quote: I think the big problem is the arrogant assumption that we aren't already doing that. No one here has said that they are closed minded to the possibility of God revealing himself to us. In fact we have all said that we can think of many ways in which he might, but that it hasn't happened yet. We've expressed disillusionment with the idea that he works the way you seem to think, but that is hardly shutting him out were he to choose to make himself known.
I never once said any of you were not keeping an open mind. I was criticizing your apparent disbelief that it would do any good.
quote: This probably sounds harsh to you. I'm also sure that you have a thousand opinions at your disposal with which you can rationalize my personal experience. The point is, at no time have I told you that you are a fool for believing what you feel was revelation. I do not think that of you. However, can you see, even a little, why "just keep an open mind" might come across as belittling and trite to some of us? As much as you say you don't speak for God, making excuses for him is speaking for him. "He will in His Own Good Time" is making an excuse for him.
I would not presume to offer excuses on behalf of the creator of the universe. Indeed there are a good number of times where the Lord says, "I excuse not myself." But then again that statement was in regards to the commandments he has established. I can see how the thought that God might out of the blue announce his intentions concerning you might be upsetting seeing as how he apparently did not when you felt you needed him to.
quote:Maybe He will in his own good time, but if he does, he will also have to explain "His" answer of 15 years ago.
I have said that exact thing several times in different words. I am glad we are in agreement that its up to God to explain why he deals with an individual in the manner that he does. Read the story of Job, you might find that God simply saying "I was testing you," after allowing so much catastrophe to occur to him and his family would be inadequate to you. But apparently for Job is was good enough and he went on to live a happy life. Assuming the biblical account of what happened is close to being accurate.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming the biblical account of what happened is close to being accurate.
I'd have to swallow many more assumptions before I could begin to swallow this one. It's not even in my top 10.
quote:I never once said any of you were not keeping an open mind.
Perhaps you should dwell more on the implications of your assertions, then. "Keep an open mind" is an admonition to do so. One does not admonish someone to do something without the tacit assumption that they are not already doing that thing.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps you should dwell more on the implications of your assertions, then. "Keep an open mind" is an admonition to do so. One does not admonish someone to do something without the tacit assumption that they are not already doing that thing. [/QB]
Or I was simply adjuring you to do so if you were not. If you already were (I dont recall ever asking you if you were) then the advice obviously does not apply.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: You know, you could be sufficiently ambiguous next time if you use this version:
Keep your mind open!
A.
"We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing"
"Keep your eyes open MC."
"TBH just keeping an open mind is a virtue in of itself and certainly not devoid of rewards."
There were about 1-2 more quotes I could have used but it would have been redundant.
I know sometimes I come across as highhanded but honestly KarlEd I really do empathize with your position. Had I not received an answer when I did I would not have become a 2 year missionary, or more likely I would have gone but come home early. I cannot promise that I would not have come to the same conclusions you had were things to have turned out that way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I think you managed to make yourself clear, defining your position, and it is quite OK with me.
I just want to point out that when you say:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: "We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing" [changed emphasis]
You seem to imply the logical continuation: “Because we do miss something, I know because I found it already.” So it is not only the words you use, it is also the context that matters. Sometimes it is just too easy to “put words in your mouth” …
[/irrelevant comment ]
- - - -
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think I know what you are driving at for "anthropomorphic" but I think it's the wrong word for your question. That word means "suggesting human characteristics for animals or inanimate objects". Are you asking if God has to be recognizeably "human"? Or are you asking "Does God have to have any recognizeably human characteristics?"
I mean “anthropomorphic” as in “human form” as in “a head, two hands, two legs etc”. The other characteristics (intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish etc) are obviously not human (as it is supposed to be a “perfect” being).
A.
PS: If the deity had a brain, I’d be content to know its thoughts. [ inspired by:
quote:Originally uttered by: A. Einstein "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: [QB] BlackBlade, I think you managed to make yourself clear, defining your position, and it is quite OK with me.
I just want to point out that when you say:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: "We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing" [changed emphasis]
You seem to imply the logical continuation: “Because we do miss something, I know because I found it already.” So it is not only the words you use, it is also the context that matters. Sometimes it is just too easy to “put words in your mouth” …
[/irrelevant comment ]
I must confess I did not catch the assumption that there must be something we are missing for that statement to be true.
Thanks for pointing that out to me.
edit: Is it too late to pull a Pelagius and delete the sentence you quoted and then comment as if I had never written it?
