough to believe that we were created in his image or anything like that. I figure there has to be tons of life out there, and enough intelligent life to make things interesting.
What would make us special over everything else...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
"the plan is working!!!"
Seriously though, there are situations in which it is probably worthwhile to posit "no God" like when you are trying to work on a scientific theory or an engineering problem. If you're doing that and you "fudge" by saying "God did it" then it's no longer a scientific explanation.
In other situations, proposing that there is "no God" could be a "neutral" thing in that people of good conscience and intellectual honesty could disagree on God's influence there and not need to come to blows. Our legal system is one example. Or our Federal Government.
Then there are realms of human existence that seem to require proposing a God. Religion, for example. Thoughts of an afterlife. Sure, you could argue there's "no God" and such things don't exist, but what does it buy you? And you can't prove it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Big Crunch isn't going to happen. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing... i.e., the universe will eventually become to spread out to support life. It will end with a cold, dark whimper.
>> I think that believing in a universe without God takes more faith than beliving in one with God. There's more logic and evidence in God's favor. <<
Really? You think it takes faith to say "I'm not going to believe in god until something happens that causes me to believe in god?"
I have a really hard time with that, and so, I think, would every other agnostic or athiest.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Ryan, just what is that logic and evidence? Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
I agree with twinky, logic is proactive. Until something really comes out of its way to prove a god exists, it isn't there.
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:If you're doing that and you "fudge" by saying "God did it" then it's no longer a scientific explanation.
That's tricky though...maybe God is just the reason for why things happen, not how. Of course there's a scientific explanation for everything.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Even so, even if you bar the "image" thing and just believe in a cosmic god, you would be quite near-alone with that belief. All of the major religions in the world have a god/gods that are almost all depicted as resembling humans, nearly all have human names and human interests, and all of their stories are time and place and culture specific to such narrow attributes that it really makes you wonder at the cosmic potency of such a deity.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
CF: and a theological one.
BoB!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> That's tricky though...maybe God is just the reason for why things happen, not how. <<
What "why?" There's a difference between "reason for" and "purpose in."
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:The Big Crunch isn't going to happen. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing... i.e., the universe will eventually become to spread out to support life. It will end with a cold, dark whimper.
There might not be enough gravity in the centre of our universe to start slowing everything down yet. Maybe the universe is just getting started (relatively speaking).
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Bob, as a I mentioned above, logic is proactive. Who cares if we can't disprove a god? There is no need to disprove god because nothing has come forward to ever have proven its existance in the first place. We don't waste time disproving things that haven't been proven to exist first.
[ August 22, 2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> There might not be enough gravity in the centre of our universe to start slowing everything down yet. Maybe the universe is just getting started (relatively speaking). <<
No, you've misunderstood me. The rate of expansion is increasing. If there were enough mass anywhere in the universe to slow things down, that wouldn't be the case.
Edit:
For example, say the universe was expanding at 100 metres per second last year. This year, it's expanding at 125 m/s. In other words, not only does it keep getting bigger, it keeps getting bigger faster as time goes forward.
[ August 22, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I agree with you about the Big Crunch, twinky, but doesn't the same quantum foam idea temporarily create matter. More space, more foam. I really don't know, and obviously, you are more informed on the subject than I.
Could you elaborate?
Edit: see, you've confused CF (after my post)
[ August 22, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
Errgh, this is tough...couldn't that rate of acceleration eventually lower...eventually. There cannot be an infinte acceleration rate. That doesn't make any damn sense.
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
hey CF, neither does the idea of God. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I don't know about the universe needing a god, but I think it could benefit from getting a good, solid sponge bath.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
CF, it hasn't been doing that. If there was enough mass to do it, it would already be happening.
Now, if more mass were somehow generated from nothing, that might change things, as eslaine pointed out. But I don't know anything about that
Edit:
The rate of acceleration isn't infinite, it's just increasing. I suppose that after infinite time it might become infinite, but life will be impossible in the universe long before that happens
[ August 22, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I wonder....
Is the expansion rate of the Universe limited to the speed of light. It's not actually travelling. Information is not being transmitted. Or is it? Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Bob, as a I mentioned above, logic is proactive. Who cares if we can't disprove a god? There is no need to disprove god because nothing has come forward to ever have proven its existance in the first place. We don't waste time disproving things that haven't been proven to exist first.
That depends on what you will accept as evidence. Doesn't the fact that many civilizations in different places at different times have all worshipped a divine being count as evidence?
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:What "why?" There's a difference between "reason for" and "purpose in."
Okay, I defintely will admit to this though; the reason I think everything is the way it is, the purpose and reason for everything, is a matter of faith for me.
I believe that ultimately, everything leads to the search for God. That's what I think NOW though, I've been refining the why of everything for a while now and I still think I'm probably missing something big. I mean, no way am I going to believe that I'm absolutely right.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure how fast the universe is expanding now, and what the rate of acceleration currently is. I'm curious, though.
Edit:
>> Doesn't the fact that many civilizations in different places at different times have all worshipped a divine being count as evidence? << (Jacare)
No. Evidence is a manifestation of the divine. The human need for explanations is reason enough for many cultures to have religions.
[ August 22, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Jacare, or it could mean that searching for a greater truth or purpose is instrinsic to human nature. It doesn't necessarily prove the existence of that greater truth.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I think that the assumption that everything leads to a search for God is an artifact of the human mindset. We just may be wired that way, to try to see a pattern and logic where there is complexity.
Edit: I see tha Sho'nuff has pretty much the same idea! (Great minds think alike!)
[ August 22, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:hey CF, neither does the idea of God.
I was totally asking for that, wasn't I. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This discussion is going at a rip-roaring pace, but it's good fun Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
I think you're right about that eslain. A lot of people look for meaning where this is none.
Or do we create meaning where there is none... hmmmm. Bah, I don't know...
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: No. Evidence is a manifestation of the divine. The human need for explanations is reason enough for many cultures to have religions.
You mean the evidence recorded in the records of those civilizations?
quote: Jacare, or it could mean that searching for a greater truth or purpose is instrinsic to human nature. It doesn't necessarily prove the existence of that greater truth.
It doesn't prove the existence, but it proves that for a long time a very large number of people have believed it and some have written evidence of it. To say that no evidence exists is to nullify all of these.
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
i guess we're(I'm) talking more about observable evidence then.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
People hallucinate all the time. There are as many different stories as witnesses to a crime.
These are eyewitness accounts, not emperical evidence.
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:The human need for explanations is reason enough for many cultures to have religions.
You're probably right about that. I'm still of the opinion that most, if not all religions, are wrong about the facts of how things began, and how exactly things work.
Still...the reason I appreciate religion is because most of it is a good guide to living life right.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I agree, CF. The idea of many religions seems to have started out as a way of organizing ethics for a particular society.
[ August 22, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Doesn't the fact that many civilizations in different places at different times have all worshipped a divine being count as evidence?"
Many civilizations in different places at different times have also known that the world was flat, that there were lots of interrelated divine beings that all had violent tempers and ADD, that women and children were property, that it was okay to keep slaves, and that reality television is good. How does anyone's opinion, widespread though it may be, make something objectively true?
All you have to go on is a record of someone else's beliefs. Thus you conclude that belief in a deity is a compelling one, but it would be sloppy reasoning to conclude that there must therefore be a deity.
[ August 22, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
i guess we're(I'm) talking more about observable evidence then.
What evidence would you accept? Miraculous healings? Reports of inspiration? Knowledge beyond the possibility of human source?
quote: People hallucinate all the time. There are as many different stories as witnesses to a crime.
These are eyewitness accounts, not emperical evidence.
Which is why we throw all eyewitness accounts out of court, right?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Can science explain magic or beauty?
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
Hmmm, Jacare, do you believe in Christ? (just curious)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We do if the eyewitness account cannot be substantiated. No one has ever been convicted because an eyewitness told the objective truth. They were convicted because a jury, made up of fallible people, believed the eyewitness's story to be true. There is a difference, and every lawyer knows that.
Tell me, if 500 people swore up and down that they saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, does that mean it happened? Or that they all thought it did?
[ August 22, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: All you have to go on is a record of someone else's beliefs. Thus you conclude that belief in a deity is a compelling one, but it would be sloppy reasoning to conclude that there must therefore be a deity.
Perhaps you missed what I was responding to. It was this:
quote: Who cares if we can't disprove a god? There is no need to disprove god because nothing has come forward to ever have proven its existance in the first place. We don't waste time disproving things that haven't been proven to exist first.
I was refuting this idea.
Further, in this list:
quote:Many civilizations in different places at different times have also known that the world was flat, that there were lots of interrelated divine beings that all had violent tempers and ADD, that women and children were property, that it was okay to keep slaves, and that reality television is good.
the only scientifically contradicted point of evidence is the "world is flat" which is a non-starter since educated people in many ancient civilizations (such as Greece, Rome etc) did not believe that such was the case. The rest of your items are cultural. That you list them shows your own cultural bias that the way things are now is the way things should be.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It's true of course, Chris. Other people's eye witness accounts, especially those from thousands of years ago, are not a reason to believe in God. But then again, if 500 people swore up and down the the statue of liberty was gone, don't think it would be worth it to look out your window and check?
