quote:If we didn't fall into that trap, we wouldn't be having conversations about aliens proving or disproving God.
See, this is what I can't quite get my head around.
If a group of aliens showed up and demonstrably and inescapably proved -- through some method -- that they had created this world, or even this universe, and they had overseen all of human evolution, and they had created all the religions of the Earth, I honestly don't understand what's left for your "infinite" God at that point. He becomes just another attribute of the universe, as useful as the word "big."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rest of infinity. Who created the aliens?
And we're still falling into the "entity" trap. "God" for me is just an entity but also a force. That creative force is part of "God".
And of course you can't get your head around it. By definition, we can't get our head around it. We just have to remember that the parts we can get our head around are not the whole.
posted
I'm having real difficulty seeing the utility of a God that cannot, by definition, be experienced, and in fact "officially" retreats from any experience lest it be limiting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being an emotional adult, you have perhaps forgotten how nice it is to have a security blanket.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm having real difficulty seeing the utility of a God that cannot, by definition, be experienced, and in fact "officially" retreats from any experience lest it be limiting.
Cannot be completely experienced. Where did I give the "officially retreats" idea?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we didn't fall into that trap, we wouldn't be having conversations about aliens proving or disproving God.
See, this is what I can't quite get my head around.
If a group of aliens showed up and demonstrably and inescapably proved -- through some method -- that they had created this world, or even this universe, and they had overseen all of human evolution, and they had created all the religions of the Earth, I honestly don't understand what's left for your "infinite" God at that point. He becomes just another attribute of the universe, as useful as the word "big."
I’m going to comment on this, but I have no intentions to take sides or to “judge” what each one thinks.
I find it interesting that once you believe in an “infinite deity/entity” (as I understand kmbboots does) you can “overthrown all reason” with it. And that is because reason has limits. Let me explain: I’m referring still to the alien scenario where they come with the claim that they have “started” religion on Earth. But,
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who created the aliens?
And we're still falling into the "entity" trap. "God" for me is just an entity but also a force. That creative force is part of "God".
Well they might come with a reasonable/reasoned (for them!) explanation about the apparition of live biological molecules capable to feed and reproduce themselves, and then, by an extraordinarily complex (but fully documented) chain of modifications, they have grown into the present form. [Yes, basically they talk about some sort of evolution.]
At that point, someone that believes in an infinite deity (even if that belief really was induced by a religious system artificially created for other purposes) might argue further that the deity created the conditions for the live molecules to appear. While the rational analysis has reached its limits. Who is to say if there was intention/purpose in that apparition, or that it was simply an accident? The infinite deity argument will win by itself (because those thinking like that have it as a postulate).
posted
Well I agree with you there. It's a rare believer indeed who will go so far as to admit it, though.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No, you are not wrong. But it doesn't go far enough.
The only way to judge whether there is intention/purpose is to decide.
What if we (or the aliens) duplicate (many, many times) the initial conditions of the apparition of first living organisms and find that the "apparition of life" has a 17.32% probability of occurring, on any planet that reaches a certain chemical composition? Would that be conclusive on the "accident" side?
Why does that chemical combination have a chance at life? Why are there chemicals? Why do they combine? Why are the "rules" that govern the universe what they are at all?
It's like a three-year-old asking questions. Eventually you get to "because God says so".
But this isn't the point. Explaining the origins of the universe is (or at least in my opinion should not be) the most important thing on the agenda of those people who believe in God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not so rare. I've been "admitting" it here since I started on this forum.
None of this is to say that what I observe and how I reason doesn't support my beliefs.
I understand what you are saying, but you'll have to do better than that to support "not so rare". You, my dear, and I say this with the utmost respect and friendship, are not one to be held up as evidence of the un-extraordinary.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Explaining the origins of the universe is (or at least in my opinion should not be) the most important thing on the agenda of those people who believe in God.
What's your opinion about those people that don't?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why does that chemical combination have a chance at life? Why are there chemicals? Why do they combine? Why are the "rules" that govern the universe what they are at all?