Apologies to Pel, I just couldn't resist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: God has given us some pretty clear rules, though. There is the ten commandments. More importantly, though, there are some very clear messages sent through the stories we have about Christ. Love God. Love thy neighbor.
Again, we're talking at cross purposes here. I deny the existence of a God, so these 10 Commandments and messages from Jesus, no matter how right they seem, are not to me "messages from God."
What I'm talking about is some actual manifestation of God.
There are a lot of people who can live fine lives as they are now. God can come and say, "Hey, good job. You might want to call your mom this weekend though."
There are also a lot of people who insist on doing horrible things to one another, often claiming to be doing so becasue God told them. I think it would be great if God actually showed up and said, "No, that's not what I want at all. Now stop killing each other, and stop claiming that you're doing it for my glory."
Look around you. Whatever contradictory and elusive messages God may have sent don't keep most people from doing very bad things.
A parent who sat and watched while his children burned the neighbor's house to the ground and killed the family can't get off by saying, "I told them not to do that last year, so I figured I'll just watch while they did it this time, and see if they learned anything. They can't grow up if I keep telling them what to do."
God shouldn't get off so easily either. I submit that if there is a God, he is neglegent, uncaring, or impotent.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean “anthropomorphic” as in “human form” as in “a head, two hands, two legs etc”.
OK, I still think that's a misuse (or at the very least imprecise use of the term.
In this case, no I don't think God needs to be in "human form". I might think otherwise if we encounter a few more, independently evolved, sentient races who are also in "human form", but even then I'd only drift towards "likely" rather than "necessarily". That said, I expect others to disagree. There is scriptural declaration that can certainly be taken to mean God is a being that looks human (or rather humans are beings who, in physical form, resemble God).
quote:The other characteristics (intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish etc) are obviously not human (as it is supposed to be a “perfect” being).
You've lost me again. I'll agree in theory that these traits are not exclusively "human", but they are certainly characteristics that humans possess and therefore are "human characteristics". Or were you saying that because God is supposed to be perfect, His intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish, etc, are beyond human? (If so, that makes sense, but I got that more from guessing due to context than from actually parsing what you wrote. )
Anyway, bottom line is I make no restrictions whatsoever about the nature of God. For all I know, "God" is a committee of nerdy alien scientists who created our universe as a by-product of energy research and don't even know we are in here. Clearly I can separate the existence of a "Creator God" from any extrapolations that He necessarily has anything else to do with us.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: […]Or were you saying that because God is supposed to be perfect, His intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish, etc, are beyond human? (If so, that makes sense, but I got that more from guessing due to context than from actually parsing what you wrote. )
It is precisely so. I’m quite lucky that you are interested enough in this topic so you make additional effort to parse my badly written posts. I am also glad the context helped this time.
If we are here, I just want to add my answer about the “form” of the eventual deity: I don’t think that if a deity exists, it has to be in “human form”. Actually, I think that the fact that some scriptures are “stipulating” that the deity “created man of its own resemblance” is not an argument for that “particular shape” at all, but a “proof” that in fact it was “man who created (i.e. invented the shape of) the deity of its own resemblance”. Yet I think it is no surprise to be saying this, me being the atheist that I am.
Clarification: it doesn’t mean that I see this as a proof that the deity doesn’t exist, for me it is just a proof that if it exists, its implied “human characteristics” are just a result of the egocentricity of man (and therefore are not real). Again, talking about the shape.
BTW, I truly think that it is a lot more plausible that there is “a committee of nerdy alien scientists who created our universe as a by-product of energy research and don't even know we are in here” than the improbable “human shaped” deity that loves us but chose “not to explicitly interfere, for out own good.”
posted
Hmm, you (all) thought that I’m done asking questions? No way!
Here’s the next one on topic:
Religion is at least (if not mostly) about the message that it is “spreading”. That message is in most religions “moralizing” (i.e. containing “moral rules”), but contains also all sorts of “rules”. Very well. Therefore the question:
Are you “following” the letter of the message or its spirit?
Of course, leaving it at that, it is kind of a trick question, because at some point “the letter” of the message was “interpreted” (e.g. by translation) by others and in most of the cases we do not have the original anymore…
So the question actually concerns your interpretation of the message. Do you “adjust” the (moral) message that is presented to you, “because some circumstances are special, and the rule is too rigid” or do you follow it always as it is, even if it’s not always “comfortable”.