Hobbes Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:Can science explain magic or beauty?
Surrrrrrre we can...okay, not magic. Harry Potter throws all of my ideas out of whack. But science can explain beauty, right? At least when it comes to the beauty we find in people.
I saw something on TV a while ago, I think it was a Discovery program called The Human Face...or maybe it was TLC program. Anyway, it had Cleese in it, hahaha...he's so funny.
Has anyone else seen it? I can't remember exactly what was said, but it had something to do with the face lining up right...
[ August 22, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Celtic Flame ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Point on the cultural bias, although in my defense I should point out that I did throw in belief in deities, which is what was being discussed.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: We do if the eyewitness account cannot be substantiated. No one has ever been convicted because an eyewitness told the objective truth. They were convicted because a jury, made up of fallible people, believed the eyewitness's story to be true. There is a difference, and every lawyer knows that.
Tell me, if 500 people swore up and down that they saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, does that mean it happened? Or that they all thought it did?
Ah, but what of eyewitness accounts which we do not know the objective truth behind? Isn't the vast majority of our historical knowledge made up of historical accounts which we cannot corroborate? Archaeology can provide supporting evidence, but it certainly is nearly useless in recounting historical occurrence alone.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Point on the cultural bias, although in my defense I should point out that I did throw in belief in deities, which is what was being discussed.
True enough. However, you also state that belief as if it were obviously, demonstrably false, which of course it isn't.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yah, that was a great program, it was narrated by John Cleese! It said that the more symetrical the face, the more attractive it is.
I never did understand how there could be an evolutionary reason that led us to think scenery was pretty though.
Hobbes Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
quote:What evidence would you accept? Miraculous healings? Reports of inspiration? Knowledge beyond the possibility of human source?
honestly. Yes. God would have to appear before me and say, "Hey, Greg, I exist. Now stop being an idiot!" Or something equally convincing.
If I am to believe something I need to either see it for myself, or be able to reason to that conclusion through logical deduction based on factors that *are* provable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> You mean the evidence recorded in the records of those civilizations? <<
Right, so because lots of other people over the course of history have believed in god and claimed to have witnessed divine miracles -- many of which have been later refuted, as with Tom's point about the exodus -- I'm supposed to believe in god? And in particular, the god of one specific religion?
Anecdotal evidence is at best a reason to give the subject thought*. It is not a proof.
Edit:
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' All courts of law are required to establish is guilt or innocence "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is by no means a proof in the logical sense of the term. ____________________________
*Which I have done, and continue to do.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But then again, if 500 people swore up and down the the statue of liberty was gone, don't think it would be worth it to look out your window and check?
Probably, but I wouldn't rush
God isn't provable, unless he decides to manifest in an undeniable fashion.
But God isn't disprovable at all. His existence and involvement has been pushed back as science progresses and learns more about the first causes of life, but there is absolutely no way to prove that he didn't start the thing rolling. Maybe lightning did cause life on earth. Accidental or thrown? Short of Douglas Adams logic, proving God's nonexistence can't be done.
Which is why I remain apatheistic.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Sho- in my experience it is pretty easy to rationalize almost any experience to fit preconceived notions about how the world works. That blade cuts both ways, as far as this discussion is concerned. Maybe the greatest difference between the religious and the non-religious is what each group will accept as evidence of God.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:Tell me, if 500 people swore up and down that they saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, does that mean it happened? Or that they all thought it did?
So if I see a magical sunset, or I partake in the most wonderful kiss? It's not real unless sceince can prove it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:However, you also state that belief as if it were obviously, demonstrably false, which of course it isn't.
But it is in contrast to the "one deity" theory being discussed, and is equally impossible to prove or disprove. You pays your money, you takes your choice...
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:But then again, if 500 people swore up and down the the statue of liberty was gone, don't think it would be worth it to look out your window and check?
Damn that was clever. Anyways, yeah that whole symmetry thing made a lot of sense. I've heard that Clinton's face is symmetrical. He's a good lookin' guy, maybe that's why he had such an easy time of being a whore.
You're right though, I can't explain how we find beauty in nature.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ressurection? AJ
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote: if 500 people swore up and down the the statue of liberty was gone, don't think it would be worth it to look out your window and check?
I know I would. Maybe that's what we're doing here? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Maybe the greatest difference between the religious and the non-religious is what each group will accept as evidence of God. <<
I don't even need a physical manifestation. I just need to find that faith in god exists somewhere down at the core of my being. I need to feel it, to feel that this is what I've believed all along without knowing it.
I don't feel that, and without faith in god there can be no belief in god.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:So if I see a magical sunset, or I partake in the most wonderful kiss? It's not real unless sceince can prove it?
Define "real" in this instance.
That you saw a sunset or partook of a kiss is easy to prove. That it was a magical sunset or the most wonderful kiss is purely subjective. Others watching the sunset might not be impressed, the person you were kissing might have been spending the time thinking about the last episode of Smallville. It's your subjective interpretation that adds the meaning, which makes it no less real, but not objectively valid.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:So if I see a magical sunset, or I partake in the most wonderful kiss? It's not real unless sceince can prove it?
Yeah, you're right. There's more to life's mysteries than a scientific explanation. At least it feels that way.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Celtic Flame ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> So if I see a magical sunset, or I partake in the most wonderful kiss? It's not real unless sceince can prove it? <<
The magic of dopamine, baby Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have odd contradictory views on god. One view is that if there is a God then God is the universe itself. Or at least what turns random particles into trees, stars and black holes just as something turns noise into clear speech or music. Two, that there is a possibility that God does not exist, but if god doesn't exist than it does not nessasarily mean that life is meaningless. Plus I like to toy with the notion that human beings are godlike in a lot of ways. Weird, isn't it? Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Right, so because lots of other people over the course of history have believed in god and claimed to have witnessed divine miracles -- many of which have been later refuted, as with Tom's point about the exodus -- I'm supposed to believe in god? And in particular, the god of one specific religion?
Which of the divine miracles have been refuted? The Exodus certainly isn't one of them. At any rate, I didn't say that these evidences should compell you to believe. They should certainly be enough to make you wonder though.
quote:Anecdotal evidence is at best a reason to give the subject thought*. It is not a proof.
That is exactly what I am saying. The evidence which exists is sufficient that God may not simply be dismissed out of hand as having no supporting evidence.
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
quote:That is exactly what I am saying. The evidence which exists is sufficient that God may not simply be dismissed out of hand as having no supporting evidence.
i don't think anyone is denying that, or maybe some people are...
But the beginning of this thread contained alot of arguments for the existence of god because of the existence of us and the universe. that it was necessarily created by a creater.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Exactly what evidence, barring eyewitness accounts, are we talking about here?
[ August 22, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:I have odd contradictory views on god. One view is that if there is a God then God is the universe itself. Or at least what turns random particles into trees, stars and black holes just as something turns noise into clear speech or music. Two, that there is a possibility that God does not exist, but if god doesn't exist than it does not nessasarily mean that life is meaningless. Plus I like to toy with the notion that human beings are godlike in a lot of ways. Weird, isn't it?
Wow, that's what I basically think about all this, for the most part.
Synesthesia
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
IMO, NO
Just because we can't explain the existance of the universe doesn't mean that there is no physical explanation, one that does not require devine intervention. I am also of the opinion, as are some others, that some of us need god and therefore created the idea of god to satisfy our needs.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this point, Jacare. The massive body of evidence adds weight to nothing more or less than the fact that most people in the history of the world have believed in a deity.
That adds not a jot of weight towards the theory that there actually is one.
However, I suspect I should recuse myself from this thread, since it matters to me not a bit whether there is or isn't a god, and I run the risk of seriously annoying people I respect who have a strong belief either way. It's happened before.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> That is exactly what I am saying. The evidence which exists is sufficient that God may not simply be dismissed out of hand as having no supporting evidence. <<
Anecdotal evidence is all that exists. There is no proof. Saying that atheism is unjustified because there is anecdotal evidence for god's existence is just silly. As far as I'm concerned, trying to "prove" (even merely "beyond a reasonable doubt") that god exists is also silly.
As to miracles, I've read fairly compelling archaeological arguments against the Exodus, the Ressurrection, and the collapse of the walls of Jericho in particular.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I'm very happy I do not have to live my live by the definitions of others.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Chris, that's exactly why I have stayed out of theological threads in the past. I hope this doesn't become another "culture war".
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Me too, Thor. Me too.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I dunno, Chris, I like the attitude you take in these threads. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Is the expansion rate of the Universe limited to the speed of light. It's not actually travelling. Information is not being transmitted. Or is it?
Eslaine. No, the expansion rate is not limited to c. The latest Big Bang theories use Guth inflation, a theory that explains patterns in the cosmic background radiation. Guth inflation, named after Alan Guth of MIT, is what [edit:is theorized to have] occured when the Universe expanded tremendously in it's earliest moments (fractions of a second) after the initial Big Bang. The Universe expanded far faster than c during this initial Guth inflation. I think (would have to double check) that relativity's c limit is not involved because it is space-time itself expanding, not a light ray embedded in space-time.
As far as God goes, I am with Sho'nuff: without a personal transcendental experience, I cannot believe in an all-powerful creator God. Musty texts from thousands of years ago are not convincing.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Me too, Twink. Me too.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I second twink's sentiment. You have already posted several ideas that I could not have put better myself in this thread. Also you seem to be quicker in responding....
