DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: TheVoxyn on January 17, 2011, 06:48:14 PM
-
Not trying to insult anyone or to attract flaming, but I seriously have a hard time understanding it. I find it hard to find a reason why someone would believe in a god or in a ‘holy’ book. And what are your reasons for believing in it?
I have multiple reasons why I find it hard to understand someone believing in a god. The first is all the logical fallacies that comes with it. I could name a couple out of the top of my head without even thinking too deeply about it (the most annoying being, bible is the word of god -> god exists -> because it is in the bible).
The second is that I have a hard time believing in something that there is no proof whatsoever for. Why should I dedicate my life to something that might not even exist? Why should I be totally irrational and believe in something that is probably not there?
Third, there are so much contradictions in the text. If there was a god, why is his work full of loopholes, mistakes and non-sensical stuff?
I could name a couple of other reasons but I don’t want to look like I’m just bashing religion. If you think about it, it’s very understandable why religion used to be important. People needed to be able to explain things. And it was a really good way for a country or a group of people (the church) to gain power and influence over the people. But I don’t see why in this modern age of science, information and individualism, someone can still take in all the facts and arguments and still believe in a god. Please enlighten me to the reasons why.
-
the most simple answer is by looking out my window. whether it is the wonder of the human body, the majestic, infinite space or the water cycle (and 10 trillion other sophisticated marvels), I am left with no other option.
-
the most simple answer is by looking out my window. whether it is the wonder of the human body, the majestic, infinite space or the water cycle (and 10 trillion other sophisticated marvels), I am left with no other option.
Then why is the human body perfectly explainable with science and evolution? Or why do we have an appendix? Most of the other things can be explained through science or have other convincing theories supporting them and argueing against a creator. I can see why someone would think it has to be thought out because it works so well (or in incomprehendable for a human brain) but I think with science explaining more and more, it becomes a lot harder to keep a good argument for faith in a creator. Wind used to be amazing, no-one understood it. Now it had a perfect explanation and it's pretty hard to equate wind to a god. Don't you think this progress will keep on going and erasing away any need for a god?
-
Wind used to be amazing, no-one understood it. Now it had a perfect explanation and it's pretty hard to equate wind to a god. Don't you think this progress will keep on going and erasing away any need for a god?
Whether a god exists or not, there will always be a need for a god. Explaining the universe isn't the only thing he's good for. He helps people cope with difficulty, and no matter how good science gets at explaining things, there will always be people going through rough patches who can use the comfort that belief in a loving omnipotent being provides.
-
Wind used to be amazing, no-one understood it. Now it had a perfect explanation and it's pretty hard to equate wind to a god. Don't you think this progress will keep on going and erasing away any need for a god?
Whether a god exists or not, there will always be a need for a god. Explaining the universe isn't the only thing he's good for. He helps people cope with difficulty, and no matter how good science gets at explaining things, there will always be people going through rough patches who can use the comfort that belief in a loving omnipotent being provides.
:tup. Overlooked that. I guess it's always good to have someone to vent to/get comfort from. I think most people can have friends or family to turn on as well, but having the feeling that there is always someone for you might be good. I personally couldn't do it (to find comfort in something that may well not be exist) but I can understand why people could.
-
Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday. Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.
-
Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday. Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.
Finite =/= worthless.
You're creating the standards of worthwhile yourself.
-
Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday. Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.
Why should there be a point in life? Seems to be a bit forced to create a point in life just to be able to have a point. I can see the reasoning god exists (for other reasons) -> there is a point but not god exists -> otherwise there is no point.
-
I think there are plenty of reasons one might believe in God, some to do with awe of the universe or coping with hard times, as others have said. But whether or not God, if he exists, is the God of the Christian scriptures is another question altogether.
-J
-
I think there are plenty of reasons one might believe in God, some to do with awe of the universe or coping with hard times, as others have said. But whether or not God, if he exists, is the God of the Christian scriptures is another question altogether.
-J
I think there was a thread about that a while back (how do you know if your god is the right one, or something to that extend).
-
I believe in God because I've seen him move through people in a way the can't be explained away by science, or anything else for that matter.
-
I believe in God because I've seen him move through people in a way the can't be explained away by science, or anything else for that matter.
Dunno, LSD might explain some of it.
What do you mean you've seen him move through people?
-
Because He exists, duh.
But really, because His existence makes the most sense in the grand scheme of things. It seems far too unlikely, with the fine tuning of our universe, that there wasn't a design to be had in how the "constants" of the universe are.
Throw in the existence of the soul, which I believe helps account for self-awareness, and we're good.
Also, personally, for me, because I love math with a passion, I sometimes think to myself how such a dynamic system of rules that can describe everything in our universe can work so good in itself. Of course we can say we made the rules for that system, but we didn't make the actual system; we just define it with things like numbers and "+", "-", and so forth. We discovered it (and still are), and it always works. That just shows me that there is some design there, and design implies designer.
Also, I don't believe in God based on feelings, but that isn't to say that now I don't "give" Him my feelings.
-
I think a better question would be why God is still considered to be human-like, or is said to be a person... or why God is considered to be something totally separate from his creation, even now when we no longer believe that deities cause natural phenomenon.
-
Speaking of math, Jamesman, what's that math artwork type stuff that people use in arguments for God? You know, where everything's all swirly and stuff?
-
But really, because His existence makes the most sense in the grand scheme of things. It seems far too unlikely, with the fine tuning of our universe, that there wasn't a design to be had in how the "constants" of the universe are.
Also, personally, for me, because I love math with a passion, I sometimes think to myself how such a dynamic system of rules that can describe everything in our universe can work so good in itself. Of course we can say we made the rules for that system, but we didn't make the actual system; we just define it with things like numbers and "+", "-", and so forth. We discovered it (and still are), and it always works. That just shows me that there is some design there, and design implies designer.
A "top down" view of the universe causes many people to buy into these arguments, but they're mostly irrational. I'm sure you have numerous other reasons for belief, but these in particular don't make much sense if you try to start without a bunch of extraneous assumptions.
-J
EDIT:
Speaking of math, Jamesman, what's that math artwork type stuff that people use in arguments for God? You know, where everything's all swirly and stuff?
Like fractals? I know there are other mathematical concepts that are cited for that reason, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. I hardly think they're sound arguments for God's existence, but they're pretty awesome either way.
-
Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday. Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.
I think this right here explains a great bit of it. The fear of death is a great big reason to believe in a god.
-
Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday. Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.
I think this right here explains a great bit of it. The fear of death is a great big reason to believe in a god.
Not so much a fear of death, but more of a desire to be prepared in case death is not the end.
But even if death is the end...why should you be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it...you gotta go sometime.
-
Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday. Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.
I think this right here explains a great bit of it. The fear of death is a great big reason to believe in a god.
Not so much a fear of death, but more of a desire to be prepared in case death is not the end.
But even if death is the end...why should you be frightened of dying? There's no reason for it...you gotta go sometime.
There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of dying. As for me, I don't believe in any sort of afterlife. So this little moment in time that I ever exist in all the time that will ever be is very, very important to me. And all the while, the only thing you ever absolutely know that's going to happen to you is that you will die one day. The mind can't really comprehend not existing, and it's a scary thought that not existing is all you're ever going to do after the clock ticks out.
But what if you didn't have to stop existing? And if you simply apologized for being a human and tried to be perfect from now on, you would die one day and go to a castle in the cosmos kicking it for all of eternity with the big guy. Whamoosh, you've got yourself a convenient excuse to not think about it.
-
Well, that's not quite what I believe...actually not close at all. But rather than be scared of death, I am actually quite excited for it, and it keeps me hopeful, and keeps me pressing on.
I don't wanna cause a theological debate since my views are in the minority, but I think that we will be given new bodies with many more abilities and capabilities than our earthly bodies, such as flight, speed, the ability to pass through solid objects, and simply the fact that we won't be bogged down with human flaws anymore and more...Not to mention, there's a whole new world to explore, and you can take the time to enjoy everything.
And what we do there is act in the heavenly govenment and establishment, maintaining our free will and judgment. There's a verse somewhere that says we'll judge angels.
I know a lot of people believe in heaven as a mental state of eternal awe, and I don't wanna step on anyone's toes or cause disagreement, but my point in all that is this: can you see how a belief that heaven is a real, physical location in this universe, and that "it is really happening," is one that will get you to wake up every morning with energy, motivation, and excitement? What was once fear and doubt has been replaced by knowledge, understanding, and purpose.
-
.............what?
I thought you were just a devout christian? Where does all the superman stuff come from?
-
.............what?
I thought you were just a devout christian? Where does all the superman stuff come from?
Like I said, I don't wanna cause a theological argument or anything, but there's a verse that says our bodies will be made like Christ's glorified body. You read post-resurrection stuff that Jesus does, like ascending out of the tomb, ascending into heaven, and appearing mulitple places in very short time spans (such as being in heaven at one moment, and talking to Paul the next). So when it says our bodies will be made like his, I think that our bodies will have the same abilities.
Again, I don't wanna start a scuffle, I'm just saying why I personally get excited about believing in a god (which is what the topic is about).
-
As a loving agnostic, I'm fine with you believing anything you want.
-
Speaking of math, Jamesman, what's that math artwork type stuff that people use in arguments for God? You know, where everything's all swirly and stuff?
Like fractals? I know there are other mathematical concepts that are cited for that reason, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. I hardly think they're sound arguments for God's existence, but they're pretty awesome either way.
I'm guessing he's talking about the golden ratio. Fractals in nature are amazing and add a whole different dimension to natural selection.
-
Why do people insist upon saying the scientific proof of ANYTHING disproves God? Any increase in understanding on our part merely contributes to the grand scheme of creation IMO.
-
Why do people insist upon saying the scientific proof of ANYTHING disproves God? Any increase in understanding on our part merely contributes to the grand scheme of creation IMO.
But what if that increase in understanding just further disproves creation?
I guess that becomes god's plan as well.
-
Why do people insist upon saying the scientific proof of ANYTHING disproves God? Any increase in understanding on our part merely contributes to the grand scheme of creation IMO.
But what if that increase in understanding just further disproves creation?
I guess that becomes god's plan as well.
I suppose that's fine, but I don't see any logical means of doing so. Perhaps that's the kind of Christian I am, but I'm of the mind that most anything that Science proves HAS to coincide with God's creation as anything that Science proves is pretty much 100% indisputable. And while the existence of God is disputable, I don't see anyway of proving it false.
-
Speaking of math, Jamesman, what's that math artwork type stuff that people use in arguments for God? You know, where everything's all swirly and stuff?
Like fractals? I know there are other mathematical concepts that are cited for that reason, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. I hardly think they're sound arguments for God's existence, but they're pretty awesome either way.
I'm guessing he's talking about the golden ratio. Fractals in nature are amazing and add a whole different dimension to natural selection.
I mean, yeah, the Golden Ratio and fractals (which are based on imaginary numbers, making them cooler to me) are one of the highlights of the beauty of mathematics. Also, to brotherH, fractals is the answer.
I wouldn't say just fractals are a sound argument. I am saying that the whole of mathematics (which includes fractals, the golden ratio, the frequent occurrences of Pi in many different ways, the natural occurrence of "e" in many different ways, and so on) is such a perfect system that is natural, that it seems like it was made to be that way. At least to me, but that wasn't my main point anyway. I just so happen to be enamored with mathematics, so it's one of those bonuses for me. Heck, I like how some integrals work out in calculus with some little tricks. :lol
Edit: Here is a fractal for ya:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEw8xpb1aRA&feature=related
-
I don't know whether I believe in Heaven or Hell, and I like sonatafanica find 'this moment' to still be of the utmost importance to me... but it's what 'this moment' means when looked at from the perspective of how the message of Jesus is still relevant to my life and my perspective that makes me feel most worthwhile. That's why I do still call myself a Christian and do accept Jesus as God. I may have my doubts; I may not be perfect. But the view I have of the world through my personal understand of Christianity and relationship with it is something that I can grow with; it enriches my life and enhances my outlook on things. At least in my opinion. Maybe you all just think I'm crazy though :P
-
Speaking of math, Jamesman, what's that math artwork type stuff that people use in arguments for God? You know, where everything's all swirly and stuff?