There are so many “rules” out there… From “thou shalt not kill” to “thou shalt not eat meat the day […]”. Pick your favorite (or why not the least favorite) and let’s see what's NEEDED more: the spirit or the letter of the “law”?
[NOTE: that (moral) message is not exclusive to religion, so the atheists should not feel left out ]
quote:[NOTE: that (moral) message is not exclusive to religion, so the atheists should not feel left out ]
Not that I mind being left out, but I don't really see how your question applies to atheists (or the non-religious). From whence comes this "message" if not in a religious context? I mean, unless you appeal to some outside authority for what exactly the "letter" of the law is (i.e. religion), all there is to do is follow the spirit of it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
How about the answer "both?" Any failings to live both the letter and the spirit are my own. Is your assumption that the letter and spirit of the law are at odds? In what way?
Also, you seem to think you've scored a point if intellect is ever used as a way to puzzle out things that are unclear to a person in either the letter or the spirit. Nothing could or should be further from the truth. There's not only room for intellect, there's a need for it and a reliance upon it. As an example, read up on the Wesleyan quadrilateral -- intellect is one of the 4 key ways (for Wesley) of understanding.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:[NOTE: that (moral) message is not exclusive to religion, so the atheists should not feel left out ]
Not that I mind being left out, but I don't really see how your question applies to atheists (or the non-religious). From whence comes this "message" if not in a religious context? I mean, unless you appeal to some outside authority for what exactly the "letter" of the law is (i.e. religion), all there is to do is follow the spirit of it.
KarlEd, maybe you are right. I mean, “religion” (and not “a religion”) is around since the dawn of time of humanity. But my question comes from the fact that I consider that any given religion that was born, was a product of those “moral values” (i.e. "the message")that were necessary for any human society to function properly. So I think that “morality” predates “any religion” and therefore predates “religion”.
The fact that nowadays (virtually) all “morality” is taught through (some) religion does not mean it always was like this… Does it?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Is your assumption that the letter and spirit of the law are at odds? In what way?
No, I don’t assume that at all. Quite rarely that distinction can me made 100% clear.
My question is to see how do you personally see things, I don’t have any intention to judge your personal view in any way. But I’m sure that I’ll be able to learn new things if I see other’s opinions. In the end, all I know is mostly a “sum/synthesis” of other’s opinions.
What if you woke up tomorrow only to find out that an unimaginably more advanced alien race conquered the Earth (before anyone could say or do anything about it). You find out that they were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books [but not all references], all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased. Yet there is no “Thought Police”, they cannot stop or control your inner thoughts. What would you do? Would you “comply” and keep to yourself any religious manifestation? Or will you “fight back”, going as far as being ready to give your life for the right of publicly expressing your religious faith? How much do you NEED religion?
So now, after much debate and some “vacation time”, I’d like to add the “next level” :
What if after a while, the aliens decided to “explain things” to the humans? They say that the ceasing of any outward religious expression rule was introduced because they can assure the humans that there are no “real deities”. They go on to say that they, the aliens, are basically any “deity” that was ever imagined to exist by the humans. Any “holy vision” to be remembered was intentionally induced by them in the past in order to impress the humans and justify (each) faith. But there were different alien factions that weren’t able to agree on the particular form of the “belief plan” to be implemented. The differences were thought to be simple details, because the message of every one of them was basically the same. And those unnecessarily magnified differences, unfortunately, led in time to “holy wars” between the various faiths on Earth. Which had never been intended to occur, but were mistakes that the aliens admit to. So it appears that the humans have evolved beyond the point where moral rules had to be “sent from above” (to be accepted) and every educated individual has the capacity to decide in the good/bad (i.e. moral) balance. Therefore, religion isn’t needed to spread moral values anymore, so it has no reason to be manifested. Thus the “restriction”.
What would you do? Would you ignore them and continue with your current beliefs? Or would you “rebuild” your world view to accommodate this new paradigm? In other words, could you live in a world where there was “a definitive proof” that there is no deity at all? How much do you NEED religion?
Again, this is not only for the theists. The atheists can have different reactions too, from the “Oh well, this life really is all that is” response (therefore admitting the previous shadow of doubt) to the “Ha, I’ve told you so all along!” attitude (the boasting ones).
A.
PS: I’m sure anyone with enough imagination can see various more “next levels” to this one Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Those are the only two reactions atheists can have? Or merely the first two to pop into your mind?