Thanks for being here. Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Hey Morbo! I knew you physical types'd show up eventually! Thanks for the info!
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
So do we agree to end the discussion? I'm okay with that, enough has been said already.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Without a personal transcendental experience, I cannot believe in an all-powerful creator God. Musty texts from thousands of years ago are not convincing. <<
Thanks for putting my views so eloquently.
And thanks for clarifying the expansion stuff too.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
How can we end the discussion when it has less than 100 posts?
Oh, wait. Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Twink, actually that'd be the 100th reply. It already had 100 posts. Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
CF, obviously, the discussion can never be ended. But all of your neat ideas made me think.
I like to think. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thanks.
Agnostics have it easy in these things, though. We can see both viewpoints, so we can't afford to aggravate anybody. They might be right.
However, what we can do is keep both sides "honest," that is, we can demand secular reasoning from theists and atheists alike by challenging their beliefs while respecting their positions. Especially good because I like everyone here and don't wish to lose any friends over anything I've said.
As an apatheists (love that term) I have it even easier, since I don't have an axe to grind.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I also believe that proofs based solely on logic cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God. I have read one interesting theory lately: our sense of justice demands an afterlife, because there is no justice served completely on Earth--ie the good die young, the evil prosper and live to a ripe old age, etc. It's an interesting way to look at it, and has a compelling logic that I like. Syn's viewpoint has some merit, as well. Sometimes I'd agree with some of what Syn said (how's that for commitment.)
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
Sometimes, I have to wonder if I'm not some kind of freak agnostic humanist. Is that even possible??? Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Heh. I thought I had coined the term "apatheist" in the atheism thread back in April only to find that it's pretty common. My cleverness was always a late bloomer.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I lean towards the idea proposed in, of all places, Terry Pratchett's Hogfather, that justice is a necessary social construct. Take all the universe and grind it down to dust, sift through it, and you won't find an atom of Justice.
The justice we have is what we make for ourselves.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The real problem is that the language of religion/faith and the language of logic/science are two different things. People often make the mistaken assumption that because everyone is using "English" in any given discussion, that we should all be able to at least understand each other, if not agree. But that's not possible when the very definitions of words hold different meanings in different contexts.
It's the context that matters and we aren't working inside a shared context when we take opposing views on the existence of a supreme being.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Humanism is like Buddhism. You can be a humanist along with most every other religion, too (unless that specific flavor of religion flatly denies the option). All it takes is a belief that humans should take the credit and the blame for their own actions, accomplishments, and mistakes.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:The justice we have is what we make for ourselves.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh sure, I still believe that a God probably does exist, but its totally bogus to believe that God plays a role in our every day lives (and afterlives) so directly. Justice, emotion, and honour aren't things found inheriently throughout the universe. Living beings have to create them.
Hey, maybe we have to create God too? Or not...it's an idea though.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Celtic Flame ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
As we have seen in recent physical theories, our ideas keep getting revised (no time!). I think our ideas of theology must do so also.
I should hate to think that, just because I am a secular humanist, I should exclude all other thought on the subject of cosmology. I like to stretch that mental framework, test it, see if it will break.
I also should hope that more of the theological giants of this forum would post their remarks as well.
But please: None of this is an attack on any paradigm. It is an abstract discussion.
Thanks all again. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this point, Jacare. The massive body of evidence adds weight to nothing more or less than the fact that most people in the history of the world have believed in a deity.
That adds not a jot of weight towards the theory that there actually is one.
Fair enough.
quote: Anecdotal evidence is all that exists. There is no proof. Saying that atheism is unjustified because there is anecdotal evidence for god's existence is just silly. As far as I'm concerned, trying to "prove" (even merely "beyond a reasonable doubt") that god exists is also silly.
As to miracles, I've read fairly compelling archaeological arguments against the Exodus, the Ressurrection, and the collapse of the walls of Jericho in particular.
Twink- it seems to me that any evidence which is not scientific should not simply be dismissed. There are many things which science simply can't answer, one of those things being purpose. And at any rate, evidence which is scientific is also often dismissed because it disagrees with the person's worldview.
As far as your "scientific" evidence of those disputed historical events- I should very much like to see it. I have no doubt whatever that the vast bulk is nothing but an alternative interpretation of archaelogical evidence bent to suit the author's preconceived notions.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
There is no proof that can't be verified scientifically. That is exactly WHY religion takes on its pathos approach. It goes out of its way to pre-empt the fact that it is irrational and unproveable, and then claims that as a kind of advantage and "good mystic nature." The people who crafted these beliefs were not stupid, and obviusly had some foresight. What better way to avoid the trap of irrationality than to embrace it and spin it as a requirement for belief? This is why things like faith and suspension of disbelief are so shrewdly entwined with the idea of maturity in our society. It takes a "mature" person to believe the unbelievable.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote: I have no doubt whatever that the vast bulk is nothing but an alternative interpretation of archaelogical evidence bent to suit the author's preconceived notions.
Bias is often a problem when it comes to research. You know though, it goes both ways. Bias may also be effecting the "proof" that biblical events actually did happen.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I also toy with humanism. Perhaps it's like clouds and stars. The way people will see shapes in clouds or patterns in stars that get woven into legends. On one level, God could be like that... Something that does exist, but gets woven into some solid pattern, either it gets to the point when people see god in everything, such as the trees and rocks and animals could become deities, or you have these ideas like the earth mother, then you get the concept of an omnipotent diety separated from humanity and nature. I'm more comfortable with the holistic approach to viewing God. I don't hold with scripture and the like, which just makes things very confusing and hard to explain, but it's something I toy with constantly.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
To paraphrase my above post: any belief system that pre-empts its own weaknesses and attempts to spin them as advantages and superior qualities is obviously man made and obviously manipulative.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> it seems to me that any evidence which is not scientific should not simply be dismissed. There are many things which science simply can't answer, one of those things being purpose. <<
But why does there have to be a "purpose?"
There doesn't. There is no need for the universe, or anything in it, to have a "purpose." We can believe that it does, and we might be right or wrong, but it is not necessary.
>> As far as your "scientific" evidence of those disputed historical events- I should very much like to see it. I have no doubt whatever that the vast bulk is nothing but an alternative interpretation of archaelogical evidence bent to suit the author's preconceived notions. <<
You said "scientific" here, not me. My point is that all documented "miracles" are open to these alternative explanations, and as such not a single one of them is usable as a proof, nor all of them together.
My point is that evidence is useless in this discussion. Only what Morbo calls a "personal transcendental experience" can convince me of the existence of god. Those who believe in god have all had such experiences; why should I be any different? Matters of faith must be taken on an individual basis, not a collective one, which is another strike against the usefulness of "evidence."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Duragon - but most people believe in something that can't be objectively proven. And since it also isn't possible to know what happens after your consciousness ceases, the belief in life after death is a compelling one.
Scientific explanations cannot account for everything we know. Chemical composition of the Mona Kisa cannot explain why it affects so many people. A list of the endorphins released or the biological imperatives involved could not accurately describe to you how I feel when I see my wife's hair blowing gently in the breeze.
That's the flip side of what I said to Thor. Emotional or irrational attributions cannot be used as science, but neither should they be discounted entirely.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: There is no proof that can't be verified scientifically
That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. The very nature of humanity means that nearly nothing can be known for sure. Scientists are people with very strong biases which touch every aspect of their work.
quote: It goes out of its way to pre-empt the fact that it is irrational and unproveable, and then claims that as a kind of advantage and "good mystic nature."
Yes, and the Illuminati controls all of the world governments too. Do you honestly believe that religion is a great conspiracy of clever deceivers?
quote: What better way to avoid the trap of irrationality than to embrace it and spin it as a requirement for belief?
Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. Those who don't believe in God certainly don't have anymore extended lease on it than those who do.
quote: Bias is often a problem when it comes to research. You know though, it goes both ways. Bias may also be effecting the "proof" that biblical events actually did happen.
Of course it works both ways. All experiments are filtered through the beliefs of the experimenter. I often read scientific articles and come to the exact opposite conclusion as the author, for example. Some people think that science has somehow precluded the necessity of faith from human existence. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We all operate day by day based on a strong set of assumptions which it is nearly impossible for us to question.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I doubt my own personal experience. I think that it would be foolish to think that I could not be wrong.
And I've yet to hear any convincing argument that demonstrates the logical assumption that there is a God, let alone that a Universe needs one to exist.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Purpose" is lumped in with "justice," as far as I'm concerned. We have the purpose we take on.
As I said in a different post: "The meaning of life? To have fun, learn all you can, raise a happy and healthy family, leave every place you visit and every person you meet a little bit better off then before, and to stand firm against those who would prevent any of those. Oh, and Ralphie's husband's buttocks."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
To restate my point succinctly:
The existence of god is a matter of faith, and cannot be "proven" or "disproven" by logical argument, data, or anecdotal evidence.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: My point is that evidence is useless in this discussion. Only what Morbo calls a "personal transcendental experience" can convince me of the existence of god. Those who believe in god have all had such experiences; why should I be any different? Matters of faith must be taken on an individual basis, not a collective one, which is another strike against the usefulness of "evidence."