Like fractals? I know there are other mathematical concepts that are cited for that reason, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. I hardly think they're sound arguments for God's existence, but they're pretty awesome either way.
I'm guessing he's talking about the golden ratio. Fractals in nature are amazing and add a whole different dimension to natural selection.
I mean, yeah, the Golden Ratio and fractals (which are based on imaginary numbers, making them cooler to me) are one of the highlights of the beauty of mathematics. Also, to brotherH, fractals is the answer.
I wouldn't say just fractals are a sound argument. I am saying that the whole of mathematics (which includes fractals, the golden ratio, the frequent occurrences of Pi in many different ways, the natural occurrence of "e" in many different ways, and so on) is such a perfect system that is natural, that it seems like it was made to be that way. At least to me, but that wasn't my main point anyway. I just so happen to be enamored with mathematics, so it's one of those bonuses for me. Heck, I like how some integrals work out in calculus with some little tricks. :lol
Oops, yea, the swirly stuff is fractals, but I've never heard them used as proof for God. To me one of the most fascinating things about fractals is that it demonstrates how complex things are made up of simple things. So to say that they were meant to be that way seems to go against that revelation, since it implies that a mind, something insanely complex, is responsible for that simplicity.
-
Speaking of math, Jamesman, what's that math artwork type stuff that people use in arguments for God? You know, where everything's all swirly and stuff?
Like fractals? I know there are other mathematical concepts that are cited for that reason, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. I hardly think they're sound arguments for God's existence, but they're pretty awesome either way.
I'm guessing he's talking about the golden ratio. Fractals in nature are amazing and add a whole different dimension to natural selection.
I mean, yeah, the Golden Ratio and fractals (which are based on imaginary numbers, making them cooler to me) are one of the highlights of the beauty of mathematics. Also, to brotherH, fractals is the answer.
I wouldn't say just fractals are a sound argument. I am saying that the whole of mathematics (which includes fractals, the golden ratio, the frequent occurrences of Pi in many different ways, the natural occurrence of "e" in many different ways, and so on) is such a perfect system that is natural, that it seems like it was made to be that way. At least to me, but that wasn't my main point anyway. I just so happen to be enamored with mathematics, so it's one of those bonuses for me. Heck, I like how some integrals work out in calculus with some little tricks. :lol
Oops, yea, the swirly stuff is fractals, but I've never heard them used as proof for God. To me one of the most fascinating things about fractals is that it demonstrates how complex things are made up of simple things. So to say that they were meant to be that way seems to go against that revelation, since it implies that a mind, something insanely complex, is responsible for that simplicity.
Well, a complex mind can make simple things. Besides, the way to generate a fractal is, while simple, not simple enough to be intuitive. It was a surprise to anyone who first saw it (I believe Mandelbrot was).
Besides, the fractal is cited for its relative and unexpected beauty and infinite nature, not so much its complexity. I mean, unless you are saying the infinite way of zooming in on a fractal is complex, but I think I read that the infinity of it has to do with reiterations of a point on the graph, or something (my understanding of complex analysis is very vague, that will be in my Master's course). Point being, the complexity is not the argument for fractals, as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd say it lies in the beauty and infinity of it.
-
Well, a complex mind can make simple things. Besides, the way to generate a fractal is, while simple, not simple enough to be intuitive. It was a surprise to anyone who first saw it (I believe Mandelbrot was).
I wasn't referring to generated fractals, rather self-similarity that can be observed in plants, animals, clouds and even mountain ranges. But on how it isn't intuitive, it's interesting that fractal structures pop up in the structure African villages. Whether they were intentional or unintentional I don't know.
-
I believe in God because I've seen him move through people in a way the can't be explained away by science, or anything else for that matter.
Dunno, LSD might explain some of it.
What do you mean you've seen him move through people?
Unless someone has devised an elaborate plan to contaminate the water so everyone who takes a sip of it on arrival turns into a shaking lunatic, I don't think LSD could play a part.
I dunno, I've seen people shake, rattle and roll under the spirit. People that I know and love and have spent my life with. People that would rather sit at the back of the church and twiddle their thumbs suddenly come under the power of God and act like complete retards.
I've seen people manifest in demons too, heard peoples voice's change, seen their eyes change colour, seen them sit in the presence of God and scowl and eye up anyone who happens to look their way. Freaky stuff. If there's this evil shit going on and no light side to counter it, we're damned to spend our lives in bondage.
Its just something that you'd never understand until you've seen it for yourself. You can mock and pull it apart all you like, but I've know what I've seen and you couldn't convince me otherwise.
-
I have no say over what you've seen or how it influenced the way you look at the world, but
and you couldn't convince me otherwise.
this is what I call the end of intelligence.
-
I shall beleive in God until some one can prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God.
:yarr
-
I think people need to believe in God and a religion cause otherwise there's nothing to live for, if my death is the end of the story then why prolonged it? if those whose lives are filled with suffering and misery finally believe that it's never gonna get better than this then they'll either kill themselves or go on a killing rampage then kill themselves, why give a damn anyway.
If you don't know deep inside that the good you do will be rewarded then you won't do it or won't do it as often, it has nothing to do with being "naturally good hearted", there's no settings, good -as well as evil- are points of view.
In Bill Maher's documentary he talks to a church group and at the end he tells them "I think being without faith is something that's a luxury, for people who were fortunate enough to have a fortunate life. You go to prison and you hear a guy say: [You know what, buddy? I got nothing but Jesus in here.] I completely understand that. I think not having faith is a luxury", I really agree with that.
So those who are not stupid and still believe in God and religion are those who need it so bad in their lives, just like drugs, and needing it does not promote disrespect from me to either, who the fuck am I to judge?, what do I know? and what have I been through? I think this goes for all over-the-top we-are-so-clever atheists.
Slightly unrelated: One of the songs I always found lyrically fascinating about this subject is Metallica's Cure, even though it's musically weaker than the other stuff on Load; the lyrics really lifts it up for me to top 3 of this album.
The man takes another bullet
He keeps them all within
He must seek no matter how it hurts
So don't fool again
Yeah he thinks the answer is cold and in his hand
He takes his medicine
The man takes another bullet
Yeah he's been fooled again
Uncross your arms
Take and throw 'em to the cure, say...
I do believe
Uncross your arms now
Take 'em too, and say...
I do believe
Yeah, I do believe
The lies tempt her and she follows
Again she lets him in
She must believe to fill the hollow
She's been fooled again
Uncross your arms
Take and throw them to the cure, say...
I do believe
Uncross your arms now
Take 'em too, and say...
I do believe
Oh yeah, I do believe
Betting on the cure
It must get better than this
Betting on the cure
Yeah everyone's gotta have that sickness
'Cause everyone seems to need the cure
Precious cure
Betting on the cure
'Cause it must get better than this
Betting on the cure
Yeah everyone's got to have the sickness
'Cause everyone seems to need the cure
Yeah precious cure
I do believe
Betting on the cure
Yeah, It must get better than this
Need to feel secure
Yeah, it's got to get better than this, this, this
It must get better than this
Betting on the cure
Yeah, Everyone's got to have the sickness
'Cause everyone seems to need the cure
I do believe
I do believe
I do believe
-
Because something does not have to be true to be useful.
-
Well, a complex mind can make simple things. Besides, the way to generate a fractal is, while simple, not simple enough to be intuitive. It was a surprise to anyone who first saw it (I believe Mandelbrot was).
I wasn't referring to generated fractals, rather self-similarity that can be observed in plants, animals, clouds and even mountain ranges. But on how it isn't intuitive, it's interesting that fractal structures pop up in the structure African villages. Whether they were intentional or unintentional I don't know.
Well, even if the fractal is "generated" by a complex mind (like God). ;)
By intuitive, I mean that it wasn't something that we would have deduced so naturally, like us knowing that 1 tree here and one tree there makes two trees.
-
I used to believe in god. Not anymore. Take a look around folks. Is this the work of a divine being? I don't think so. There's something out there bigger than god and that's what I believe in......the universe.
-
Well, a complex mind can make simple things. Besides, the way to generate a fractal is, while simple, not simple enough to be intuitive. It was a surprise to anyone who first saw it (I believe Mandelbrot was).
I wasn't referring to generated fractals, rather self-similarity that can be observed in plants, animals, clouds and even mountain ranges. But on how it isn't intuitive, it's interesting that fractal structures pop up in the structure African villages. Whether they were intentional or unintentional I don't know.
Well, even if the fractal is "generated" by a complex mind (like God). ;)
I know what you mean, that God made the conditions where fractals can happen. But there's really no reason to go back to complexity when it comes to fractals. The complex design of self-similarity in a snowflake is just the result of water molecules blowing around in the atmosphere.
-
I have no say over what you've seen or how it influenced the way you look at the world, but
and you couldn't convince me otherwise.
this is what I call the end of intelligence.
I would say the opposite. Yes, to be irrationally set in one's ways for no good reason is arrogant and irrational. But to see and weigh the evidence and still leave room for doubt...that, to me, is a far bigger moral failing.
To put it another way, these are two completely different scenarios: (1) I believe in X and can't be convinced otherwise because that's just the way it's always been. (2) I believe in X because I have seen and weighed the evidence and have become fully convinced that X is true, and therefore, cannot be convinced otherwise. Scenario #1 is stupid. But to make the mistake of beleiving scenario #2 is the same as scenario #1 is equally stupid.
-
I agree #1 and 2 are different, but to preclude re-evalutation is dumb. We wouldn't have gotten to where we are today as a species if we did.
-
To put it another way, these are two completely different scenarios: (1) I believe in X and can't be convinced otherwise because that's just the way it's always been. (2) I believe in X because I have seen and weighed the evidence and have become fully convinced that X is true, and therefore, cannot be convinced otherwise. Scenario #1 is stupid. But to make the mistake of beleiving scenario #2 is the same as scenario #1 is equally stupid.
To think that what one person would consider to be "evidence" is sufficient to arrive at a truth that cannot be refuted is naive. It's still the end of intelligence because as GuineaPig said, it precludes re-evaluation. No modern day person should come to a point where they would block further questioning or investigation, imo.
-
Wasn't it originally believed God created Man, and also Earth? Now that evolution has been discovered (although Christianity at the time tried to suppress it), and we also know that the Earth was definitely not snapped up out of thin air by a creator, people are saying the whole universe and the idea of mathematics was designed by a creator? This just seems like the story has been changed to me. If God designed maths, why did he make the number Pi an irrational number? Why not just '3'?
I don't think the idea of Christianity is such a bad idea though, far from it. It has good values, and most Christians are good people who help society and make the world a better place. I also understand the idea of reaching out to someone for help or comfort. I just don't understand why you have to believe in a higher being/creator.
-
People believe in God for the same reasons they believe in Santa Clause as a kid, the stories and purpose are appealing. The only difference is that at some point we are told Santa doesn't exist.
-
Wasn't it originally believed God created Man, and also Earth? Now that evolution has been discovered (although Christianity at the time tried to suppress it), and we also know that the Earth was definitely not snapped up out of thin air by a creator, people are saying the whole universe and the idea of mathematics was designed by a creator? This just seems like the story has been changed to me. If God designed maths, why did he make the number Pi an irrational number? Why not just '3'?
Why shouldn't our ideas about God change as we gain more scientific knowledge? The fact that we can show that the Earth wasn't created in an instant doesn't prove that there wasn't a creator. Perhaps we are shedding our simplistic ideas about God and learning more about his methods.
The reason I believe in God "still" is because I believe I have felt him working in my life. I don't claim to know the details of how God works, but I know the things that have happened to me. There have been times in my life when I've trusted God and times when I've tried to do things my own way. Without fail, the times when I trusted God have been the best times in my life. To pray for very specific (and somewhat complex) things and to have them happen in ways that feel completely uncontrollable is something that I can't ignore. I'm not a person that thinks God is up there pulling the strings on every little thing happening in the universe, but things have happened in my life that I feel are beyond coincidence.