How about "the existence or nonexistence of a deity has never had an impact on the way I lived my life, so thanks for the info but I'll just continue doing what I do."
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Really? Those are the only two reactions atheists can have? Or merely the first two to pop into your mind?
I meant the two reactions as "limits to a range of possible reactions". Sure, there are more extremist ones, but these were the first ones to pop into my mind.
posted
My beliefs are such that proving or disproving is essentially impossible. Aliens or no. I would assume that there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of by the aliens...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I would suggest that genuine, unfakeable records of how, say, the Resurrection was arranged ought at least to cause you to reconsider the outward form of your religion, no?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? I have no problem with the notion that miracles may or may not actually violate the basic laws of the universe. My faith does not depend on miracles. God uses what tools He chooses, and if that were proven to be aliens, so what?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why? I have no problem with the notion that miracles may or may not actually violate the basic laws of the universe. My faith does not depend on miracles. God uses what tools He chooses, and if that were proven to be aliens, so what?
But see, the aliens prove that they are not "tools of some deity". They can show that there are no "broken laws of the universe" involved in any "recorded miracle". Just high technology and impressionable people.
At least this is what my "what if" is trying to say.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why? I have no problem with the notion that miracles may or may not actually violate the basic laws of the universe. My faith does not depend on miracles. God uses what tools He chooses, and if that were proven to be aliens, so what?
What she said. Miracles are nice, but they are certainly not the basis of my faith. At all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Maybe I missed it, but how would the aliens prove this, exactly?
Noemon, we are here on "what if" territory. It never happened and I‘m not saying it will ever happen. But what if they showed that every “miracle” that we (as humans) attribute to some deity, they did it (they even demonstrate, if needed), and they did if for us to believe further in the deity (at that time). We couldn't have managed a direct contact with aliens then, so they used the "deity story". But they were not “commanded” to do so, they did it to guide us. The reason was education. It is done. We have to pass over the “deity” phase.
posted
I think you have to look at it like Wang-mu did in Xenocide...just because it looks like there wasn't a god, or that someone has shown you what looks like irrefutable proof that god never existed, and that everything "godlike" or "miracle-like" that you've ever seen or heard of didn't actually occur or wasn't from a deity, that doesn't mean that the deity doesn't exist. I think what those who believe are trying to say is that just because something looks like proof, doesn't mean it is, and that their faith would hold up through evidence like that.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what you are saying is that evidence is not relevant, and you will believe what you believe, regardless? Why not say so right away?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. But we've been down this road before, and I have no reason to believe you are any more likely to understand my position this time than the last couple times.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I think what those who believe are trying to say is that just because something looks like proof, doesn't mean it is, and that their faith would hold up through evidence like that.
posted
I'd probably ask the aliens to never interact with humanity ever again. Using deception at such a large scale to demonstrate truth is so irresponsible that I'd question the moral worth of anything the aliens had to say. Not to mention the terrible results of their stupid plan.
KOM: We have not even established what evidence the aliens demonstrated. Obviously if we say "The aliens produce undeniable proof that what they are saying is true" we would have to believe, as their proof was "undeniable." Or else conciously ignore the truth, which makes us evil.
I believe Jesus will one day return to earth and when he comes "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess." If I can believe that such a undeniable proof of Christianity exists, I can believe that if it really was all aliens they could prove it in an equally effective manner.
I think most of the religious people here are saying that their faith in God is based on experiences that would take more then "the alien's say so" or "the aliens show us some slide show and even replicate some of the miracles of the scriptures."
In fact most Christians (sorry I can't speak for other religions) are taught the ability to cause miracles to occur will confuse many people in the last days. Not all that is supernatural and therefore miraculous is in fact of God.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So what you are saying is that evidence is not relevant, and you will believe what you believe, regardless? Why not say so right away?
I believe that I have said this - many times on many threads. Doesn't it sound at least a little familiar by now?
Including this one:
quote: My beliefs are such that proving or disproving is essentially impossible.
posted
But how can you possibly believe it, then? How can you justify to yourself believing in something that you have no evidence for, or reason to believe? If you are going to believe things completely without cause, why not believe that everything is pink, or that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, or that Catholicism is the work of the Devil? If evidence is not relevant, how can you possibly choose to believe one thing over another?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what if they showed that every “miracle” that we (as humans) attribute to some deity, they did it (they even demonstrate, if needed), and they did if for us to believe further in the deity (at that time).