From where I'm sitting, the obvious answer is the weak anthropic principle: if the "rules" that describe the universe were not what they are, we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Karl, you darling, I will have to think about it carefully, but I think you made my day.
A, I should have phrased that better. The "how" of the origins of the universe is not really (in my opinion) a very good religious question. It is a great question for cosmologists (for example).
twinky, or something else could be. Life as we know it is only life "as we know it."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A, I should have phrased that better. The "how" of the origins of the universe is not really (in my opinion) a very good religious question. It is a great question for cosmologists (for example).
Fair enough. I’ll try to come up with better questions.
For example (open question): What would you do if a deity that you don’t currently believe in would appear and try to prove its existence? Would you “convert” to it, or would you see it as an evil plan (of some evil entity) to make you lose your present true faith? (Not that those are the only two alternatives!) [Atheist/Agnostic version: The same without the part with the evil plan.]
posted
You're asking me as an atheist/agnostic what would I do if someone (with presumably impressive powers) appeared claiming to be a deity and that I should worship him/her/it? Well, that would entirely depend on what such worship entailed. Or perhaps if you don't like the word "worship", would I obey their commandments? Again, that depends on what those commandments are.
[Just Great! You ask about accepting a self-proclaimed 'god' and I respond with an atheist's POV and wouldn't you just know this is post number 666 on this thread. ]
posted
Ok, in order to give some examples, let’s say it is one of the deities that can claim they had already left written instructions for the Humans (like the Bible/Qur’an/etc). Would you accept any* of the “currently known” deities?
*except the one you already believe in – for the theists
[Just Great! You ask about accepting a self-proclaimed 'god' and I respond with an atheist's POV and wouldn't you just know this is post number 666 on this thread. ]
Well, I wouldn’t worry about it. Technically, if there was at least a person to delete their post (in the first 13 pages) in this thread, or that will do so in the future, then this won’t be the case anymore.
posted
I'm really not trying to be stubborn, just precise. I don't think there are any "currently known" deities. Ask any dozen Christians about the true nature of God and exactly what are hard/fast "commandments" and which are outdated "suggestions" and you'll get a dozen different answers. For instance, it's pretty clear that "The Bible Says" a woman should not cut her hair. Is this a commandment the newly returned "Christian God" is going to try to enforce, or was it just Paul blowing smoke? Is the "Jewish God" going to re-institute animal sacrifices? Would the "Muslim God" start executing non-Muslim infidels? Or is that just an overly militant interpretation of The Koran? See what I'm getting at?
What you've asked is a highly personal question dependent entirely on the specific God the person believes in, which may or may not (and probably doesn't exactly) conform to what an "official" detailed description of each partisan God would be. In fact, if "The Muslim God" were to appear today, I can almost guarantee that large sects of Muslims would reject Him as an imposter if he didn't come to wipe out the infidels. Many Christians believe that is precisely why the Jews rejected Christ who theoretically was their God incarnate.
So what you're basically asking is how flexible is one's definition of God. I.E. how far removed from one's personal concept of God could a manifest "God" be before an individual rejects him as an imposter. Right?
If that's right, then my answer is "I have no rigid personal concept of God, so I'll take any comers on their own terms and judge them accordingly."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I wouldn’t worry about it. Technically, if there was at least a person to delete their post (in the first 13 pages) in this thread, or that will do so in the future, then this won’t be the case anymore.
A.
I wonder if the real Anti-Christ's position is so fragile. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: So what you're basically asking is how flexible is one's definition of God. I.E. how far removed from one's personal concept of God could a manifest "God" be before an individual rejects him as an imposter. Right?
That’s one valid interpretation of it.
Here are some other interpretations that I can think of:
a) Can a deity really incarnate, according to the “present definitions”? b) Is true faith inherently incompatible with conversion? c) Would people accept they are “wrong” were they presented with that kind of proof? d) Is “what you see” stronger than “what you believe”? etc.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: c) Would people accept they are “wrong” were they presented with that kind of proof?