It feels like you are arguing with me but I agree with you in nearly everything you've posted. What I am saying is this: evidence from scriptures, anecdotes etc. is exactly as useful as say historical accounts of a given event.
This is where science comes in. Archaeology can confirm that an event occurred, but only history can give us insight into why it happened from the perspective of human motivation. The same may be said of the broader universe- science can tell us about physical processes and can discover laws etc but it can never tell us why those laws exist.
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote: My point is that evidence is useless in this discussion. Only what Morbo calls a "personal transcendental experience" can convince me of the existence of god. Those who believe in god have all had such experiences; why should I be any different?
I don't know about others, but personally, I've never had a personal transcendental experience. I just thought that the existence of a God made sense. I have to admit though, the way *most* religions see God as exisiting doesn't make much sense to me.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Do you honestly believe that religion is a great conspiracy of clever deceivers?
Some believe exactly that, at least about Christianity. Clever deceivers with very good intentions. You're surprised to hear this?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
It might be interesting to note that the Gnosists, an offshoot of Christianity that is all but extinct, thought that the word was what mattered. Not the litereal truth, but the message behind it.
They didn't care if it was true or not, just the spirit of the word itself was important to them.
Edit to correct run-on sentence.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Oh, its not that big of a conspiracy. Most of the people high up in the churches probably believe in the religion. I believe that the religions all started out as shams, as local people would tell stories and draw upon and modify previous theology. What started as benign fire-side fantasy grew into cult followings and then wide-spread religion and belief.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Some believe exactly that, at least about Christianity. Clever deceivers with very good intentions. You're surprised to hear this?
Yes I am. Can anyone actually believe that the founders of every deistic religion were all making everything up?
Edit: apparently Duragon can believe this.
Amazing.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A quote from John Huber, as the derailment of this thread picks up speed:
"My opinion of Christianity is really very much like my opinion of labor unions. They're both really good ideas, and have done a tremendous amount of good. Some people involved in both movements got carried away and did some things they shouldn't have. As the movement gained power, people interested in using that power for their own selfish ends infiltrated, and started to take over. Both movements are still a force for good overall, but nowhere near as much as they could be."
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I find it interesting that, for a bunch of people that think the idea of God is ridiculous, and that's pointless to try to prove that he exists, you all keep TALKING about it. Why are there so many threads that end up being "There is no God" that are dominated by all of you who insist there isn't one? Why even start the thread? I don't believe in walking, talking rocks with tentacles and google eyes. How many threads have I put on this forum pointing that out?
This isn't supposed to be insulting, it's supposed to show you that, even in people who are positive that they are atheists (not to say that you all are), there is an inborn need to find out the truth about God. Or to convince yourself that there isn't one. Okay, so just say it. "There is no God." Go on about your lives. But you won't be able to. Know why? Because there IS one. You'll never be able to let it go. Guys, don't be afraid to give it a CHANCE. I'm not saying get on your knees right not and worship God, I'm just saying, allow yourselves to be open to anything he might say to you. It might make you feel stupid. You may never hear him. But if I'm wrong, I'll go to the grave happy, and then I'll cease to exist. If you're wrong though, you go to hell. I really don't want anyone to go to hell. Just think about it.
Flame away. I'm done anyway.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
But does that matter?
Edit: Well, this post no longer makes sense. I think I'll just leave it for comedy purposes.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
To elaborate: it must have been easy for primitive observant people to control others. They would observe natural recurring phenomina and then "predict" when it would happen again. Now, at this juncture, they have a choice: they can claim THEY are a god, but that wouldn't be a wise choice since the people around them might get jealous or curious and attempt to kill or coerce them. So what they do is claim that god has "chosen" them and reveals things to them and/or grants them power etc. to keep everyone else arround awed/impressed/afraid enough to obey them and even love them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> It feels like you are arguing with me but I agree with you in nearly everything you've posted. <<
We've been agreeing all along, Jacare, just more heatedly than agreement normally is
>> What I am saying is this: evidence from scriptures, anecdotes etc. is exactly as useful as say historical accounts of a given event. <<
Approximately, yes. I'm sure it varies from one time period to the next.
>> This is where science comes in. Archaeology can confirm that an event occurred, but only history can give us insight into why it happened from the perspective of human motivation. <<
Right.
>> The same may be said of the broader universe- science can tell us about physical processes and can discover laws etc but it can never tell us why those laws exist. <<
Yup.
But I don't assume because of that that there is a "why." Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Chris- nice quote. Probably applicable to just about any human organization too. Exchange "Christianity" with "US government" and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Wow, talk about intimidation tactics.
Believe or go to HELL!
Now i know why there's so many Christians in the world.
I spend plenty of time talking about the existence of extra terrestrials, the nature of reality, the nature of time and space, I can't prove any of these things. But I enjoy talking about them. Why can't you just enjoy good logical discussion just for the sake of curiousity?
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
PSI, it isn't pointless. Many people argue against the existance of god because others bring it up, only one person started this topic. Also, many feel it is worthwhile since religion affects the lives of non-believers and we don't really like it when that happens, especially in the negative incarnations (aka: abortion clinic attacks, middle eastern combat zealotry, legislated theology like bans against genetic research and late term abortions, etc.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jacare - certainly. Any group that gains power over others will eventually become filled with those who seek power. I'm sure there are exceptions, but they ain't common.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: But I don't assume because of that that there is a "why."
Sure. It is a legitimate way to view the world.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
[edit: heh...that was to PSI. I should learn to multitask more efficiently.]
[ August 22, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
PSI Teleport, you might want to read the thread over.
You'll find that by and large the atheists, agnostics, apatheists, and theists are pretty open-minded here.
Jacare - Yeah. I'm agnostic about both god and purpose Actually, I just had an interesting thought about agnosticism. I'll post about it in a sec.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
If I generally agree with the forum moderates does that mean that I get to be a moderate too?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Sho'nuff- That wasn't supposed to be threat. It was just something to think about.
Duragon- Please don't confuse all of those things you mention with the existence of God. Blowing up abortion clinics, jihad, etcetera are certainly related to religion, but they are all horrible acts that the believers of each religion did foolishly. If there is one God, than he probably has specific ideas of good and bad, and I'm pretty sure that the God I worship would say they are all evil things led by hate. Not worship of a true God.
added: If late-term abortions and stem-cell research are stopped, then it should be a moral concern, not a religious one. Now days, a religious person cannot stand in a court and argue a religious point without being completely dismissed. That's fine, but what I'm saying is, those things aren't decided by the religious people, just people who think that they're morally wrong.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But if I'm wrong, I'll go to the grave happy, and then I'll cease to exist. If you're wrong though, you go to hell.
I mean no disrespect, but reasoning like this (or like Pascal's Wager) is one of the reasons I prefer agnosticism. Believing in God to better your odds? Of all the excellent reasons to believe in a God, that one seems awfully self-serving to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
PSI...
But you're missing the fundamental problem. If atheists and agnostics remained silent, they lose the battle to live a life free of the influence of religious superstition (edit -- as they would term it). Why? Because they will have it shoved down their throats by the majority who, though rather inconsistent in their beliefs and practices, are pretty well united on the idea that there is a Creator and that His laws supercede our own.
It is not possible, in a community in which the majority are religious, to live a life unaffected by the religious views of the majority.
Even though, in reality, our country's laws are set up to aspire to exactly that -- freedom of religious expression and a bright line between majority religious ideals and the laws and procedures governing the daily lives of our citizens.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A famous agnostic whose name I can't remember (guess he wasn't so famous after all ) once said "I don't know whether or not god exists, because I don't believe it is possible to know."
I'm actually starting to agree with him. And we may not even find out when we die -- for instance, if what happens to us after death is precisely what we believed in during life.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
You know, an atheist friend of mine once said that he would like to spend his afterlife painting his life in some nebulous place-where-afterlife-happens. That's kind of neat. Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Thanks. I could not have been more eloquent.
I enjoy discussing the abstract, PSI Tele. Even if I am compelled to do so by my synapses, it does not mean that there is, indeed, a creator.
And, on the other hand, this questing might indeed be evidence of such a being. We have no way of knowing. And so I am left with the conclusion that there is no conclusion.
Circular argument, I know. Now you can see why I am so crazy! Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
It doesn't matter if we can or cannot know. If we cannot "know" something that hasn't been proven anyway, why bother? I am not going to spend my life trying to prove that there really is no tea cup orbiting the sun.
And Bob, it IS possible to live unaffected by religious belief. The way is to eventually weed out religious belief completely through the desensitization of society via multiculturalism and technological pragmatism. I believe eventually humanity will outgrow the need for religious belief once it feels secure enough that they understand nature to the point where they don't need mystic explanations and emotional safeguards anymore.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I can't speak for the atheists. I come in threads like this for two reasons.
One, I may hear convincing arguments. It's taken me a long time to build up the structure of ethics and personal beliefs I use, and I doubt I'll ever stop refining them.
Two, I can poke people from both sides, which is always fun.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that the effect of a tea cup orbiting the sun would have the same effect as God on your life.
[EDIT: That post was aimed at Duragon C. Mikado, not Chris, hi Chris ]
Hobbes
[ August 22, 2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
No tea cup? That's crazy Hobbes. You're Crazy. Crazy Hobbes.