-
But the problem with that is that whenever a scientific discovery comes along that makes creation more and more far-fetched, it just becomes a part of gods "greater plan".
-
I think a good amount is also Loss Aversion. Most people grow up in their respective religion, and dumping all that halfway in one's life for an uncertain new way of life sounds worse than keeping to the familiar one, despite its obvious flaws. It's of course no fun business continuously shutting out the evidence of said flaws, but that's human psychology for ya.
rumborak
-
I understand your argument lordxizor, but it just seems as though Christianity used to oppose science and the discovery of new scientific concepts, and once these concepts have been proven or generally accepted it seems as though Christianity "changes sides" and accepts the science.
eg. Christianity - God created the world
Science - The Earth was creating by smaller pieces of floating rock joined together by gravity
Christianity's "new approach" - God created the universe
Science - The Universe was created by the big bang
Christianty - God created the big bang
and so on.
(That was just an example of what I was trying to get at, not saying any of that was true but that's the gist I'm getting from the whole thing).
The thing is, it can never be proven that God doesn't exist, especially if the "facts" about Christianity keep changing. But if God did exist, you would think there would have been instances of generally accepted "miracles" unexplained by science. I'm trying to get at that its easier to prove God exists than prove that he doesn't, but it hasn't been proven yet.
Just think if someone came up with the idea of a God in current times, not in medieval times. No-one would believe them, and it would have to be proven to be accepted as true. Just because the idea came from the past, where people knew much less about the workings of the universe, it was accepted at the time and so follows through today.
Edit: Beaten to it by sonatafanica, basically part of what I was trying to say.
-
I believe in God because of direct experience of God, not because some book says so.
-
I believe in God because of direct experience of God, not because some book says so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not a Christian in some form?
-
But the problem with that is that whenever a scientific discovery comes along that makes creation more and more far-fetched, it just becomes a part of gods "greater plan".
I can understand where you're coming from if you look soley at the people who think the Bible is meant to be taken 100% literally and is 100% correct in everything. I don't believe that. I believe the Bible is a historical document that was written by men at a particular time in history. Not to say that it isn't useful from a religious standpoint and not that there isn't God's truth in it. How would men, thousands of years ago, write about the universe being created and gravity pulling mass together and whatnot. No one would have had the slightest clue what they were talking about. People wrote using the knowledge that they had, which at the time was very little about the physical world.
Why does faith need to be a constant, unchanging thing? Why can't the details change based on knowledge gained by people? The basic principles don't change: God created the world, God wants a relationship with people, etc. Only the details that probably don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things change. Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.
-
I believe in God because of direct experience of God, not because some book says so.
Really? How does that work exactly?
-
]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.
No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.
-
have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution. has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?
-
wut
-
wut
It seems like you always have trouble understanding other people's posts.
-
have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution. has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?
No, evolution is usually used in explaining how one one life form may slowly alter over time if it's environment allows it to. I don't stay up to date on the bible. Has it found an explanation as to where God came from?
-
i don't believe because i feel strong enough to cope with my problems without a need for help.
-
]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.
No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.
I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
-
Plus, without a god, there is really no point to life because we are all going to cease to exist someday. Sure, existentialists say that you ought to live in the moment, but ultimately there will be no point because you won't have any memories to enjoy when you're dead because you're dead.
Finite =/= worthless.
You're creating the standards of worthwhile yourself.
Yes, and just because you want a god to exist because it gives your life purpose does not make it so. Just because the idea that life was a big accident that just sort of happened sounds unappealing doesn't mean it's not true. My point is, just because something sounds nice doesn't make it true, and vice versa.
-
I still believe because things have happened in my life to make me see things aren't really what they seem. People can manipulate good into bad, and vise versa. Love is god and god is love, that's the part of god that lives within us all. We are here temporarily, and along the way many have lost/forgotten these teachings of the past. Science can only go so far until it will contradict itself, which is why I believe its another culture religion thing. Yes were technologically advanced but are we really advanced when we still have all these troubles that seem to be getting worse.
-
I think what I have a hard time understanding is: Why Christianity?
There are so many different interpretations of God, many of which are perfectly rational extrapolations from human ignorance. That ignorance still exists; we don't truly know how the universe came into being or how to emulate human consciousness. So why would you claim to know everything? Organized religions claim to eliminate all our naivety, but the origins of their texts themselves are unknown, and the details described are absurdly specific. It's like what they say about alibis: if you include too many specific details, they become very difficult to believe.
I could see why one might believe in some sort of creating/maintaining force behind the universe, but the specifics that religious texts delve into makes an unlikely origin story even more unlikely. Just because millions of people believe in something that has no rationale doesn't make it any more likely to be true; why not create a personal system of beliefs instead of clinging to the tired old horse that is structured religion?
(I don't mean to bash religious people in any way, just trying to create some discussion)
-
I agree with a lot of that post. Often I find that when people argue for their faith, its usually applicable to nearly every one, not just Christianity. I think it shows how much upbringing has to do with religious preferences.
-
wut
It seems like you always have trouble understanding other people's posts.
No. yeshua's post showed that he's confusing evolution with particle physics. "wut" is a pretty reasonable answer to that.
rumborak
-
]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.
No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.
I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well, that's the thing. If people change the definitions of what a god allows over time, doesn't that just prove that god is just a creation of humanity?
And as far as six day creation stuff goes, like Chino said, it used to be the only truth until science came along and disproved it. And rather than saying, "Well fuck, there's a huge hole in this story then", it just becomes, "well, the bible didn't literally mean six days", which is to say that people now know the mind of their god. And as more and more things come along, the texts just turn into a the Big Book of Metaphors.
-
]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.
No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.
I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well, that's the thing. If people change the definitions of what a god allows over time, doesn't that just prove that god is just a creation of humanity?
And as far as six day creation stuff goes, like Chino said, it used to be the only truth until science came along and disproved it. And rather than saying, "Well fuck, there's a huge hole in this story then", it just becomes, "well, the bible didn't literally mean six days", which is to say that people now know the mind of their god. And as more and more things come along, the texts just turn into a the Big Book of Metaphors.
I can't stand all of that desperate rationalization of a manuscript that's so flawed. When confronted with creationism, people said, "Oh, well THAT part isn't literal, but the rest is totally true." When it's asked why God allows so much suffering out of mankind's control, the response is, "It's all part of God's plan". People will go to tremendous lengths to defend their beliefs, even when numerous holes are poked through them.
To reiterate on my earlier post, why continue to stand up for a specific, shared system of beliefs when there's an infinite number of other faiths, all with at least as much claim to accuracy as yours? What makes your religion better than others?
-
What makes your shoes better than others? it fits you right, you wanna believe it's because you think it's the correct one but naah, it's because it fits you right.
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus, the El Barto of fiction.
-
I like shoes without holes in them.
-
It really all boils down to people fearing the shit out of death.
-
Then let them have their comfort.
-
It really all boils down to people fearing the shit out of death.
Which is sort of amusing. Death is the one thing that can be promised to all of humankind, yet so many go to great lengths to try to believe that they will never truly die.
-
Then let them have their comfort.
I envy their comfort TBH.
-
Me too, I realize that anyone who keeps up with the "whats rational" tone with religious people is -at least sub consciously- jealous of their comfortable state.
Again drugs is a really good analogy here imo.
-
have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution. has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?
Probably the same place God came from.
As for "why Christianity?", it's a construct of man, built perfectly for man. What's not to love? It's infinitely malleable, which allows anybody to do or be anything they want. You get all the benefits of major religion, the promise of life in paradise and the ability to look smugly down on others, without all of the annoying rules, conditions and guilt that were always getting in the way. It's like the buffet at Bellagio.
-
]
I Would God really deny a person entry into heaven because they believed that the earth was gradually created over billions of years instead a literal 6 days? Not a reasonable God anyway.
No but his followers at one time were willing to lock away, stone, or burn whoever challenged the original 6 day theory. It just seems like God is being shaped to fit whatever group of people is currently living. Isn't suppose to be the other way around.
I have a hard time discussing things like this with with non-believers. Here's the problem I have. If a religion or faith changes over time you say that it can't be true because people are changing their beliefs based on scientific facts. Apparently a religion should not grow or change it's faith based on discoveries made in the world. Or you expect that God should have given us every piece of knowledge that we need in the very beginning so there's nothing else to learn, thus our faith doesn't change. On the other hand, if I believed in a literal 6 day creation, you'd say I was ignoring the facts that science has proven and thus can't be correct. So there's really no way for me to win. I don't really know what else to say to you about this subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Well, that's the thing. If people change the definitions of what a god allows over time, doesn't that just prove that god is just a creation of humanity?
Ignoring the part of your post concerning the bible (because I mostly agree with it), this isn't what lordxizor was saying. He wasn't claiming to hold the assumption that God gave humans full and complete knowledge of him and his mechanisms of creation and intervention from the outset. In other words, God could not be changing at all, but we still could be coming to a better understanding of him (thus, "changing our ideas about God"). At least I think that's what he was getting at.
As for the science proving/disproving God stuff going on earlier in the thread, I can't believe we still haven't gotten past that. No matter what religion proclaims or what science reveals, neither will *ever* have anything to do with the other (specific claims of religious texts notwithstanding).
-J
-
have i missed something...I don't keep up with evolution. has evolution found the explanation for where matter came from?
No, evolution is usually used in explaining how one one life form may slowly alter over time if it's environment allows it to. I don't stay up to date on the bible. Has it found an explanation as to where God came from?
touche
-
As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."
-
As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."
Exactly. I don't find a single thing that is incompatible with God's existence, and I find plenty that is compatible. But that's neither here nor there, really. We've had these debates so many times on this forum, and they never go anywhere. To answer the question simply and directly: As I said in the first sentence, I am persuaded that what man can observe about the universe is consistent with the fact that there is a God. I am further persuaded that he has made himself known to man, that he has told man what he expects and what he promises those who have faith and try to live up to those expectations, that he is merciful, that he is fully capable of doing what he has promised, and that he does in fact do so. Those things being true, I am compelled to "still believe in a god" the same way I am compelled to believe that if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me. I just don't see any other conclusion as being wise.
-
As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."
It's not so much that nothing is incompatible with god's existence (seeing as a almighty being should be able to create and do everything that is in existence), but it's that there is not a single thing that points towards a god existing. Because I cannot think of something incompatible, it must be there? I now believe in a large invisible flying mammoth. I haven't seen a single sign that rules out it's existence.
Also, if there is a god - there are a large number of things that are questionable. A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.
-
As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."
But a being compatible with all of the aspects of the universe could be easily imagined, because all of mankind's knowledge of the universe is based on his own thinking. That logic would really do nothing but take you in circles. I could imagine a creature that has all of the adaptations needed to live on Mars. Does that mean that there is life on Mars?
-
A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.
??? Why not?
-
A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.
??? Why not?
Why would a 'loving and caring' god let people suffer so much?
-
As an atheist, it is imperative to ask yourself what about the universe you find incompatible with God's existence.
Upon realizing that you are unable to name a single thing, you will begin to question the very assertion of "there is no God."
Exactly. I don't find a single thing that is incompatible with God's existence, and I find plenty that is compatible. But that's neither here nor there, really. We've had these debates so many times on this forum, and they never go anywhere. To answer the question simply and directly: As I said in the first sentence, I am persuaded that what man can observe about the universe is consistent with the fact that there is a God. I am further persuaded that he has made himself known to man, that he has told man what he expects and what he promises those who have faith and try to live up to those expectations, that he is merciful, that he is fully capable of doing what he has promised, and that he does in fact do so. Those things being true, I am compelled to "still believe in a god" the same way I am compelled to believe that if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me. I just don't see any other conclusion as being wise.