The scenaroios you have presented are not proof. They are not even particularly relevant.
Wait, I hope you don’t think that I consider my scenarios as “proof” of anything. They are “what if” questions and I don’t claim that they are more than a product of my imagination. I’m not talking about “the proof”, but “the kind of proof”…
And if my scenarios are not relevant, could you give us an example that you consider relevant for the question “How much do you NEED religion?”. No pressure, I’m just curious.
posted
I don't - I was just responding to the question as written. If your scenarios actually happened they would not be proof of anything, nor would they be relevant to how or what I believe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, thanks for the clarification. My question for you still stands though: Is there anything that might (or not) happen, to be relevant for your faith (i.e. how and what you believe)? Is there anything (as improbable as that might be to occur) that can make you doubt?
I hope you (collective you) don't feel attacked/offended by my continuous chain of questions/scenarios in this thread. They are not trick questions, they don’t want to prove anything in particular, they simply come from my curiosity.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But this isn't the point. Explaining the origins of the universe is (or at least in my opinion should not be) the most important thing on the agenda of those people who believe in God.
I think this is a very good point, and one of the reasons that facts or proof of the existence of God or of what God may or may not have done just don't matter to a lot of religious people.
If a person wants a higher authority to call to for support, or to tell them who to kill, or make their mistakes OK, or love them when nobody else will, they're going to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
Besides, all you have to do is get really metaphysical, and arguments don't even make sense any more. How can you disprove that than which nothing greater can be conceived? The idea exists, and that's enough for a lot of people.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If a person wants a higher authority to call to for support, or to tell them who to kill, or make their mistakes OK, or love them when nobody else will, they're going to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
And if someone doesn't want to believe that there is anyone with the right to tell them what they ought to be doing with their life, they will refuse to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The simple conclusion would be that, in the end it is a (personal) choice. But, that choice is greatly influenced by education, especially at early age. So now the question arises: Who has the authority to decide what kind of education is to be given to the others?
quote:And if someone doesn't want to believe that there is anyone with the right to tell them what they ought to be doing with their life, they will refuse to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
In general, though, I think this is less true. It's easier to demonstrate the existence of something than its nonexistence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And if someone doesn't want to believe that there is anyone with the right to tell them what they ought to be doing with their life, they will refuse to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
I don't think that follows in the same way. How do you prove to someone that God doesn't exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by faith.
On the other hand, if God were to manifest Itself to a person in a real, meaningful way, it would be nearly impossible for any rational person to deny it, short of claiming hallucinations, mental instability, or another equally improbable reason such as extra terrestrial aliens.
If God performed a miracle for me, it would be impossible for me to reasonably disbelieve.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you prove to someone that God doesn't exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by faith.
How do you prove to someone that God does exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief.
quote:If God performed a miracle for me, it would be impossible for me to reasonably disbelieve.
He has. And you do.
I know y'all believe that disbelief is the more rational choice, but that is your belief. It is every bit a matter of choice and faith as my belief is.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief.
This may be accurate. But it is not the same thing as the falsehood, which is that all evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief. If God provided appropriate evidence, disbelief would be impossible; it is only the continued inappropriateness of this evidence that permits disbelief.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evidence that cannot be dismissed violates free will. It is coercion, not choice.
And we've danced this dance before. I know all the steps. And so do you. Shall we just consider this another go-round and stop here?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: How do you prove to someone that God does exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief.
It would be irrational to disbelieve reasonable evidence. It is not irrational to disbelieve based on a lack of any clear evidence.
quote:If God performed a miracle for me, it would be impossible for me to reasonably disbelieve.
He has. And you do.
You and I are operating on a different definition of miracle. I can only assume that you mean this miracle I should believe in to be something completely normal, like being alive or seeing a sunset, which are not miracles in my book, as I see no reason to believe a supernatural power against natural laws has created these things for the purpose of showing me His glory.