Edit: Sorry Mikado!
[ August 22, 2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I mean no disrespect, but reasoning like this (or like Pascal's Wager) is one of the reasons I prefer agnosticism. Believing in God to better your odds? Of all the excellent reasons to believe in a God, that one seems awfully self-serving to me.
It's not a reason to belive God, it's a reason to consider that he exists and give him a try.
Bob- This is good reasoning. But if that's a good reason to get rid of religion, then can I request that we get rid of liberal ideals? Or those of feminists? Or anybody who's opinion might affect my lifestyle? Just because I feel like Democrats are wiggling into every nook and cranny of my life, I'm not asking us to get rid of the liberal way of thinking. If you think religion bugs you, that's a better reason to move, not get rid of religion.
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Well Hobbes, if you don't believe in God, then it does.
Granted, that's only specific to you. If as many people believed in a tea cup orbiting the sun as believe in God, then I'm sure it *would* have an affect on me. If only through them.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
My point is that you hopefully you've put more effort in to finding out if God exists than you did if this tea cup exists. Because if you get the first one wrong (either way) it's probably not a good thing, where as if you get the second one mixed up I don't think you'll regret it too much.
Hobbes Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Once you "give god a try" you already have lost. When you begin to entertain irrational beliefs there is no set way for you to evaluate anything or reverse yourself from the illogical black hole you are sucked into. Giving faith a try is ridiculous, because once you really do it without holding back you have destroyed any kind of ethical mental self-discipline you may have.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It doesn't matter if we can or cannot know. If we cannot "know" something that hasn't been proven anyway, why bother? I am not going to spend my life trying to prove that there really is no tea cup orbiting the sun.
And you shouldn't, because that would hardly affect your life. But the existence of God (edit: or not) certainly DOES affect your life in a profound way.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You're confusing "Faith" with "Blind Faith".
Hobbes
[ August 22, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But the existence of God certainly DOES affect your life in a profound way.
Why?
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
quote:it's a reason to consider that he exists and give him a try.
how do you give god a try? seriously. i don't understand the concept of that.
like start going to church and see if you enjoy the experiences and agree with its tenets? I'm sure i would and I do. But that doesn't mean i'll start believing in God.
And this is coming from someone that used to be a religious member of a faith, and while i still agree with what my religion set forth in its ideals, I don't believe a supreme being exists and i'm not willing to devote my time and energy to something that while i may agree with it's ideals I don't believe in at a fundemental level.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The belief in God certainly affects my life, since it affects so much of the population in which I live. But how does the existence (or nonexistence) of God have a bearing on my day to day life?
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Hobbes, I used to think it was worth my time to consider all the various gods and theologies I was presented with. I did this. I disproved each many different ways to at least my own satisfaction, therefore I am convinced that all forms of god that have been presented are not even possible. I take care of the rest of the types of possible gods with the simple response that there has been nothing to indicate they exist.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well it does depend on which God is apparently existing here, but if God is Christian than it will give you a clear set of morals and guidlines to follow as well as more happieness (on average) and hope.
Hobbes Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
What if the tea cup's gravitational field had just enough influence to knock down an asteriod on us? How could this possibly not be important?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm also a semi-atheist. I have so much trouble believing in God because how can I possibly believe in God with all of the horrible crap that happens in the world, children hurt, people dying in meaningless ways, I can't reconsile. Plus, a lot of the basic beliefs of Christianity make me scream which is why I turned to Paganism in the first place. Then I end up toying with the odd idea that perhaps God lies in the connections between people, but certain things like prejudice and war sever these important connections which are the only things that keep the world from not becoming worse than it already is... what do you think of that idea?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Just in case PSI continues to read the thread, I'll address her post properly.
>> Why are there so many threads that end up being "There is no God" that are dominated by all of you who insist there isn't one? Why even start the thread? I don't believe in walking, talking rocks with tentacles and google eyes. How many threads have I put on this forum pointing that out? <<
First, if you'd read the thread you'd see that no one has so much as suggested that there is definitively no god. But nonetheless, the question of god's existence is of considerably more importance and interest than the existence of talking rocks. So it gets discussed more.
>> This isn't supposed to be insulting, it's supposed to show you that, even in people who are positive that they are atheists (not to say that you all are), there is an inborn need to find out the truth about God. <<
Curiosity is a strong human trait. We like having questions answered. The existence of god is a big question. Thus we discuss it. Is it really so terrible?
>> Or to convince yourself that there isn't one. Okay, so just say it. "There is no God." Go on about your lives. But you won't be able to. Know why? Because there IS one. You'll never be able to let it go. <<
That doesn't follow at all. Theists make up some 95% of the population of the world. The reason agnostics, atheists, and apatheists can't let it go is that we are surrounded by religious people in our daily lives. The thought that they might not all be deluded is sure to cross our minds.
>> Guys, don't be afraid to give it a CHANCE. I'm not saying get on your knees right not and worship God, I'm just saying, allow yourselves to be open to anything he might say to you. It might make you feel stupid. You may never hear him. <<
I've done this. I really have. And so has, for example, TomDavidson (another agnostic who has posted to this thread). Don't assume that I dismiss religion out of hand. I've put a great deal of thought and introspection into my views.
>> But if I'm wrong, I'll go to the grave happy, and then I'll cease to exist. If you're wrong though, you go to hell. I really don't want anyone to go to hell. Just think about it. <<
To be honest, I refuse to believe in a god who wouldn't let David Bowles (an atheist, but an upstanding fellow) into heaven. I refuse to believe in a god who would condemn Mahatma Ghandi or my father. If god is like that, I'll take hell. And I mean that in all seriousness. If god is like that, I couldn't be happy in heaven unless god tampered with my mind.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well than that's fine, Duragon, if you've put thought into it and made your desicion than what I said doesn't apply to you.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:To be honest, I refuse to believe in a god who wouldn't let David Bowles (an atheist, but an upstanding fellow) into heaven. I refuse to believe in a god who would condemn Mahatma Ghandi or my father. If god is like that, I'll take hell. And I mean that in all seriousness. If god is like that, I couldn't be happy in heaven unless god tampered with my mind.
Here, here!
Hobbes Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Hobbes, if the christian god really exists then it would also mean there is an evil manipulative and sadistic god waiting for you to die so he can play with you for eternity. I base this statement off this simple argument
The christian god purports to be able to see the future. The christian god claims he loves all of us. The christian god sends some of us to hell.
Therefore, because the christian god knew that some of us would suffer for eternity before he created us, he wanted those people to suffer and thinks it is good/enjoys it. Conlcusion: if christian god exists he is horryifying sadist. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Well than that's fine, Duragon, if you've put thought into it and made your desicion than what I said doesn't apply to you.
Hatrack is self-selecting that way, I think. There are very few people here, I suspect, that hold the religious views they do without a lot of introspection and soul-searching.
This is one of the many reasons I won't discuss religion on any other forum.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
ok, everyone stop, take a deep breath, and slow down a bit.
not because this is getting too heated, but because i can't possibly keep up with the pace at which this thread is expanding. I'd be willing to posture that it's at a faster rate then the expansion of the universe!
Therefore proving the existence of God because God likes it when we talk about him, and has motivated us to discuss this at great lengths.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Not all Christians believe in Hell...
*cough*
[EDIT: And just cuiously, how was that in response to me? ]
Hobbes
[ August 22, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There's another problem with Christianity, I HATE the concept of hell so much. If people already suffer on earth, why do they need to suffer for all eternity just for not believing in God or having a different religion? This idea has ALWAYS bothered me.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Once you "give god a try" you already have lost. When you begin to entertain irrational beliefs there is no set way for you to evaluate anything or reverse yourself from the logic black hole you are sucked into. Giving faith a try is ridiculous, because once you really do it without holding back you have destroyed any kind of ethical mental self-discipline you may have.
So let me get this straight. Let's say you decide to "give God a try" and then discover within yourself that there is no God. You've tried everything you know to prove that he exists, but you've concluded that he just doesn't. Does that mean from that point on that you have no chance of ever looking at anything objectively ever again? You might as well kill yourself rather than go on because there's no point to your life anymore? I'm sure this sounds melodramatic, but that's how you sound to me.
It's seems like most of you are saying that you don't really believe because no one has proven to you that God exists. Sure, there's plenty of eyewitness accounts that are written down, but those people are probably just blinded by their "faith" and so they didn't know what they were talking about. Or maybe they were just liars. Sure, you have friends that say they have personal feelings that they attribute to their faith, but they are just letting their emotions get to them, right? So let's say I hand you a box and say "If you look in the box here, there is proof of a God. All you have to do is open it." How "logical" is it for you to throw the box in the trash? You say you want "proof" that God exists. I'm telling you how to get it. You are running away. And you think you're so "logical".
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Don't worry about DB. He covers his bases
quote: First, if you'd read the thread you'd see that no one has so much as suggested that there is definitively no god. But nonetheless, the question of god's existence is of considerably more importance and interest than the existence of talking rocks. So it gets discussed more.