I don't make the argument that God "cannot" exist. In fact, it's impossible for us to definitively know, and it may in fact be that the creation of the universe came about as the result of His divine will (or whatever). It's more that while there is no evidence supporting the claim that there is no God, there is also no evidence showing that it is necessary for God to exist for the universe to work as it does. In fact, considering M theory/unified field theory, the Big Bang theory, and the nature of force carriers, the concept of God becomes unnecessary, as the universe is able to sustain itself quite well. The coincidences that you might point to as evidence for god (the golden ratio, Earth fitting within the "Goldilocks zone") are just that: coincidences. The result of billions of years of natural particles and forces interacting through forces, explained perfectly well by quantum theory and relativity, and coalescing in a beautiful orderly blue ball, surrounded by chaos.
And that's another thing: there's chaos EVERYWHERE.
This unnecessity transforms God into more of a dead philosophical argument than an active theory. (Dead doesn't mean disproven, it just means it's not productive to discuss it anymore.) I just don't see any substantial proof that says otherwise...
-
It's not so much that nothing is incompatible with god's existence (seeing as a almighty being should be able to create and do everything that is in existence), but it's that there is not a single thing that points towards a god existing.
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a "thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
I have an extremely hard time believing that the Universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused, and then decided to adhere to a set of universal laws that also simply decided to come into existence
.Because I cannot think of something incompatible, it must be there? I now believe in a large invisible flying mammoth. I haven't seen a single sign that rules out it's existence.
See, we have obvious good reasons to believe that a large, invisible flying mammoth does NOT exist.
The same cannot be said about God. God is not restricted by space and time, and credited with the creation of existence.
We have good reasons to believe that God exists. An invisible flying mammoth, as awesome a mythical creature it may be, cannot be credited with the creation of the universe.
Also, if there is a god - there are a large number of things that are questionable. A god could let half the world suffer and let people die of hunger. He could let slavery exist. He could let floods kill thousands of people. Question is, why would he? All things that do not rule out an existence of a god. But they don't really point towards a god either.
The implication that objectively immoral or evil acts exist only serve to imply that objective moral actions (aka objective morality) exist as well, which only serves to further complicate matters for an atheist.
Don't forget of the concept of Free Will. God makes us responsible for our actions. If we were to know that whenever we would mess up, God would always be there to magically make everything happy for the whole world and give us divine cookies, would we ever develop responsibility? Would we be truly free to make our own decisions?
Really, the whole notion that "Evil exists, so there is no God" is primitive, foolish and detrimentally emotional.
-
Why do people jump to that conclusion that, if there is a god, then he controls every event and detail that happens in everyone's lives, and that therefore he cannot be just and loving? Just because he's God doesn't mean he is in control of everything.
-
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.
-
Well, first off, I will preface this by saying that unless God has directly provided an answer to a question that starts off "Why would God ___?" it is difficult to answer. And he basically answered this question in the book of Job along the lines of, "I couldn't possibly explain to you why I do all the things I do. I'm God and I do what I do for reasons. Understand that you, my creation, won't always understand." That answer may not be intellectually satisfying, but it is the only correct one.
Second, I don't completely understand the correllation between being "loving and caring" on one hand and insulating people from all kinds of bad things on the other. Given that we as humans tend to get comfortable and resist questioning our existence and the meaning of life unless and until our world gets rocked by something, I don't see why we should think that being insulated from all suffering would be a good thing. If we need that kind of thing to grow, it would be unloving to remove what makes us grow.
Third, all that being said, what I do know is this: Pain and suffering are not from God, but God does allow them. On top of what I know in that regard, what I think is that God has a much different perspective on suffering. While it saddens him and it is bad, I think he understands that it isn't as bad as we think it is. I don't mean to minimize any of it, but I think it is a lot like a child going through something that the child from his or her perspective thinks is tragic, while the parent understands that it is something the child must face, can get through, and isn't as bad as the child thinks it is. I also think that if someone is at all inclined to have a relationship with God, suffering in this life has the end result of bringing that person closer to God. And in the end, this life is so short in comparison to eternity, that, as Paul put it, "sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Forgive me if my answer seems trite, or doesn't seem satisfying. It is actually a deep, complex question. I struggle mightily to even comprehend what I think the answer might be. I struggle even more to try to articulate it well, and I fear that despite my best intentions, I probably still haven't done a very good job.
-
I don't make the argument that God "cannot" exist. In fact, it's impossible for us to definitively know, and it may in fact be that the creation of the universe came about as the result of His divine will (or whatever).
So you agree that atheism as a stance if illogical as one cannot assert that 'God does not exist'?
In fact, considering M theory/unified field theory, the Big Bang theory, and the nature of force carriers, the concept of God becomes unnecessary, as the universe is able to sustain itself quite well.
The M theory, just as the parallel universe theory, is not supported by any proof. They are merely the products of over-imaginative scientists with too much time on their hands. And even IF either are proven to be true, they would lead to an infinite regress of universe-creating universes, leading to no beginning, which is illogical, as matter and energy are neither eternal nor infinite (time being the exception with the potential to be infinite).
The that you might point to as evidence for god (the golden ratio, Earth fitting within the "Goldilocks zone") are just that: coincidences. The result of billions of years of natural particles and forces interacting through forces, explained perfectly well by quantum theory and relativity, and coalescing in a beautiful orderly blue ball, surrounded by chaos.
Actually, the Universe will most likely "end" in the scenario known as the "Big Freeze" - in which the universe's thermodynamic free energy will be completely spent. In other words, all energy will be completely spent and the universe will turn into a motionless blob of nothingness. No possibility for a "reincarnation" of the universe is possible under such circumstances.
And do not forget that quantum mechanics are observed in the presence of space-time. To imply that a quantum event is responsible for the existence of...existence... would be to imply that a quantum event "travelled" back in time to when nothing existed and birthed the universe - in other words: that the universe had to exist before it came into existence, which is, for obvious reasons, ludicrously illogical.
-
if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me.
Not necessarily.
-
Bosk, what do you think of the doctrine of sovereignty? (that God is in control of everything and that everything happens according to his will, down to the slightest detail)
-
Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical." If it weren't for the fact that it's pretty much per se inflammatory and insulting in most contexts I can think of, I would make a conscious effort to incorporate it into my vocabulary and use it as often as possible.
-
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.
Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.
-
Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical." If it weren't for the fact that it's pretty much per se inflammatory and insulting in most contexts I can think of, I would make a conscious effort to incorporate it into my vocabulary and use it as often as possible.
:lol
Well then I guess we finally agree on something!
EDIT: Oh wait never mind. I thought you were responding to my post. =/
-
Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical."
What can one say? It's a great phrase...
-
if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me.
Not necessarily.
Your personal experiences with balconies aside, I am confident enough in the certainty of that result that I'm not about to test it. But thanks. :lol
Bosk, what do you think of the doctrine of sovereignty? (that God is in control of everything and that everything happens according to his will, down to the slightest detail)
Personally, I do believe everything happens in accordance with his will, but I believe that is more of a macro view than a micro view (i.e., he does NOT control everything down to the slightest detail). He is in control, but does not control. But I also think that (a) how that works isn't really relevant to how I need to live my life, and (b) it is so deeply theological that it makes my head hurt. Either way, I'm not really inclined to debate it much.
-
Personally, I really, really like the phrase "ludicriously illogical."
What can one say? It's a great phrase...
That it is. And, upon further reflection, given my profession, I think I can probably find an appropriate use for it. *writes it on a sticky note and attaches it to monitor for future use*
-
Regarding the whole will of god thing, I figure if it's true it's probably more like this.
God wants John to get home, doesn't matter how.
Rather than, God wants John to put his right foot 8 inches forward, then follow with his left......etc.
-
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.
Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.
And yet you are trying to with god.
-
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.
Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.
And yet you are trying to with god.
Nice point. Well, I guess they have to hide god somewhere.
-
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.
Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.
And yet you are trying to with god.
Well its either that or Luck (or do they now call him "Chance"?), atheists' true God...
-
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.
Actually, the genesis of the Universe, the genesis of the universal laws, which tie into the "grandness and order of the universe" cannot be explained.
And yet you are trying to with god.
Well its either that or Luck (or do they now call him "Chance"?), atheists' true God...
Yes, anthropomorphizing something like "chance" and calling it god for atheists, that makes a lot of sense.
-
One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.
-
Well, I suppose you could. But saying it that way just doesn't have the same ring to it, so why would you bother?
-
One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.
We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.
In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.
-
One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.
Sure, but I at least admit that I don't understand the universe. I don't run around telling people to believe in whatever and that I know all the answers because some old book says it.
-
Why do we need an explanation as to the begining of all things?
Don't know why one is necessary.
-
Really, the whole notion that "Evil exists, so there is no God" is primitive, foolish and detrimentally emotional.
This.
Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.
How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.
But also this.
Why do we need an explanation as to the begining of all things?
Don't know why one is necessary.
Why not? We want to find explanations to everything else, it's only natural for our inquisitive nature to try to answer this ultimate question. Just look at how hard everyone is trying in this thread. :biggrin:
-J
-
Why someone would want one is fine, but why need one?
It's like if you don't know then you're wrong.
-
I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.
-
I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.
Well that's just silly.
So if someone shows you a wall and asks what's on the other side, "A purple unicorn" is a better answer than "I don't know"?
-
I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.
Yeah, thats pretty dumb.
-
Yeah, I'm with Adami (which is an odd thing to say in most contexts and leaves me feeling a bit like...something in the universe is off-kilter or something). I don't follow that logic at all. I wrong answer may be more intellectually satisfying than no answer, provided you don't know it's wrong. But I can't conceive of how anyone would think a wrong answer would be better than no answer.
-
One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.
We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.
In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.
Nonsense. We know dick about the universe. If Ptolemy was an infant, we're barely toddlers now. Yet we run into the same problem that he did. His system looked and behaved exactly as it should have given his level of knowledge and ability for scientific measure, but more importantly, looked and behaved exactly the same way our current, working model does. Put another way, what would it look like to us if we were currently residing in one of many universes? It'd look exactly the way it does to us now, and we'd be making the same theories and projections. Now, we certainly need to continue on exploring the only (semi)working theories we have, but to assume that we couldn't have the whole thing completely wrong would just be [insert trendy denigration here].
-
One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.
We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.
In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.
Nonsense. We know dick about the universe. If Ptolemy was an infant, we're barely toddlers now. Yet we run into the same problem that he did. His system looked and behaved exactly as it should have given his level of knowledge and ability for scientific measure, but more importantly, looked and behaved exactly the same way our current, working model does. Put another way, what would it look like to us if we were currently residing in one of many universes? It'd look exactly the way it does to us now, and we'd be making the same theories and projections. Now, we certainly need to continue on exploring the only (semi)working theories we have, but to assume that we couldn't have the whole thing completely wrong would just be [insert trendy denigration here].
Please...
We know a significant amount of information of the Universe. And also, "Please...", the idea of a multiverse has two distinct, condemning problems: 1) There is no proof for one and absolutely zero reason to believe one exists; and 2) Even if a multiverse exists, it serves nothing to provide an answer to existence's beginnings as then the multiverse would itself require an explanation - a cause - for its existence.
-
I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.
Well that's just silly.
So if someone shows you a wall and asks what's on the other side, "A purple unicorn" is a better answer than "I don't know"?
I didn't exactly mean it like that. I mean, whenever humans have solved an important question that life presented, maybe a cure for a disease or something else along those lines, there were inevitably wrong answers thrown at the problem before the right one was reached. Likewise, there have been a bunch of stupid and immature answers to religious questions, and many would say no answer has been reached. But we're still farther along because of the wrong answers. Do you see what I'm saying?
-
I see what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
You described the scientific approach. Saying "god did it" isn't scientific.
-
1. Absence of proof proves precisely nada. Hardly a condemnation of a multiverse. 2. I'm merely pointing out one of numerous ways that our perception of the universe could be completely bogus, and yes, that includes the notion that there had to be a beginning. There are several possibilities for an infinite universe(s).