A miracle, in my book, has to be something that cannot reasonably be explained away as a natural occurrence. Should my dead grandmother come floating down from heaven on a golden beam of light and live again, that would certainly be a miracle, and one which would make me believe.
quote: I know y'all believe that disbelief is the more rational choice, but that is your belief. It is every bit a matter of choice and faith as my belief is.
Again, you're playing with words. Calling the belief that something does not exist when there is no obvious evidence of it "faith" seems like such a stretch of the word that it ceases to have any real meaning.
By that same stretch, I have faith that I will die if I do not eat, I have faith that if I jump in the air I will come down, and I have faith that these words I type are actually English, and not unintelligible random marks.
Why cheapen the meaning of the word in order to try and make a point? Certainly the faith that a religious person has is nothing like the faith that you claim for an atheist.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In general, though, I think this is less true. It's easier to demonstrate the existence of something than its nonexistence.
That depends on what we are talking about. Logical concepts? Physical things? Metaphysical things/concepts?
There is a limit to logical/formal systems that Gödel discovered and proved. Physical things are proved to exist based on our senses (eventually enhanced by built instruments). What about the metaphysical? Is there any way other than “faith”?
The question is now, which of the three is more “general”.
quote:short of claiming hallucinations, mental instability, or another equally improbable reason such as extra terrestrial aliens.
I dislike the lumping of all three of these into "equally improbable". Personally, I think that "hallucinations" and "mental instability" are far more common than most people realize. (Though I'll grant that people might be reluctant to categorize the more common instances as "mental instability" as such.)
The human mind is fantastically capable of creating wholly subjective experiences, and notoriously prone to filter memories through personal desires or external suggestion.
I'll admit it would take something extraordinary for God to convince me of his existence (assuming there is a God who cares about such things). I think there is a reason why so many testimonies are born from experiences had after much fasting and feverent prayer, and I think it's the same reason most ghost sightings happen in dark spooky places. Break down the comfort zone and you can induce all manner of reactions. Therefore, I think if God limits himself to "still, small voices" and tweaked heartstrings in emotionally vulnerable moments plenty of rational people could chalk those things up to "hallucinations" or [temporary] "mental instability". And those things are far more probable than visitations from extra-terrestrial aliens. (Although by definition God is extra-terrestrial, no?)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evidence that cannot be dismissed violates free will. It is coercion, not choice.
Then say what you mean, which is that "any of the individual pieces of evidence that our hypothetical God has chosen to provide can be dismissed."
I have no problem with that statement. But suggesting that all evidence of any sort can be rationally dismissed is insupportable. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread started with a “what if” scenario, and a new one (next level) was proposed on page 11. Yet my imagination does not rest and I’d like to propose a new “level of what if”.
[note] I’m aware of the fact that the main idea of “being born in the (unexpected) real world” comes from the movie “The Matrix”, so before accusing me of “lack or originality” please remember that my new scenario is still about the main question of this thread (see title). [/note]
Here you have the “what if – level #3”:
What if one day something “strange” (for lack of a better word) happens? Picture this:
The world settles down after all the fuss with the aliens and life goes on as usual. You go out to the bakery to buy a loaf of bread and suddenly, everything around you stops. Just like when you press the “pause” button on the video player. Everything is “frozen” but you. You think “this is quite similar to that Matrix scene where Neo is trained by Morpheus to fight the Agents… it can’t be really happening!” Yet the birds are “hanging” in mid-flight, the cars are motionless, the people on the street seem to be statues and even your electronic clock has stopped.
Only you can wonder around, and the thing is that the “air” around you seems to become more and more dense, and you begin to move as if you were under water. You became more and more desperate and agitated, and at one point you notice that your sudden movements created a “rip” in the air next to you, like an “oblong wound” in the space-time continuum, and a greenish light coming through. You struggle and reach through the “rip” and notice that “on the other side” of it it’s a lot easier to move, as if getting out of water after being fully submerged. With a last effort you try to traverse it and at that point you feel “pulled out” by some kind of … hand.