This is not quite accurate. None of the rational people have said anything quite so silly as "there is definitely no God", but Duragon certainly has. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote: So let me get this straight. Let's say you decide to "give God a try" and then discover within yourself that there is no God. You've tried everything you know to prove that he exists, but you've concluded that he just doesn't. Does that mean from that point on that you have no chance of ever looking at anything objectively ever again? You might as well kill yourself rather than go on because there's no point to your life anymore? I'm sure this sounds melodramatic, but that's how you sound to me.
One has to concede to the fact that some things cannot be explained, only felt, only understood with a whole different set of senses, which is why I cannot rule God out completely. But then some religion gets thrown in the mix and my hackles rise as a lot of the beliefs are contrary to everything I believe...
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
quote:You say you want "proof" that God exists. I'm telling you how to get it. You are running away. And you think you're so "logical".
i don't know if this was just directed at Duragon, but i'm telling you that i *gave* God a try for the majority of my life. Apparently i wasn't trying hard enough because i'm an evil heretic sinner now...
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
LOL Sho 'nuff!
If I haven't already welcomed you to Hatrack, then I've been remiss! Welcome! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
PSI -- please read the post I directed at you before saying that "most of you" believe of say anything in particular. Please. As a personal favour. I really did try to address your post and I don't want that to get lost in the luminiferous ether.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Sho'nuff is a pseudonym. He's actually been here much longer under his real name, Strider.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: First, if you'd read the thread you'd see that no one has so much as suggested that there is definitively no god.
I guess I don't understand what an atheist is. I thought it was someone that doesn't believe in God. Am I wrong? How can you not believe in something unless you're sure it doesn't exist?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You and me both, Greg.
quote: I HATE the concept of hell so much
Become a Mormon. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm an agnostic, thanks.
>> I guess I don't understand what an atheist is. I thought it was someone that doesn't believe in God. Am I wrong? How can you not believe in something unless you're sure it doesn't exist? <<
"I believe that god does not exist."
"I do not believe that god exists."
See how the two statements differ? The first is active disbelief, the second is not.
[ August 22, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote: So let's say I hand you a box and say "If you look in the box here, there is proof of a God. All you have to do is open it." How "logical" is it for you to throw the box in the trash? You say you want "proof" that God exists. I'm telling you how to get it. You are running away. And you think you're so "logical".
I still see no logical construct pointing to the idea that there is a God. Just give belief a chance? That's logical? Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
eslaine, thank you for your kind words. But Twinky's right.
Strider is on vacation sorting his life out.
I'm taking his place till he's ready to return. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:"If you look in the box here, there is proof of a God. All you have to do is open it." How "logical" is it for you to throw the box in the trash? You say you want "proof" that God exists. I'm telling you how to get it. You are running away. And you think you're so "logical".
I think the glaring weakness in this analogy is the absence of a box.
It's more like holding your hands out like you're holding a box and telling someone to open it. Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
He He.
Clueless me. I'm clueless. Clueless eslaine! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
All this talk of boxes has me resisting innuendo with all of my being...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Does this mean that only Athiests can think outside the box?
Hobbes Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
More importantly, does it mean that only theists can handle the box?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
This puts a whole new spin on box scores.
Hobbes Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My posts always turn out this way.
I get freaked out because I really believe that there is a God and a Hell. I really believe God loves us, but that he expects us to respect him. And so I get very scared by everyone saying that they don't believe, or don't want to or whatever. I'm NOT trying to be a stupid jerk although that's where I always end up heading. I get so upset because I actually care about you all, even though I've never met you. There are so many awesome people here, and you're so eclectic. So please, don't hate me because I let my fear for you get in the way of how I speak (or type.) I just don't want to see any of you searching, feeling lost, when I feel like I've found the thing that keeps me from feeling lost. I know that you don't all agree with me and there's nothing I can do about that. I'm going to a different thread so that I can let you guys resume the convo you were having before I came. Sorry that I was harsh and I hope you guys will understand why I freaked out.
(This is where Tom would smack me.)
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Isn't god too big to fit inside the box?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hobbes! Aren't you, like, fourteen years old?!?
(Yes, I know... don't remind me that I'm 22 already )
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
PSI Teleport, I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me why I left the church. I think I remember.
It was not done in haste. It was not done impetuously. It was not done in anger, or in revolt, or to be cool. It was not done so I could get away with things the church wouldn't allow.
It was because I had questions about religion that religion itself could not answer, no matter how many I studied. It was because study of human nature revealed to me how necessary it was for people to have meaning assigned to them, to have hope for celestial justice to account for the material unfairness of the universe, to provide standards of behavior, to offer something to salve the fear of death. It was because I could see no compelling reason to pick one god over any other, and even less to assume there were no gods.
Most of all, it was because I firmly believe in accepting the consequences of your actions. I cannot abide in a religion based on the concept of a scapegoat, an innocent to die for my sins so I can escape the responsibility.
I don't believe in God just in case so I'm covered when I die. Death holds no horrors for me. I don't believe in God so I'll have meaning or morals in my life. I have plenty without him. I don't believe in God so I'll have hope. I have hope enough in myself and my family. I don't believe in God in the hopes that he'll grant me wishes or otherwise change things on my behalf.
But, and this is the part that's going to be hard to understand after all that, I don't look down on anyone who believes in God for any of these reasons. Even less would I look down on someone who believes in God because of their own experiences of life or of immanence. I am not them, I haven't lived their lives, I don't have their motivations or histories, and it would be crass indeed of me to look down on anybody.
Besides, they might be right.
Instead I live the best life I can. If there is a God and he is petty enough to boot me out for being a good person without him, so be it.
(Edited after I posted and then caught up) PSI, no worries. It's amazing that we can talk about this as long as we can without emotions flaring up. All is well.
[ August 22, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
If I'm 14 now, does that mean I can't talk to Ralphie?
*needs an "innocent look" smilie*
Hobbes Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
PSI -- no, Tom would pie you
*pies PSI*
I realize that it's tough to set aside your deeply-held beliefs, particularly because of the implications they hold for those of us who don't share them. I understand if you'd rather just not think about that. It's okay.
Edit: Chris, that post is why you should always post in these threads. You rock, man.
[ August 22, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Boy, that was beautiful, Chris.
Chris<---Professional Writer!
Wow.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*feels the same way as Chris Bridges* I left the religion i was born in because it was like a snake breaking out of its skin. It just grew too tight for me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You realize that if I die and there is a heaven, God is going to hold this thread up and laugh at me Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Just because I feel like Democrats are wiggling into every nook and cranny of my life, I'm not asking us to get rid of the liberal way of thinking. If you think religion bugs you, that's a better reason to move, not get rid of religion.
But you see, PSI, the US Constitution pretty much guarantees that people don't have to live under RELIGIOUS doctrines that they despise. No such guarantees exist to protect anyone against unwanted non-religious ideas.
So, if you don't like the Constitution, maybe it's an argument for you to move, not me...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Chris- How would that be worse than Hell?
Sorry, I'm really going now. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Don't go! Arguments where everyone agrees get old really fast.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*Leaves*.
Actually I am going, but I'll be back when I've gotten my textbooks.
And *applause* for you Chris.
Hobbes Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Chris, that long post on page 4 was great!
EDit to add: PSI, I understand that you think atheists and agnostics and people who don't believe Christ was divine are doomed. And I understand why you want to convince us. Just don't be surprised when you fail. Hey, and maybe you will convert someone.
[ August 22, 2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Chris- How would that be worse than Hell?
That really depends on whether He was laughing at me or with me, I think...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
This will fall hideously out of place because it happened a couple pages ago, but oh well.
Jacare, the idea that "a whole bunch of people say something similar, so the basic intersection of their accounts is at the minimum likely to be true" is hideously fallacious for a number of reasons.
Firstly, every person who has false visions is a useless data point. The existence or nonexistence of that person has absolutely no impact on the existence of a phenomenon, since they never observed the phenomenon.
Secondly, I can come up with a whole bunch of people throughout history who have had revelations of multiple gods. I can also come up with a whole bunch of people throughout history who have had revelations of space aliens seeding planet earth with life. If we're accepting the "so many people experienced it it must be true argument", then either both these types of revelations are correct as well, or there is some limit below which we do not accept such revelations. If there is such a limit, I ask for an empirical test to determine it, and an analysis of why the number of people with monotheistic revelations is above that limit, and the numbers of everyone with contradictory revelations is below.
If you can't provide me with that analysis, then I don't need to attack the reasoning of the argument itself (which is hideously fallacious), as the argument will have been shown to not be useful.
From a purely historical point of view, Christianity and Islam (the only two really big monotheistic religions) were successful because they were in the historically right places at the right time. You may believe that their being there is a testament to God's influence, but that's an personal belief, not a historical fact. The historical fact is that an adaptable system of rituals, psychologically generally healthy belief system, well-founded community building practices, and influence on a few people at thte right time are what led to the spread and success of Christianity and Islam.
It's worth noting that a few of the people influential to the spread of Christianity were not practicing Christians themselves, such as Constantine. This would seem to belie the revelation hypothesis for the spread of Christianity, since presumably someone who had a revelation from God would practice God's law.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
PSI- I promise to "try" God if you promise to try Hinduism.
For it to be a good, honest try, each of us will have to try to believe with all our might in the particular religion. For instance, I have to pray to God and you have to pray to the various Hindu deities. Also, obeying the various religious rules as much as possible (which version of Christianity do you think is correct? Will any work for this purpose? What about the ones that say all the others are wrong (ie, most)?