-
There are several possibilities for an infinite universe(s).
Interesting. Such as?
-
The big bounce, and of course a multiverse itself, to name two that are currently conceivable.
-
One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.
We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.
In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.
Nonsense. We know dick about the universe. If Ptolemy was an infant, we're barely toddlers now. Yet we run into the same problem that he did. His system looked and behaved exactly as it should have given his level of knowledge and ability for scientific measure, but more importantly, looked and behaved exactly the same way our current, working model does. Put another way, what would it look like to us if we were currently residing in one of many universes? It'd look exactly the way it does to us now, and we'd be making the same theories and projections. Now, we certainly need to continue on exploring the only (semi)working theories we have, but to assume that we couldn't have the whole thing completely wrong would just be [insert trendy denigration here].
Please...
We know a significant amount of information of the Universe. And also, "Please...", the idea of a multiverse has two distinct, condemning problems: 1) There is no proof for one and absolutely zero reason to believe one exists; and 2) Even if a multiverse exists, it serves nothing to provide an answer to existence's beginnings as then the multiverse would itself require an explanation - a cause - for its existence.
Yes, there is an infinite regress somewhere, either god or a multiverse or something of that sort. Why is it that infinite regress automatically goes to the god?
-
The big bounce, and of course a multiverse itself, to name two that are currently conceivable.
Not quite.
Oscillatory models of the universe prove to be far less likely as the "Heat Death" models. It is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state. Even if the far-fetched oscillating universe theory is true, the question remains: what caused space-time and energy to come into existence to be able to observe such a phenomenon as the oscillating universe theory?
The same applies for the Multiverse; sure, it manages to produce a means to how our universe came into existence, but how did the Multiverse come into existence?
As I said, the absolute beginning of the Universe, or existence, is unavoidable.
-
Don't see why permanence isn't an option.
-
Yes, there is an infinite regress somewhere, either god or a multiverse or something of that sort. Why is it that infinite regress automatically goes to the god?
No, friend, the infinite regress does NOT go to God. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, therefore, God does not have a cause. The Universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause.
An infinite regress of God-creating gods is...ludicrously illogical, just as an infinite regress of Universe-creating Universes is.
-
Don't see why permanence isn't an option.
How so, husband?
-
Don't see why permanence isn't an option.
How so, husband?
The universe is permanent. And you're not jimmy, so stop calling me husband.
-
Don't see why permanence isn't an option.
How so, husband?
The universe is permanent. And you're not jimmy, so stop calling me husband.
What leads you to believe so?
-
I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.
-
I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.
Well, you actually said neither.
But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?
-
How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed? Why personify it? Just human nature. It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".
-
I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.
Well, you actually said neither.
But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?
Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.
-
I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.
Well, you actually said neither.
But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?
Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.
Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.
-
I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.
Well, you actually said neither.
But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?
Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.
Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.
So God is just going to let his creation just die a slow painful cold death? LOL
Funny how some people are so sure an old guy with a white beard and robes has always existed, but the universe cant.
-
How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed? Why personify it? Just human nature. It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".
Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?
-
I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.
Well, you actually said neither.
But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?
Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.
Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.
So God is just going to let his creation just die a slow painful cold death? LOL
Funny how some people are so sure an old guy with a white beard and robes has always existed, but the universe cant.
I assure you that atoms and matter won't feel pain...
You know when an atheist is losing an argument when they start invoking emotions and referring to God as an "old guy with a white beard in the heavens..."
-
How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed? Why personify it? Just human nature. It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".
Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?
I was unaware that human beings, a few thousand years from wiping their asses with fern leaves, were privy to the facts surrounding the demise of the universe billions of years in the future. LOL
Who says the universe isnt capable of transcending space and time? Who says it hasnt created a mechanism to contract and start the cycle over again?
These explanations are no more far fetched than an old guy with a beard and robe magically creating everything.
-
I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.
Well, you actually said neither.
But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?
Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.
Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.
So God is just going to let his creation just die a slow painful cold death? LOL
Funny how some people are so sure an old guy with a white beard and robes has always existed, but the universe cant.
I assure you that atoms and matter won't feel pain...
You know when an atheist is losing an argument when they start invoking emotions and referring to God as an "old guy with a white beard in the heavens..."
LOL. Im not an atheist. Im just not so smug as to think I know the true nature of the universe.
EDIT: and of course atoms wont feel pain, but those that "he" created in his image will.
-
How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed? Why personify it? Just human nature. It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".
Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?
I was unaware that human beings, a few thousand years from wiping their asses with fern leaves, were privy to the facts surrounding the demise of the universe billions of years in the future. LOL
Who says the universe isnt capable of transcending space and time? Who says it hasnt created a mechanism to contract and start the cycle over again?
These explanations are no more far fetched than an old guy with a beard and robe magically creating everything.
Allow me to get this right; You suggest that time and space will...eventually transcend time and space...?
...
What conceivable mechanism could "contract and start the cycle over again?"
Again, with the "Old Man with a beard (and now a robe)" thing, only serves to display your ineptitude of understanding the nature of the Universe and inability to ground your beliefs in sound logic. You much rather prefer grounding them in what you perhaps consider "witty" remarks.
-
LOL. Im not an atheist. Im just not so smug as to think I know the true nature of the universe.
EDIT: and of course atoms wont feel pain, but those that "he" created in his image will.
I also assure you that all life forms on Earth will have long passed on before the Heat Death of the Universe.
-
How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed? Why personify it? Just human nature. It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".
Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?
I was unaware that human beings, a few thousand years from wiping their asses with fern leaves, were privy to the facts surrounding the demise of the universe billions of years in the future. LOL
Who says the universe isnt capable of transcending space and time? Who says it hasnt created a mechanism to contract and start the cycle over again?
These explanations are no more far fetched than an old guy with a beard and robe magically creating everything.
Allow me to get this right; You suggest that time and space will...eventually transcend time and space...?
...
What conceivable mechanism could "contract and start the cycle over again?"
Again, with the "Old Man with a beard (and now a robe" thing, only serves to display your ineptitude of understanding the nature of the Universe and inability to ground your beliefs in sound logic. You much rather prefer grounding them in what you perhaps consider "witty" remarks.
No, something wont transcend itself. Space and time are parts of the universe as we know it. Why is it not concievable that The universe has other attributes? Could it have a conciousness that is capable of altering itself or change things? Why is this not possible, but the notion of a being that must exert control plausible?
And you can let "the old man with a beard" thing go. It was a comment that was intended to make a point. If that is what you must latch on to to feel you are winning an arguement (an arguement that cant have a winner actually) then so be it. Im sure most people got the sarcasm.
-
LOL. Im not an atheist. Im just not so smug as to think I know the true nature of the universe.
EDIT: and of course atoms wont feel pain, but those that "he" created in his image will.
I also assure you that all life forms on Earth will have long passed on before the Heat Death of the Universe.
Who says we are restricting the discussion to life on Earth?
-
Personally, I think you're viewing things only in such a way as to support your religious beliefs. Not a great plan, but not my problem. Knock yourself out. However, I would like to clarify a couple of things. You're saying God existed before the universe? He'll exist after it's over? What makes him so special, that he needs no creator but everything else does?
-
Yes, there is an infinite regress somewhere, either god or a multiverse or something of that sort. Why is it that infinite regress automatically goes to the god?
No, friend, the infinite regress does NOT go to God. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, therefore, God does not have a cause. The Universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause.
An infinite regress of God-creating gods is...ludicrously illogical, just as an infinite regress of Universe-creating Universes is.
I don't mean an infinite regress of creation, I mean an infinite regress of existence. Why can god exist infinitely and a multiverse can't. Gods creating other gods...pfff...I don't even believe in one god much less many.
-
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
This actually isn't true in the quantum world. Radioactive decay, for example, happens without a cause. It's determined by a probability, but the classical cause-effect model doesn't apply. Just goes to show how little we know about the nature of things.
-
Needless to say that there's no reason to think that the universe hasn't always existed in one form or another.
-
The faith in some thing one cannot see, or prove even exisits, is not a bad thing.
At the same time one does not need to believe in God to be a good person.
The proof that there is no God, has not been brought forth.
Those of us who belive that there is a God, need no proof of the exsitance of God.
I feel that it is an obligation of mine, and all people of the bible, (Christians, Jews, Muslims) to show our faith in God. and lead others to that faith in God.
:yarr
-
The faith in some thing one cannot see, or prove even exisits, is not a bad thing.
At the same time one does not need to believe in God to be a good person.
The proof that there is no God, has not been brought forth.
Those of us who belive that there is a God, need no proof of the exsitance of God.
I feel that it is an obligation of mine, and all people of the bible, (Christians, Jews, Muslims) to show our faith in God. and lead others to that faith in God.
:yarr
It's not the job of Jews actually. We don't recruit.
-
I have no say over what you've seen or how it influenced the way you look at the world, but
and you couldn't convince me otherwise.
this is what I call the end of intelligence.
And this post is borderline offensive. If you'd like to elaborate on that and come off like less of a condescending prick, that'd be awesome.
-
When someone says "I believe this, and I refuse to consider any other possibilities in the slightest bit"......that's usually a bad thing.
-
Probably worded it the wrong way, but I'd say that if you read my entire post without taking that part out of context it makes sense. It's saying "I've seen for myself there is a God through my own experience, and there's no way I or anyone else could erase or change those experiences, therefore it'd be nigh on impossible for me to be convinced otherwise."
Fuck this subforum gets me angry, its like you can't have a religious belief without some other guy jumping all over you and making a mockery of you and your beliefs under the guise of 'a discussion'. It happens all the time. Whether that last post was enough to get me banned or not, I'd like to be banned from P/R in any case. It'd be great if a mod saw this, they could make that happen. Apologies for my lack of tact.
-
Probably worded it the wrong way
Wording things the wrong way can get you in deep shit in these parts of the internet :D
-
Probably worded it the wrong way, but I'd say that if you read my entire post without taking that part out of context it makes sense. It's saying "I've seen for myself there is a God through my own experience, and there's no way I or anyone else could erase or change those experiences, therefore it'd be nigh on impossible for me to be convinced otherwise."
Fuck this subforum gets me angry, its like you can't have a religious belief without some other guy jumping all over you and making a mockery of you and your beliefs under the guise of 'a discussion'. It happens all the time. Whether that last post was enough to get me banned or not, I'd like to be banned from P/R in any case. It'd be great if a mod saw this, they could make that happen. Apologies for my lack of tact.
No one attacked your beliefs dude, Ack was sloppy with his wording, but we were at odds with your stance of not being willing to acknowledge other possibilites.
-
At the same time one does not need to believe in God to be a good person.
Thank you for admitting that.
It's not the job of Jews actually. We don't recruit.
That's what I like about you guys.
-
Holy crap.
-
if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me.
Not necessarily.
You're quite right. The last time I tried to jump off a tall object, all the electrons in my body spontaneously pointed in the direction opposite to the ground.
-
Holy crap.
This.
The Nonbeliever Brigade has arrived! :lol
-
(https://i32.tinypic.com/ffc0nk.jpg)
-
HALP ME HAIRY
But yeah, I haven't been on in a day, and this thread blew up with so many responses from the nonbelievers (which is cool).
-
Well, IIRC roughly 2/3 of DTF (at least P/R) are non-believers. So it seems the posts are just corresponding appropriately to that demographic.
-
Lol. Well said
-
Well, IIRC roughly 2/3 of DTF (at least P/R) are non-believers. So it seems the posts are just corresponding appropriately to that demographic.
Thread title.
-
Well, IIRC roughly 2/3 of DTF (at least P/R) are non-believers. So it seems the posts are just corresponding appropriately to that demographic.
Thread title.
Quite correct. This thread is for "believers" only. All others will be towed.
-
Eh, I knew others would come in, but it just seems so overwhelming in here that it doesn't seem worth it.
-
What I'm always left wondering after threads like this is why people care so much about other people's belief in something that, in the grand scheme of things, probably won't affect your day to day interactions with them much.