After a moment you get used to the greenish light of the room and see that the hand belongs to some individual, who, surprisingly enough looks exactly like you. You are resting on the edge of a big tank of some liquid stuff, one of many, many similar tanks you can see around in what you learn is “the nursery”. Most of the tanks contain living individuals (all looking just like you) making strange movements inside, as if dancing in really strange individual choreographies. They are not connected to anything, they are submerged inside the tanks and fed through their skin while making any movements they “dream about”.
So, you are told that you’ve just been born, after a period of “pre-natal-dreaming” period. It is very natural to create a whole world in your imagination before being born, because the brain has to occupy itself with something to avoid boredom. You can also read about other individuals “pre-natal-dreams” if you want, because many want to leave a complete record of it as the first “assignment” after birth. Yet, you can’t find anywhere any record of such a thing as “religion” or any similar thing, neither in the world you just “arrived”, or the “dreams” of others. When you ask your fellow individuals where do they come from, they say they were born just as you were, and that it has always been like this, and always will.
When you insist that somebody had to create all this world, the answer is that there is no “creator” because it is all an infinite cycle: You come out of the tank, you live your life and then you’re put in another tank to be “dissolved” and your body molecules are used as nutrients for the next generation. You have no “obligations”, you can do whatever you like, you’re free to think anything you choose and any information is available to all. The bottom line is that they have never heard of such a thing as “religion”.
Therefore, the question is: Would you accept what you see around you and what you are told, or would you make all the efforts to “teach” the others about religion and try convince them of your religious views? How much do you NEED religion?
[Even as an atheist/agnostic you can still remember all the “polemic” about religion(s) before your birth, so you might think it is interesting to share all that you “know” about it with your peers.]
posted
I think it's good that you eliminated the aliens from your scenario. Actually I believe that this stands a better chance of coming true. All that would have to happen is for people to recognise that they're basically all the same, yet everyone unique. And that if they don't do unto others what they would not want done unto themselves, there would be no reason to fight each other. If I'd emerge into that sort of world I would definitely not push any of my 'religious' views upon the other inhabitants.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bottom line is that they have never heard of such a thing as “religion”.
If I were unique during my "pre-natal-dreaming" in having experienced religion, clearly it must be something special about me. I must be the prophet sent into this new world to spread the truth about the wonders of religious convictions. I mean, clearly.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: The human mind is fantastically capable of creating wholly subjective experiences, and notoriously prone to filter memories through personal desires or external suggestion. [/QB]
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far."
-- H. P. Lovecraft
(Sorry, your post just reminded me of it and I've been somewhat immersed in the Cthulhu mythos of late. I agree with your post wholeheartedly.)
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Would make no difference. (Anyone surprised?)
kmbboots, don't worry, there are more levels of "what if" ... It's not that I try to make you change your position, just remember to "never say never".
Please feel free to comment on any of the points, anyway.
quote:The bottom line is that they have never heard of such a thing as “religion”.
If I were unique during my "pre-natal-dreaming" in having experienced religion, clearly it must be something special about me. I must be the prophet sent into this new world to spread the truth about the wonders of religious convictions. I mean, clearly.
I suspect there is much sarcasm in this quote. Yet I think it raises an interesting question:
Open question: How do you think this “spreading” could be achieved (in practice), knowing that all you have to support your “knowledge” about this subject is your personal experience (in dream-state)?
quote: How do you think this “spreading” could be achieved (in practice), knowing that all you have to support your “knowledge” about this subject is your personal experience (in dream-state)?
If people in this new brave world of yours are anything like the people of the real world, I suspect spreading spreading religion won't present any particular proplems. There are a number of prophets, gurus and the like that have managed to amass a surprising amount of followers with no other evidence than their personal religious or mystical experience.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, next question(s): What exactly do you (all of you) think that should be “spread”. The knowledge on one particular religion, or the knowledge on all of them (as far as your experience goes, of course)? If you’re a theist, would you talk only about your religion or about all of them? If you’re a non-theist (atheist/agnostic) would you talk about religion(s) or just forget about it?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Let me explain:![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
]![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