Consider if you would be willing to try it (particularly the prayer thing). Now do you see how fruitless and even offensive trying to do this to others can be?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you want to try a religion, try Zen. So far I've found it to be the most interesting of all of the religions I've studied.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*cough* You know Fugu, I did that...
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I'm not saying it won't work on anybody. But those who are established in their beliefs . . . rarely.
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Why do most who do believe in god insist that god is a "he"? Do you not allow for god to be a she? or sexless? or all sexes? And does it even need to have human form? or any form?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because anyone as pushy as Jehovah is reputed to be has to be male Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Because I hope my Heavenly Father is a He.
Actually, I have some funky beliefs on that, but it'll have to wait until after dinner.
Hobbes Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I did it.
I was hoping to post this one in this thread because I thought it was fitting:
This is my 666th post!!!! Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Except for LDS most denominations that I know of do not believe God is male. They still use “he” because of the (IMO lame) idea that it is somehow usable as a gender-neutral pronoun.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While I agree with dkw that most denominations believe so, I think most Christians do believe God is male.
I've noticed that, how by far most Christians I meet will in one breath assert that their denomination is the most correct and that they believe what their denomination's beliefs, and in another assert some belief that is not, and often one even contradictory to a belief of the denomination.
There are numerous Christians unlike this as well, but it is a disturbingly common occurrence.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A disturbingly common occurrence which at times makes teaching confirmation classes a experience.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Holy Cow! 217 posts in 5 hours?!? I gotta go read this thread.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sorry dkw.
*waves arms*
*re-consistifies inconsistent Christians*
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Oh, I'm not saying it won't work on anybody. But those who are established in their beliefs . . . rarely.
So you're going to just discount me huh?
Hobbes Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI- I promise to "try" God if you promise to try Hinduism
This is an interesting thing to address. I don't think that asking someone who doesn't seem to believe in anything to just try and believe in something is offensive. However, I wouldn't ask someone who had a specific set of religious beliefs already to switch...if they really believe what they're preaching, then asking them to change would be pointless.
Actually, this leads me to a question for atheists. Duragon was talking about religious beliefs infringing upon his rights as a non-Christian, i.e. outlawing late-term abortion, etc. I'm curious to know this. Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school? This is a serious question, not criticism. As a more immature person, my opinion was basically, "If you don't believe in anything, than what do you care?" But I realize that one trite statement can't sum up all of your feelings. I mean, if you don't have to participate, is it actually going against your rights?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Jacare, by your definition of proof, wouldn't there be just as much proof that Zeus, Poseidon, Thor, et. al. existed?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most atheists I know support the teaching of religious studies in school.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I agree with fugu. Most do support religious studies. Unfortunately, the people who want religion taught in school, want their religion taught and none of the others.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Okay, maybe this was an isolated incident. I was thinking specifically of the man that sued because he didn't want his daughter saying "One nation, Under God." What was his deal?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Imagine if people tried to make your child say: "There is no God" in school and maybe you'll understand.
OK, that came off a little hars, but I don't want to have any of my children forced to say that something or someone exists when I don't think that they/it does (do).
Hobbes Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote: This is an interesting thing to address. I don't think that asking someone who doesn't seem to believe in anything to just try and believe in something is offensive. However, I wouldn't ask someone who had a specific set of religious beliefs already to switch...if they really believe what they're preaching, then asking them to change would be pointless.
I beg to differ PSI. How can an athiest's firm belief that there is not a God, and the Universe is void of such dieties be any less valid than those who have religious beliefs?
You are saying that a certain world-view is invalid because it has no belief (or that's the way it sounds). The athiest would hold a position that your belief might be false, therefore a lie, and might think that lying to themselves would be immoral and wrong.
I think that those without "religious" belief have beliefs that are just as valid, and the question of whether you would try an alternate religion, such as Hinduism, seems to be a perfectly valid question.
Edit to add: Thank you for worrying about us all going to that hot place. It shows you really have respect for us, and care what happens to us.
[ August 22, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I agree on this. Plenty Athiests go through just as much work and hardship to get to their positions as Thiests, and many of them go through more than the typical Thiest I've met. And personally I don't think that their current beliefs will stop them from getting anywhere pleasent. TomD, for example, I predict will make it the Clestial Kingdom a lot easier than I will despite the fact that he's going to have to change his beliefs sometime to do so. Sorry Tom,
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Two things were his deal: one, that it specifies that God exists. Two, that those words were specifically added after the creation of the pledge.
Whether or not the pledge as a whole would be Constitutional with those words, the act adding those words was almost certainly not. Does anyone have even a decent attempt to fit it past "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
<--*Seconds Fugu* That whole thing kind of ticked me off. From the father's side that is.
Hobbes Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Good point fugu, but I'm afraid my little thread has derailed uncontrollably off-subject: Does a Universe Really Need a God.
Fascinating. Kind of like watching a plane crash.
::sits down on the couch::
::grabs for the popcorn and soda::
[ August 22, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
Wow, I just had to chime in about the religion in school thing. And of course to say that i agree with what was said earlier. My problem, however, with things like the pledges "under god" or school prayer, is that its simply a way to ostricize children in an already harsh school environment. I always imagine the buddhist or muslim 7th grader who has to sit out the morning prayer because it disagrees with their view and then has to deal with those kids who think he is different. Even if state-sponsored religion is voluntary, those two children will feel the consequences of not praying to Jesus. Just my two cents though.
Oh and I also wanted to ask you guys this. From a legal standpoint, its clear that one must have a reason to make something illegal not legal. In the same manner, wouldnt it make sense that one would have to PROVE the existence of God before one believes in a higher power? To me, you dont have to disprove Gods existence, you must prove it. Ill even give you an example. If I came to everyone in here and said there are such things as purple goats, everyone would ask me to prove that they exist and nobody would think that they have to disprove that they exist. Cant the same be applied to a God?
Edit: Because spelling is important.
[ August 22, 2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
PSI Teleport asked:
quote: Actually, this leads me to a question for atheists. Duragon was talking about religious beliefs infringing upon his rights as a non-Christian, i.e. outlawing late-term abortion, etc. I'm curious to know this. Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school? This is a serious question, not criticism.
As both a non-christian and an atheist, I have to tell you that the problem I have with religion in elementary school is that it is not taught as philosophical concepts with even handedness given to systems of belief as well as acknowledgement and rational discussion of why possibly there are those who are atheists, but it is delivered to the children by a person in authority and control. Back in the dark ages when I was in school, my first five years were spent in public school where religion was never mentioned as part of the school curriculum so being in the minority was not an issue. Then my parents moved and I went to the local public school in my new city which was predominently catholic. In this school system, the catholic children were allowed to leave the public schools early twice a week to attend catholic training while the rest of us (not more than a dozen children) were left to study "religion" as those teachers saw fit. The rest of the kids were christian, so it wasn't a problem for them, but it really singled me out.
Bottom line, I think that it is a travesty to "teach" religion in public school because it teaches the children who don't come from the belief system that is predominent in the school that they are somehow inferior. It also had the opposite effect on me, as that is where I started questioning my beliefs altogether. Also, you can't be sure that the particular religion that is taught in public school is the one that you want to hear or want your children to hear.
I do think it is legitimate for philosophy to be taught and then many different religious tenets can be examined evenhandedly.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school? <<
I'd have no quarrel with courses in religious studies. In fact, I'd be overjoyed if courses in religous studies and philosophy were offered in secondary schools.
What I don't want to see is the teaching of evolution outlawed in biology classes, for example. Or the Ten Commandments posted in hallways without explanation but other religious documents being disallowed. Or a "religious studies" class that is really just focused on trying to convert students to one specific religion.
In other words, schools should be exempt from evangelism. Period. Children have to decide what they believe for themselves.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Jerry exactly, logic is proactive. Until something is sufficiently proven to exist, disproof is not required.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(Tosses two cents into thread)
I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want about God. I believe in God. I hope there is no hell, but there's no way for me to know. But I can't believe that a God that loves you would ever send you to hell. I think that God expects you to just do the best you can.
(feels as though her opinions are pale...)
I can't fully describe the way I feel. It's hard to explain, and maybe someday something will happen to me to change them, I don't know. Whether this Universe needs a God, I don't even pretend to know. But I know that I believe in God, at least for now, and I don't begrudge anyone their opinions.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Hey, there's two cents in here! Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Why does it irritate atheists to have religion in the school?
Actually, it isn't just athiests - or agnostics, for that matter - who object to religious exercises in public schools. Many believers in God, Christian and otherwise, object to conducting religious exercises in school because it causes frictions and divisions due to differences in beliefs among the different denominations and religious traditions. Those who are in the religious minority in any particular school could easily feel coerced to assent to the majority belief just to keep from being harassed. Not that the staff of the school would necessarily harass them, but kids tend to harass anyone who appears to be different in either appearance or habit and this would hold true for those of different religious practice or lack of it as well. The same could hold true in a school that did not choose to have religious exercises because the majority of students were atheist or agnostic; for the atheist or agnostic to harass those who hold religious beliefs - which is just as likely to happen when the athiests or agnostics are in the majority - would be wrong as well.