-
if I opened the window of my office on the 23rd floor right now and stepped outside, the law of gravity would make a swift end of me.
Not necessarily.
You're quite right. The last time I tried to jump off a tall object, all the electrons in my body spontaneously pointed in the direction opposite to the ground.
I doubt that's what he meant...
When I jump off buildings, for example, all of the particles in my body simultaneously tunnel to the other side of the Earth and I end up in New Zealand.
Thank god they speak English... :tup
-
I believe in God because I've seen him move through people in a way the can't be explained away by science, or anything else for that matter.
Dunno, LSD might explain some of it.
What do you mean you've seen him move through people?
I have the same curiousity, but no one can seem to explain it. I saw another post here stating they had a "direct experience of god". That really seems like an extremely profound statement that deserves an explanation. How do people know what they're seeing or experiencing? Especially in a world where nothing is as it seems. Believing is one thing, saying that one has seen or had a direct experience of god is entirely another.
-
If non-believers didn't come into the thread, there wouldn't be much to to discuss.
-
If non-believers didn't come into the thread, there wouldn't be much to to discuss.
Actually if you follow the bible study thread, it seems the believers disagree on a whole lot, very interesting stuff.
-
Again, with the "Old Man with a beard (and now a robe)" thing, only serves to display your ineptitude of understanding the nature of the Universe and inability to ground your beliefs in sound logic. You much rather prefer grounding them in what you perhaps consider "witty" remarks.
Compared to you, whose arguments have so far relied on the following logical fallacies:
Argument from incredulity (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)
I have an extremely hard time believing that the Universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused, and then decided to adhere to a set of universal laws that also simply decided to come into existence
Lack of imagination on your part doesnt mean that the above scenario can be treated as false.
Argument from ignorance (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
Oscillatory models of the universe prove to be far less likely as the "Heat Death" models. It is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state. Even if the far-fetched oscillating universe theory is true, the question remains: what caused space-time and energy to come into existence to be able to observe such a phenomenon as the oscillating universe theory?
Argument by assertion (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion)
...as matter and energy are neither eternal nor infinite (time being the exception with the potential to be infinite).
#
We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.
Neither of these have been demonstrated.
-
If non-believers didn't come into the thread, there wouldn't be much to to discuss.
Actually if you follow the bible study thread, it seems the believers disagree on a whole lot, very interesting stuff.
I meant on this particular topic.
-
It seems to me that the more science progresses, the harder it is to believe any religion. If there is a god out there, odds are that it's so far beyond what anyone on Earth can fathom, we shouldn't even worry about it. That includes praying, going to a church, preaching, etc...
-
Personally, I never put much stock in prayer either (as in asking for something, not the "hey, God. Just calling to say you rock" kind). You can't say God has some kind of master plan for us all then also say he'll change that plan if you ask really nicely.
-
Yeah. After I had my fall, so many people said "God must have a plan for you", or "You know someone is watching you". I don't think I have said a legit prayer since I was maybe 8, why would he do me a favor. I was wasted sitting on a balcony five stories up. If anything he should have let me die for the sake of getting the stupid decision gene out of humanity. I hated that people felt like I was some how more privileged than others. Why would God bother saving me when guns are being accidentally dropped in high schools and shooting little kids in the face.
-
If there is a god out there, odds are that it's so far beyond what anyone on Earth can fathom, we shouldn't even worry about it. That includes praying, going to a church, preaching, etc...
That's just goofy.
-
One thing I have an issue with most religions about is scale. The Earth is not important. It's not significant. It's tiny. It's in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Milky Way. That every religion places supreme importance on the Earth, I think, is representative of when they came to be; mostly, when we were blissfully unaware of the cosmos, or our relative (un)importance.
-
Why does any of that matter? Yes, the earth is tiny compared to the universe, the galaxy, or even the solar system. So?
-
Why would a god care only about us? Sure, the Earth is capable of supporting intelligent life, which all things considered is a pretty big attribute, but there are probably dozens of other such planets within a million light years.
-
One thing I have an issue with most religions about is scale. The Earth is not important. It's not significant. It's tiny. It's in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Milky Way. That every religion places supreme importance on the Earth, I think, is representative of when they came to be; mostly, when we were blissfully unaware of the cosmos, or our relative (un)importance.
Made me think of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
-
Why would a god care only about us? Sure, the Earth is capable of supporting intelligent life, which all things considered is a pretty big attribute, but there are probably dozens of other such planets within a million light years.
Assuming there's other life in the galaxy, what does that have to do with God and religion? I'm sure the creator of everything can multitask and take care of the going-ons of multiple planets, assuming he does at all.
-
Why would a god care only about us? Sure, the Earth is capable of supporting intelligent life, which all things considered is a pretty big attribute, but there are probably dozens of other such planets within a million light years.
Assuming there's other life in the galaxy, what does that have to do with God and religion? I'm sure the creator of everything can multitask and take care of the going-ons of multiple planets, assuming he does at all.
This. I don't see what the issue is.
-
It just seems like other worlds and life being maintained by the same god should be something mentioned in at least one religion.
-
Honestly, this arguments just sounds like when you have a crush on some girl in high school, and her response is, "I just don't believe you could really care about me, so because you don't fit my preconceived ideals of what a relationship should be like, I just won't believe that you really care about me."
-
It just seems like other worlds and life being maintained by the same god should be something mentioned in at least one religion.
Pearl of Great Price (LDS scripture)
Moses 1:33
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
https://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.33.31-33?lang=eng#33 (https://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.33.31-33?lang=eng#33)
Doctrine & Covenants 76:24
That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.
-
One thing I have an issue with most religions about is scale. The Earth is not important. It's not significant. It's tiny. It's in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Milky Way. That every religion places supreme importance on the Earth, I think, is representative of when they came to be; mostly, when we were blissfully unaware of the cosmos, or our relative (un)importance.
Uh, lol? If it isn't so important, then we do scientists look for life similar to our own?
-
One thing I have an issue with most religions about is scale. The Earth is not important. It's not significant. It's tiny. It's in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Milky Way. That every religion places supreme importance on the Earth, I think, is representative of when they came to be; mostly, when we were blissfully unaware of the cosmos, or our relative (un)importance.
Uh, lol? If it isn't so important, then we do scientists look for life similar to our own?
......so we can relate to it. I have a feeling they'd be excited about any kind of life.
-
But would that planet also be insignificant? Who should care, by that logic?
-
But would that planet also be insignificant? Who should care, by that logic?
We care, because we're alone. No one's asking why we would care.
-
The proof that there is no God, has not been brought forth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Do you also believe in the flying spaghetti monster?
-
Nice staw man argument there, Bombardana. That argument was actually already shot down a few posts back. Now if you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, by all means, proceed.
-
Nice staw man argument there, Bombardana. That argument was actually already shot down a few posts back. Now if you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, by all means, proceed.
Be a pal and quote the exact post, if you please
huh, don't see how this counts as a straw man argument. The (il)logic is consistent in both cases, that something can be believed in simply because it can't be proved to not exist.
I'm also liking that you said "if you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, by all means, proceed." without actually debating me on the subject at all. Lovely irony!
-
I personally find the existing notions of deities way too anthropogenic/centric. You read the documents about them and you immediately realize that the specific idea about the deity wasn't born out of a philosophical consideration, but out of a human need.
rumborak
-
We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious.
-
Just like aliens are always described as little grey men with big eyes.
-
(quoting Carl Sagan)
I don't think that it's similarity; it's just how people know how to describe things in easily understandable terms.
-
The God of your ancestors does not appeel to your modern sencibilities? Do you feel a modern God would suit you better in this modern world? Do you feel the churches today are antiquated, and out of touch? Or perhaps the mere thought of a higher power repulses you, makes you physicly sick. Well do not frett, I have come up with a solution, or rather, A new, modern, more powerful God that could care less about our insignificant lives, on this back water insignificant world. This new god has contacted me, and wishes me to spread this good news, to all you insignificant pathetic fools. The Good News is that you all shall die, but not all at once, or of the same things. God needs you to give nothing but your undying praise and worship, and small sacrifices, and in return, god will not intervene in our insignificant meaningless lives. God does promiss to make sure you will suffer a billion deaths if you do not comply. God has technilogical devices that can transfer our souls from body to body.
so join now or suffer a billion deaths.
:yarr
-
I feel like if you went back a few thousand years, you could get people to believe you.
-
I think so too. There's a reason no one respects Scientologists' beliefs. Or cults. Or the Falun Gong.
-
Why do people use the human body as proof of a creator? Of all the beings in the world, we have quite our share of flaws. Why do we need to eat to survive?Even accepting that we need to eat, why make only some nutrients important to us? Why make others detrimental? Why the need for waste disposal (waste)? Why are the most important parts of our body made from weak tissue? Why is our body corruptible to disease? If our bodies are so "intelligently designed", then why were the fundamentals overlooked?
-
See, in my mind the people who trot out arguments stemming from unlikelihood use false reasoning. If you take the human body as the logical end point of the universe, of course it looks ridiculously unlikely. But because we're not, it isn't a sound argument for design.
Imagine if you're playing a five card game of poker, and you leave the room. When you get back, you find out you've been dealt a royal flush. You might suspect the dealer rigged the hand. That's only because you ascribe significance to it. It's merely as unlikely as any other five card combination. Similar situation.
-
Why do people use the human body as proof of a creator? Of all the beings in the world, we have quite our share of flaws. Why do we need to eat to survive?Even accepting that we need to eat, why make only some nutrients important to us? Why make others detrimental? Why the need for waste disposal (waste)? Why are the most important parts of our body made from weak tissue? Why is our body corruptible to disease? If our bodies are so "intelligently designed", then why were the fundamentals overlooked?
Why do we have an appendix, a useless vestige that likely killed 1/100 people before the time of surgery?
-
Wow, so let me get this straight: You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God? Really?? I mean...really?? :facepalm:
-
Wow, so let me get this straight: You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God? Really?? I mean...really?? :facepalm:
Of course it shouldn't be a main point of the argument, but it is a valid point nontheless. I don't see why it is worthy of a facepalm. I have read sillier arguments in this thread.
-
If you say so, but I'm having difficulty fathoming that one. To me, it's like a 3-year-old going up to his parents and saying, "Mom and dad, you don't perform your jobs, manage the family finances, or raise you children the way I believe a reasonable parent should. Consequently, I refuse to believe you are really my parents."
-
Parent's aren't claimed to be perfect and all knowing.
-
Irrelevant. You still have a child projecting his immature subjective expectations on someone's actions he does not have the tools to comprehend, which is exactly the same thing.
-
Isn't it kind of simple to wave away all criticisms with 'you just can't comprehend it' or 'it's his plan'?
I understand what you're getting at, it's just that it's the same argument which is used for a lot of criticisms. Seems a bit convenient.
-
Yes, but "simple" or "convenient" doesn't render the argument any less valid. I find it to be a ridiculous argument. I mean, I get stuff like "I think the evidence for both evolution and the big bang and resulting cosmology to be compelling evidence against the creation story; therefore, I do not believe in a god." That makes sense. I do not find "The human body does not conform to my personal expectations of what I think it should be" to even approach making sense.
-
It basically implies in the Bible that God didn't make us exactly how he wanted us. Today's Bible reading, for example, ends with another wonderful set of instructions from God about circumcision.
WHY AREN'T YOU GUYS READING????
-
It's just that there seems to be no reason why a human being has an organ that can do nothing but get infected and kill you. I'm sure it's part of some grand plan, but it doesn't really seem to make any sense at the moment.
I'm not sure how literal 'God created man in his own image' is, but it would be pretty crappy if there was a god but he died a while ago of appendicitus.
Note: please don't take the last remark seriously.
-
Wow, so let me get this straight: You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God? Really?? I mean...really?? :facepalm:
The very first sentence of his post was "why do people use the human body as proof of a creator?" At no point did he suggest that it was proof of non-existence. He was merely pointing out a valid flaw in a common theistic line of reasoning.