Then they are going to get an Arizona of an asskicking from me for all the miracles they declined to perform. Only God's higher wisdom and purpose gets him off the hook for me. If the Aliens have a genuine higher purpose and wisdom, in what way are they not God? Since I believe that when God does manifest to mankind, he's basically going to have to tell a lot of people "Depart from me, I never knew you." The Aliens saying they are not God will just mean I'm one of those.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How can you justify to yourself believing in something that you have no evidence for, or reason to believe? [emphasis added]
King of Men, please try not to jump to conclusions. I’m sure everybody has reasons to believe what they believe. What you are saying gets to be quite offensive.
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I think you have to look at it like Wang-mu did in Xenocide...just because it looks like there wasn't a god, or that someone has shown you what looks like irrefutable proof that god never existed, and that everything "godlike" or "miracle-like" that you've ever seen or heard of didn't actually occur or wasn't from a deity, that doesn't mean that the deity doesn't exist. I think what those who believe are trying to say is that just because something looks like proof, doesn't mean it is, and that their faith would hold up through evidence like that.
Hmm, I saw Wang-mu as an unfortunate victim of a flawed education system. She believed in those gods that did some specific things. To have someone tell you "no, it wasn't the gods that did it, it was us" and still believe in the same gods is to me a sign of a wishful thinking. If on the other hand you believe in another type of gods, then why? Were you deluding yourself before? Why are you sure you're not deluding yourself now? What if the new reasons to believe get disproved and so on and so forth. You can always pile up more reasons, but don't you see how that looks like taking the easy way out? "I believe because I believe, no reasons needed" will make no difference between the Christian God, Allah, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.
Of course this is not real now. We haven't disproved anything (or almost anything?) and nobody came to us to tell us that we were lied to. But what if?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But how can you possibly believe it, then? How can you justify to yourself believing in something that you have no evidence for, or reason to believe? If you are going to believe things completely without cause, why not believe that everything is pink, or that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, or that Catholicism is the work of the Devil? If evidence is not relevant, how can you possibly choose to believe one thing over another?
Because it's faith. Because I choose to. I could choose to believe in those other things, but that would be silly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes. That's just what I'm saying. Believing as you do is silly. What is the difference between the things I mentioned and what you believe?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a religious person and I don't find KOM's post offensive. He's honestly just baffled and just tends to be more confrontational about it than most. From the outside, without any faith at all, religion must look like insanity. Believers can be scary.
For example, think of the reactions to Jesus Camp. Even many religious people are turned off by their extreme beliefs. To a hard-core aethist, every major religion must look like a cult, just supersized.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
gah! Bao we don't need your empathy and understanding here! Burn the unbeliever!
Still waiting on what sort of proof the aliens are offering, or are we to just assumed its "undeniable?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: To have someone tell you "no, it wasn't the gods that did it, it was us" and still believe in the same gods is to me a sign of a wishful thinking. If on the other hand you believe in another type of gods, then why? Were you deluding yourself before? Why are you sure you're not deluding yourself now? What if the new reasons to believe get disproved and so on and so forth. You can always pile up more reasons, but don't you see how that looks like taking the easy way out? "I believe because I believe, no reasons needed" will make no difference between the Christian God, Allah, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.
Of course this is not real now. We haven't disproved anything (or almost anything?) and nobody came to us to tell us that we were lied to. But what if?
I'm having a hard-time actually thinking of a way that proof could be incontestable.
Go back in time 1000 years with a television. Using The 10 Commandments movie, show the world that the events depicted in Exodus actually did come to pass, and you are actually God. Your proof may seem to be overwhelming, when in fact it's just a difference in technological capabilities and understanding.
Any race capable of doing what they claimed to do would be able to also pull off an equally big scam.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. What if the same things is in place on other planets as well, at different degrees? I'm thinking of a Stargate like world, in which God/gods are actually just aliens and still around. They're just not that concerned with us anymore as they have other planets to "guide".
You could always make the more complicated assumption that these false gods have copied the true God. But is that really needed when the simple explanation would be they are telling the truth? After all, we constantly hear about how we can't understand God's plan. What if the aliens' plan required playing God without telling us at that moment?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Ouch. That's kind of the problem though, right? If there's no reason that you can share with us to support your belief, what makes one right and others wrong? Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]![[Confused]](confused.gif)