Now, the objective instruction of what different religions believe and how they put their beliefs into practice is a very different matter. That absolutely has a place in the public schools, provided that no one way of belief is singled out as correct or incorrect and as long as no one tries to paint the acceptance of religious belief as psychologically or philosophically maladaptive or aberrant. In other words, as long as the teacher does not advocate any one religion as right or wrong or all religions as equally wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Duragon: if you want to say something doesn't exist, disproof certainly is required.
You are free to say there is no evidence that something exists (while that is the case), but without disproof logic says nothing on a subject, not anything negative.
To use a common maxim, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know, I do kinda think there should be religious exercises in public schools. I think we should all worship Ra, the great Sun God, and all the other gods of that Egyption pantheon.
*an attempt to inject humor at 5:30 in the morning*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Now back to seriousness.
PSI: does this mean you don't try to convert members of other faiths to Christianity?
Also, as others of pointed out, atheists and agnostics are typically quite informed about religion. I know that I have put far more thought into religion than most of my religious friends. The typical situation for most people is to grow up in a church, stay in a church, and assume that the church is right. I have my doubts that their religion is due to any divine revelation, particularly as these are also the sort of people that dkw and I commisserated about earlier, who have no idea what the tenets they profess to adhere to are! Also, it would seem remarkably mysterious to me for all these people to be receiving divine revelation that the church they are part of is correct -- given that these people are in many different churches.
Bypassing divine revelation, though, I can see how a person might choose a church based on some rational (as in, related to reason) method. Most people do not engage in that either; they have no idea what their own church believes, much less what people in other churches believe, much less what people in other religions believe!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Bored fugu?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
somewhat, nobody else is awake around here yet. I've been working a schedule where I had to get up early, so my body is attuned to that.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
It's cool. If you notice, I was up, too. No excuse really. Just waking up at 2 am for no reason. Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
fugu13,
This may sound like I'm being humorous, but I'm not:
Assuming for the sake of argument that divine revelation really occurs, how does one tell if one has had such a revelation vs. experiencing any number of powerful psychological or biochemical phenomena?
The tempting answer for a theist is, "Well, obviously, God would make His relevation clear and apparent."
But here's the catch: you won't know what this revelation actually feels like unless you've had one. And how do you know you've had one in the first place?
In other words, it's like this: if you've had a divine revelation, you'll believe you've had a divine revelation. But that's not an if-and-only-if (iff) statement. You can still believe you've had a divine revelation without actually having had one.
So now, take it one step further. If you believe you've had a divine revelation, how do I know if you've actually had one? Just because you believe it's happened doesn't mean that it actually has.
Jeff
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
fugu13, guess what, 35 spirit men whith flame axes exist outside your domicile, they are at my command and will attack unless you yeild this point. Do you care to go through the exacting spiritual rituals to disprove their existance? after all, you have my eyewitness account that they are there! Also, don't worry about seeing or hearing them, they are spirit entities!
If we wasted time trying to disprove everything that people merely claimed existed, science would be too busy to do anything useful. This is not Nietzsche's little play land where mentioning something implies its existance, at least metaphysically.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote:This is not Nietzsche's little play land where mentioning something implies its existance, at least metaphysically.
I am now mentioning something that doesn't exist. Chew on that for a while, Nietzsche.
Jeff
[ August 23, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Jeffrey Getzin ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Duragon: I completely agree that unless there is evidence for something there is little point in considering it. But you have falsely asserted that lack of evidence for God logically means he doesn't exist. Rather, lack of evidence for God logically means absolutely nothing. Logic requires a set of data to operate on, and unless data is there, it makes no pronouncements at all (speaking metaphorically, of course).
Jeffrey, it is a twisted web. Believe you me, I have considered it for some time. I am, however, absolutely certain that there being a large number of people who say they have had divine revelations is in no way evidence for divine revelations. Based on your post, I think you may think something similar, and may merely have misread my post.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
fugu, that is my point EXACTLY, with no data, there is no logic, there is NOTHING. This is why logic is proactive, and why there is no god. I'm glad we agree. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, when there is no data, there is no logic.
For instance, when we did not have any data on black holes, we did not know they were there. Unless you're about to propose a rather radical new physics idea (call it the uber-ultra-strong anthropic priniciple, say), black holes were there even before we had any data on them.
You're somewhat misunderstanding the difference between logic and rhetoric.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Duragon: I completely agree that unless there is evidence for something there is little point in considering it. But you have falsely asserted that lack of evidence for God logically means he doesn't exist. Rather, lack of evidence for God logically means absolutely nothing. Logic requires a set of data to operate on, and unless data is there, it makes no pronouncements at all (speaking metaphorically, of course).
Well, this isn't exactly true: there are some logical statements that make pronouncements whether there exist data or not, e.g., tautologies ("Either God exists or God does not exist").
quote: Jeffrey, it is a twisted web. Believe you me, I have considered it for some time. I am, however, absolutely certain that there being a large number of people who say they have had divine revelations is in no way evidence for divine revelations. Based on your post, I think you may think something similar, and may merely have misread my post.
No, I didn't misread it. I was amplifying it. And yes, I agree with your conclusions.
I was introducing a point for the theists to consider: even if we assume the possibility of a divine revelation, how does one determine if such a revelation has occurred?
Jeff
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Well, this isn't exactly true: there are some logical statements that make pronouncements whether there exist data or not, e.g., tautologies ("Either God exists or God does not exist").
No, Fugu's right, no statment can be based on logic unless there is data upon which to base that logic. Your example is a postulate, not a logical concluesion.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wasn't clear, but by pronouncement I meant conclusion. A (pure) tautology is (luckily!) not a conclusion.
However, even the statement that logic can make no operations without a set of data to operate on is completely true. The set of logical rules is an available data set: that is, (pure) tautologies are logical conclusions about logic! I love logic .
Gotcha on the divine revelation thing, I misread the tone of your post; sorry 'bout that.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: Jerry exactly, logic is proactive. Until something is sufficiently proven to exist, disproof is not required.
When I said what I said, I guess I should have clarified that simply becuase there is no evidence to support the idea of God, that does not necessarily mean he does not exist. I agree with Fugu when he says that simply because we cant prove he exists doesnt mean that he does not. We can say however, from an epistemological view, that it is incorrect and in fact folly to believe in the concept of God without sufficient proof. I would guess that you guys are argueing the difference between inductive and deductive arguments. In that sense then, one does not have to disprove the idea of God, he has to prove it for me to believe it. There may in fact be a God but I cannot find belief in him/her unless the facts support it.
Logic Rules!!
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: No, Fugu's right, no statment can be based on logic unless there is data upon which to base that logic. Your example is a postulate, not a logical concluesion.
Hobbes,
A postulate is a subset (not sure off-hand if it's a proper subset) of a logical statement. A logical statement is any syntactically-correct series of operators and identifiers that evaluates to a truth value.
Note that I didn't say that you can come to a logical conclusion without axioms: only that logic can exist without axioms; it's just not very useful as such.
Jeff
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
quote:I believe eventually humanity will outgrow the need for religious belief once it feels secure enough that they understand nature to the point where they don't need mystic explanations and emotional safeguards anymore.
Duragon, this is something you said on page three, but its been bugging me. Humanity outgrowing religion?? Honestly...that's like saying humanity will outgrow intollerance, hate, and lying. It sounds like you're talking about some kind of impossible Star Trek universe.
Religion is here to stay, in whatever form it takes.
Edit: Because I said mean things...
[ August 23, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Celtic Flame ]
Posted by Celtic Flame (Member # 5556) on :
Hey eslaine!
I have a question referring to the topic title. When you ask, "Does a Universe Really Need a God?", are you asking if the universe needs a God to work at all? Or are you asking if humanity needs a God??
Or I guess you could have meant something else. Anyways, could you explain, pretty please.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Celtic Flame, thanks for asking that...
The original intent of the thread was to pose the question: Does the Universe Really Need a God? It was pretty straightforward. I meant it quite literally.
For instance: The Universe, to me, does not require a God. This does not mean that there is none. That was not my question.
But lots of fun was had, and though it threatened to get serious for a while, cool heads prevailed, and, though derailed onto a question of the actual existance of God rather than the hypothetical question I posed, I thought it had some great moments. It took on a life of it's own.
In some ways, I really like that. Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
eslaine:
quote: The original intent of the thread was to pose the question: Does the Universe Really Need a God? It was pretty straightforward. I meant it quite literally.
For instance: The Universe, to me, does not require a God. This does not mean that there is none. That was not my question.
Some of the replies did respond to your origninal question, eslaine. *But* it seems that most are interested in trying to "prove" that God does or does not exist, or, as in my case, saying that there is no way to prove the existance of God and that is why one must either believe or not. Also, I think the debate as to whether there is or is not a God or Gods is more open ended than the question of whether the universe requires a god to be. Regardless, we'll respond to the topic as we thought it was posited.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
But indeed, the question "Does a Universe Really Need a God?" begs the other question, "Is there such a thing as a god in the first place?" If the answer to the latter question is "no", then the first question's answer is either meaningless, or at best, obvious.
Jeff
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Because it's always a fun question!
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
BoB!)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Thanks.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
]![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
experience.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)