Bad show, Chief.
-
Wow, so let me get this straight: You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God? Really?? I mean...really?? :facepalm:
I don't think that people shouldn't believe in a god. I just don't think that arguing the point that the human body as a complex structure should validate the existence of a designer, specifically when it's regarded as a 'miracle of creation'. My role so far in this thread is not to question the existence of a god per se but to bring different perspectives to the arguments being made.
At this point I doubt that many people who have put much thought into their faith actually try to reason about the existence of their god, in the same way that I simply don't need to and don't want to reason about my belief that there is no god or no gods. Now, that isn't to imply that I am an absolutist Agnostic, far from it. I just don't believe in a god because I don't need or want to. Not because I think that it's impossible for one to exist. I'm sure many believers share my thought process, in having faith for no other reason than a want.
-
Oh, okay. I see what you are saying. Thanks (and thanks to El Barto) for clarifying. Sorry--I wasn't intentionally trying to misstate your argument. I just didn't get it.
EDIT: So to actually speak to your point rather than talking past it by misstating it, I see your point that, in and of itself, the complexity of the human body does not prove the existence of God. But I personally do believe it is evidence, consistent with other evidence, that points toward a creator. I don't think any perceived or actual imperfections undermine that.
-
No problem, Chief. ;)
-
I don't think such things have anything to do with one another. Yeah, our bodies are full of inefficiencies, superfluosities, and vestigialities (those last two are not actually words, I don't think, but damn it they should be), as well as some truly amazing mechanisms, some because of their simplicity and others because of their complexity. But in the end, it comes down to a matter of perspective. What we may perceive as imperfections in our "design" do not preclude an all-knowing creator, any more than things we are in awe of suggest one.
In other words, someone who already believes (or is inclined to believe) in a loving, omniscient God is of course going to view things in light of that, whereas a non-believer's wonderment, while perhaps just as intense, will be directed elsewhere or chalked up to other possible causes.
-J
-
Here's another question for believers who argue a supposed logical reason for their belief: If you attribute unexplained positive phenomena to a god and in effect use unexplained phenomena as proof of said god, where do negative phenomena come into the equation? If the miracle of birth points to a all-loving creator, what do you think about things like, say, I don't know... getting hit in the head by a stray bullet, or spontaneous combustion? Are there bad miracles? What are they proof of?
-
Wow, so let me get this straight: You don't think people should believe in God because you subjectively believe the human body should have been made differently if there was a God? Really?? I mean...really?? :facepalm:
The very first sentence of his post was "why do people use the human body as proof of a creator?" At no point did he suggest that it was proof of non-existence. He was merely pointing out a valid flaw in a common theistic line of reasoning.
Bad show, Chief.
Exactly. If you want to present evidence for an intelligent designer, look else where.
-
What I see a lot of when I talk to friends about this, and what I'm seeing a lot of here, is a thought process that looks like this:
"Well, if I was God, I would do this, this, and this. So therefore, since God is apparently not doing those things, he must not exist."
It's pretty....silly when you look at it that way.
-
I think it's a pretty fair question why God would give man an arduous, 3 billion year journey to dominance that still leaves us imperfect. Or, if you literally interpret Genesis, why he would make it look like that happened.
-
When it's obvious to fallible human beings that there are major design flaws in our biology, it's pretty stupid to still claim that an intelligent all knowing designer did it. Not to mention that the presence of various vestigial traits point directly to evolution, not design from scratch. To reiterate, this is not to say "we have design flaws, therefore there is no god," it's to say that the argument for design holds no ground.
-
...why he would make it look like that happened.
It doesn't. One can onloy reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.
-
When it's obvious to fallible human beings that there are major design flaws in our biology, it's pretty stupid to still claim that an intelligent all knowing designer did it. Not to mention that the presence of various vestigial traits point directly to evolution, not design from scratch. To reiterate, this is not to say "we have design flaws, therefore there is no god," it's to say that the argument for design holds no ground.
Not at all. You are saying that an intelligent designer necessitates a perfect design, which is simply not the case.
-
When it's obvious to fallible human beings that there are major design flaws in our biology, it's pretty stupid to still claim that an intelligent all knowing designer did it. Not to mention that the presence of various vestigial traits point directly to evolution, not design from scratch. To reiterate, this is not to say "we have design flaws, therefore there is no god," it's to say that the argument for design holds no ground.
Not at all. You are saying that an intelligent designer necessitates a perfect design, which is simply not the case.
So god is more of an aimless tinkerer then...?
-
No. We're designed exactly how he intended us to be.
-
So god intended his creations to have flawed designs that look exactly like they would if they had evolved...ok.
-
So god intended his creations to have flawed designs that look exactly like they would if they had evolved...ok.
That would actually be pretty damn funny, like if he were just yanking our chains for Godly amusement. Like hiding dinosaur bones all over the place just to fuck with us. I'd actually consider that a fairly redeeming quality (although he's still got a ways to go).
-
Wow, really?! people are still using the intelligent designer argument? I thought that was debunked; pushed to the sides along with other archaic arguments for god's existence.
Time and time and time and time again and again and again an aspect of the universe which seems to be of super human complexity or inexplicable by any natural means is later at some time understood and explained, and re-understood and re-explained and so forth removing more and more and more of gods necessity as an explanation. The gaps are getting smaller, squeezing out the need for a god.
Furthermore, and the most absolute reason for my atheism is reinforced by the notion of a single intelligent designer designing the most unimaginably complex robot (according to the argument; that's EXACTLY what we are; where every single attosecond of thought can be mapped by bio-chemical matrix of equations) removing free will. Without free will we are nothing special and the entirety of the universe and time can mapped mathematically and scientifically by the only people capable; the programmer, the mechanic, the engineer, the electrician, etc. of the humans; god I believe is his name and I am sure he has the schematics somewhere.
There is absolutely NO WAY free will can be argued alongside the idea of an intelligent designer.
The deist explanation of God is the only argument that holds any semblance of weight anymore.
-
Either way, the birth of the theory of evolution by natural selection and such would be part of the plan of an all-knowing God.
-
There is absolutely NO WAY free will can be argued alongside the idea of an intelligent designer.
I agree with this 100% but in what context CAN it be argued in?
-
So god intended his creations to have flawed designs that look exactly like they would if they had evolved...ok.
That would actually be pretty damn funny, like if he were just yanking our chains for Godly amusement. Like hiding dinosaur bones all over the place just to fuck with us. I'd actually consider that a fairly redeeming quality (although he's still got a ways to go).
Lol.
Going with the yearly Bible reading we're currently doing and all the talk of cirumcision in it lately, I recall that joke where God meets Abraham up in heaven and says something to him like "LOL I didn't think you'd really do it!"
-
Either way, the birth of the theory of evolution by natural selection and such would be part of the plan of an all-knowing God.
...and let the world schism and people kill each other in his name under the guise of free will, WHICH HE CREATED, and condemn them to hell, WHICH HE CREATED, for breaking rules WHICH HE CREATED.
In our world, we would lock someone up for playing psychotic games like that....
Its mind boggling out deliberately delusional some people are to this....
edit...
No. We're designed exactly how he intended us to be.
look, perfect example. All of the violence among humans for all time were intended (or if not, then his imperfection must be admitted)
-
Remember...it is all part of gods plan. ;)
I don't believe it either and that one argument pisses me off more than any other.
-
And what kind of a dick is god if after creating an entire universe, all he can give a fuck about is if a planet full of shitty people love him or not. I mean, if I was god, I'd be like, "oh, you don't like me? who gives a fuck, I made everything ever. I've accomplished quite a bit of stuff, I think I'll get over it." But the guy can't get over that shit. Everybody has to love him or they die forever.
The guy has some serious self-worth issues.
-
Either way, the birth of the theory of evolution by natural selection and such would be part of the plan of an all-knowing God.
...and let the world schism and people kill each other in his name under the guise of free will, WHICH HE CREATED, and condemn them to hell, WHICH HE CREATED, for breaking rules WHICH HE CREATED.
In our world, we would lock someone up for playing psychotic games like that....
Its mind boggling out deliberately delusional some people are to this....
No shit brah. Btw, my reply to your post was the one you apparently missed, not the one you quoted, lol.
-
oh, oops :facepalm:
Dawkins said it quite well:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
ooh, i found examples!
https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/12/richard-dawkins-god-of-old-testament.html
If someone comes in and says the god of the OT is somehow different from the god of the NT I am going to nerd rage out of here...
-
For lack of a better term,
amen.
-
Also, is it possible for the omniscient and omnipresent god to have "intentions" ?
It is or it isn't; simply as that. For him to have "intentions" implies the possibility of him not succeeding. Its a very human aspect; "intention"
-
Pretty much all human qualities of God have to be removed if you take all powerful, omnipotent and all that to their end conclusions.
@ soundgarden: Unless I misunderstood you, you were arguing a case for free will. Free will isn't compatible with an all-knowing God, but then what the hell IS it compatible with?
-
Unless I misunderstood you, you were arguing a case for free will. Free will isn't compatible with an all-knowing God, but then what the hell IS it compatible with?
Oh, I think we both misunderstood each other actually
I wasn't arguing a case for free will; in fact I don't see the idea even existing even in a non-theist world. The only "will" I see is the "will to survive." which began humbly among our distant ancestors and resulted in civilizations where survival was found to be easier gained when working together. We are moving forward with this very old, very deep feeling.
As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.
-
Unless I misunderstood you, you were arguing a case for free will. Free will isn't compatible with an all-knowing God, but then what the hell IS it compatible with?
Oh, I think we both misunderstood each other actually
I wasn't arguing a case for free will; in fact I don't see the idea even existing even in a non-theist world. The only "will" I see is the "will to survive." which began humbly among our distant ancestors and resulted in civilizations where survival was found to be easier gained when working together. We are moving forward with this very old, very deep feeling.
As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.
Ah, gotcha. I agree, except I wouldn't call it a "will to survive"... maybe a group of wills for things that tend to benefit our survival (and reproduction), which then, in our complex civilizations, morph into things that have little or nothing to do with survival (or reproduction).
-
I'm not sure how literal 'God created man in his own image' is, but it would be pretty crappy if there was a god but he died a while ago of appendicitus.
That's a hilarious thought to me. As I recently realized I have no signature, I believe that will make for a good one.
...why he would make it look like that happened.
It doesn't. One can onloy reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.
Question... I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?
-
I'm not sure how literal 'God created man in his own image' is, but it would be pretty crappy if there was a god but he died a while ago of appendicitus.
That's a hilarious thought to me. As I recently realized I have no signature, I believe that will make for a good one.
:tup
-
As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.
And that is precicely the reason man created the reason and purpose. It made him too uncomfortable not knowing, so god and religion were created to comfort him.
-
Jeez, this thread...
-
As to absolute reason or purpose of life; well there is no explanation.
And that is precicely the reason man created the reason and purpose. It made him too uncomfortable not knowing, so god and religion were created to comfort him.
I'd actually say it's the exact opposite. There was no need to artificially attempt to create "reason" or "purpose"; those were things that just automatically popped up in every culture. It was only when these ideas started to be seriously challenged that the problem of cosmic meaninglessness emerged. But this sense of "meaninglessness" is only devastating when it's directly contrasted with the human imaginative/imaginary dream of eternal life and happiness and the such. And that's why when people start to get over the old ways of thinking, they can go on living a content life, because they intuitively realize that since "meaning" never existed, neither did "meaninglessness."
-
...why he would make it look like that happened.
It doesn't. One can only reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.
Question... I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?
Ah...finally amidst half a page of incoherent half-informed raging, an actual question that can be responded to.
Short answer: I think it is MUCH closer to 6,000 than 6 billion.
-
Jeez, this thread...
-
So god intended his creations to have flawed designs that look exactly like they would if they had evolved...ok.
That would actually be pretty damn funny, like if he were just yanking our chains for Godly amusement. Like hiding dinosaur bones all over the place just to fuck with us. I'd actually consider that a fairly redeeming quality (although he's still got a ways to go).
It would be funny, and if it were true, then maybe the various religions would be correct in giving god all too human characteristics. On a more serious note, I don't think this would be compatible with Judeo-Christian beliefs, since god apparently can't lie.
-
...why he would make it look like that happened.
It doesn't. One can only reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.
Question... I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?
Ah...finally amidst half a page of incoherent half-informed raging, an actual question that can be responded to.
Short answer: I think it is MUCH closer to 6,000 than 6 billion.
I believe the Earth is only like 4.6 billion years old.
-
...why he would make it look like that happened.
It doesn't. One can only reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.
Question... I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?
Silly Chino, you don't actually believe all of that radiological dating, do you? ;)
Ah...finally amidst half a page of incoherent half-informed raging, an actual question that can be responded to.
Short answer: I think it is MUCH closer to 6,000 than 6 billion.
I believe the Earth is only like 4.6 billion years old.
-
back to the OP....one of many reasons I believe in a god is because of BOOBS! (and yes, I am serious).
can anyone explain to me why in the world guys are insanely attracted to boobs (or any female sexual part, for that matter). a boob is fat. fat on any other part of a woman's body is disgusting. a boob on a man's body is disgusting. but on a woman, it is beautiful. coincidentally, it is what attracts us to a woman, which coincidentally leads us to intercourse, which coincidentally is the simple reason we are here to write about god.
how does evolution explain sex, btw? how was evolution smart enough to know that an insatiable desire for sex should be in a young man and a young woman (the perfect combination, ie. not when they are old and cannot bear) so that humanity could continue?
-
how does evolution explain sex, btw? how was evolution smart enough to know that an insatiable desire for sex should be in a young man and a young woman (the perfect combination, ie. not when they are old and cannot bear) so that humanity could continue?
Because had that desire not evolved, humans (or any other species, for that matter) would have died out long ago.
-
back to the OP....one of many reasons I believe in a god is because of BOOBS! (and yes, I am serious).
I see no good reason to oppose this argument.
...although I have to admit that I have no idea what you said after this line because, even though I was reading it, my mind was somewhere else.
-
how does evolution explain sex, btw? how was evolution smart enough to know that an insatiable desire for sex should be in a young man and a young woman (the perfect combination, ie. not when they are old and cannot bear) so that humanity could continue?
Because had that desire not evolved, humans (or any other species, for that matter) would have died out long ago.
so before this desire existed, is it fair to assume that men did not desire the female? what other motivation did the human race find to propogate itself? nothing would continue until someone decided to "do it"
-
Yeah, I'm no mathematical genius or anything, but I'm pretty sure that 4.6 Billion is much closer to 6 Billion than 6,000.
back to the OP....one of many reasons I believe in a god is because of BOOBS! (and yes, I am serious).
can anyone explain to me why in the world guys are insanely attracted to boobs
Because boobs are a perfect representation of the universe. They are circles within circles. What is the single most common shape in the universe? Circles. When I look at boobs, I think of the big bang. ;)
-
how does evolution explain sex, btw? how was evolution smart enough to know that an insatiable desire for sex should be in a young man and a young woman (the perfect combination, ie. not when they are old and cannot bear) so that humanity could continue?
Because had that desire not evolved, humans (or any other species, for that matter) would have died out long ago.
so before this desire existed, is it fair to assume that men did not desire the female? what other motivation did the human race find to propogate itself? nothing would continue until someone decided to "do it"
Species survival has been the prime impulse of all living things since the dawn of life. I think your argument goes the other way around: why would we have completely primal urges if we did not inherit them from primitive evolutionary ancestors?
-
Upon further reflection, I think we can delete the last 8 pages of discussion and simply answer the question in the original post as: boobs and bacon. There is probably another "b" we can add in there, but I can't think of what it is at the moment. And, really, given the first two, I'm not sure we really need to add to the list anyway other than to create a trilogy, which somehow makes any answer sound more compelling.
Can we just lock the thread now?
-
Yeah, I'm no mathematical genius or anything, but I'm pretty sure that 4.6 Billion is much closer to 6 Billion than 6,000.
back to the OP....one of many reasons I believe in a god is because of BOOBS! (and yes, I am serious).
can anyone explain to me why in the world guys are insanely attracted to boobs
Because boobs are a perfect representation of the universe. They are circles within circles. What is the single most common shape in the universe? Circles. When I look at boobs, I think of the big bang. ;)
:rollin
-
There are several explanations for the attraction to tits. One is man-made. The fact that they're covered. In places where the women leave them out, the attraction isn't as common. Another theory is that they're reminiscent of the ass, and the ass has been a point of attraction since before we were walking upright. Yet another is that since they belong to only women, they're just associated as being distinctly feminine. Then there's the notion that tits might be indicative in some way of fertility, which of course is the original driving force of the instinct.
-
Where there is discussion of boobs, I will eventually turn up. I agree - boobs are reason enough to believe there is a God. In fact He amply proved Himself to me in that respect just last night. Though I would suggest that beer take the place of bacon, but that's just me.
Also, to clarify:
Boobs:
(https://www.familyvacationco.com/Galapagos/galapagosfamilyvacation10.jpg)
Tits
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/02/080205191210-large.jpg)
-
Oh yea, they're also an erogenous zone. That'll obviously lead to an attraction.
Edit: and last time this topic came up, I discovered this thread/forum, which was fantastic insight into the question.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/10210-why-are-men-attracted-to-breasts/
-
I'm not sure we really need to add to the list anyway other than to create a trilogy
Trilogy already created, or is it Trinity?
When I look at boobs, I think of the big bang. ;)
-
Gotta admit though, P/R is probably the last place I expected boobs to ever come up.
-
or bacon, for that matter
-
...why he would make it look like that happened.
It doesn't. One can only reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.
Question... I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?
Ah...finally amidst half a page of incoherent half-informed raging, an actual question that can be responded to.
Short answer: I think it is MUCH closer to 6,000 than 6 billion.
Is that your take on the universe as well, or just the earth? Do you really feel the evidence just isn't there to support the earth being billions of years old, or are you strongly opposed to a metaphorical reading of the creation account to the point that you won't believe in an old earth regardless of what evidence comes up?
And while we're on the topic of Genesis, don't you think that the author had to have a bit more than divine inspiration, but rather a sort of divine dictation in order to accurately describe events that occurred before any human was around to witness them? If you take a literal reading of the creation, how did the author happen upon the knowledge of how it all went down?
This may or may not be on topic anymore, but hopefully you don't mind.
-
Is that your take on the universe as well, or just the earth?
Both.
Do you really feel the evidence just isn't there to support the earth being billions of years old, or are you strongly opposed to a metaphorical reading of the creation account to the point that you won't believe in an old earth regardless of what evidence comes up?
I wouldn’t say I “won't believe in an old earth regardless of what evidence comes up” because I’m open to the fact that I’m either misunderstanding one or more of (1) the Genesis creation account itself; (2) the evidence in support of an older earth/universe; and/or (3) the evidence in support of a younger earth/universe. But I do feel that the evidence isn’t there to support the earth being billions of years old. There is evidence. But I think the theories and models that explain that evidence and draw the conclusion that the earth is older are inadequate. I think there is a lot of evidence supporting a young earth. But I think on either side, we fall far short of conclusive proof one way or the other.
Going back to the text, nothing in the text seems to indicate a figurative timeline. Again, I could be completely missing the point. But, generally, when biblical authors intent something to be taken metaphorically, there are contextual clues that point us in that direction, and I see none here. But, again, I leave room for the fact that I might be mistaken.
That’s the short answer. We’ve had these discussions for pages and pages and pages.
And while we're on the topic of Genesis, don't you think that the author had to have a bit more than divine inspiration, but rather a sort of divine dictation in order to accurately describe events that occurred before any human was around to witness them? If you take a literal reading of the creation, how did the author happen upon the knowledge of how it all went down?
In short, I think what you are describing as “divine dictation” is essentially the kind of divine inspiration that the Bible describes. There really aren’t many options for how the writer came upon that knowledge. Either someone who was around passed it down until it was written, God told the writer directly what happened, or it was made up. Unless I’m missing something, I think those are the only options.
This may or may not be on topic anymore, but hopefully you don't mind.
That’s fine. I think it’s appropriate to the thread since the topic is really a broad one anyway. I don’t really care to debate the science because it’s been done to death and nobody ends up persuading the other side anyway. But I don’t mind discussing what my opinions are on the subject.
-
Billions.
(in Carl Sagan voice.)
-
When I was younger, I used to believe in the young earth as based on the genealogy of Adam. Slightly more recently, after reading more into it, I focused on the first two sentences of Genesis (NIV):
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
From this, I suppose that it's possible two distinct and separate timeframes are in place here, i.e., "The beginning" is separated by some unknown (and only implied) time from the first day. Could the first sunrise as the earth slowly begins its rotation mark the first "day" - whether literal or not? I think it's possible, and this reconciliation between science and the Creation story could even be probable. We'll probably never know, though, until God reveals it to us in the end, but right now, this makes the most sense to me.
-
Well, if you're going to drop the Carl Sagan voice on me...I guess I'm powerless to resist. You win. :france:
-
Well, if you're going to drop the Carl Sagan voice on me...I guess I'm powerless to resist. You win. :france:
Thats how I win all arguements with my wife. I use the Sagan voice, and it immediately gives me the appearance of superior intellect, and therefore correct in my arguement.
Didnt think it would work in written form on the internet though.
-
:lol
-
God, boobs, and bacon.
-
And Carl Sagan. Dude, weren't you paying attention?
-
And Carl Sagan. Dude, weren't you paying attention?
I had him grouped under "boobs."
-
curveball!
-
And Carl Sagan. Dude, weren't you paying attention?
I had him grouped under "boobs."
Ah! Good call.
-
Woman have boobs and butts because throughout evolution, men have chosen the genes they visually enjoyed. We most likely did not want to fuck something that looked the same as us, so we picked the genes in women that made them different. This is seen all throughout nature. The lion for example. A males mane has no survival purpose, but throughout time they have gotten fuller and thicker. This is the trait the females choose.
-
.....or, maybe man likes boobs and sex with women because God created them with that desire so the two would come together and make children and continue on the human race.
nah, sounds too simple.
-
You pretty much just said the same thing but added god into it and took out the logic.
-
maybe so. except one is on purpose and the other is on accident
-
On the subject of boobs, it makes no difference whether it is evolution or God. Because it is boobs.
-
You pretty much just said the same thing but added god into it and took out the logic.
Siged for awesome.
-
On the subject of boobs, it makes no difference whether it is evolution or God. Because it is boobs.
This is the more important point.
-
.....or, maybe man likes boobs and sex with women because God created them with that desire so the two would come together and make children and continue on the human race.
nah, sounds too simple.
Well, if there were no homosexual gene, you may have a case. If you believe that attraction to another human is a gene given to you by God, the gay gene seems pretty out of place. Especially when so many churches all over the world look at homosexuality in such disgust. Odd are that it is an easy, fairly common mutation that only stays repressed because it hardly ever gets passed on to an offspring.
-
So if the Earth is about 6000 years old, what's the deal with Dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures? Did Satan plant them there or did god do it? Or are they just not that old? Did Jesus ride around on Velociraptors? If I shoot a toy missile up my nose, will it come out my belly button? Serious replies only please.
-
(https://media.comicvine.com/uploads/5/55519/1101117-ok_03_05_2009_raptor_jesus_super.jpg)
-
Well Yesh, a major flaw of that reasoning is that lesbians tend to like tits (and big ones, at that) just as much as men.
-
Then there are hermaphrodites.
-
.. and Chris Crocker
-
Well Yesh, a major flaw of that reasoning is that lesbians tend to like tits (and big ones, at that) just as much as men.
So do straight chicks.
-
I think he was implying that they like other women's tits.
-
I know. That's what I was saying also. Straight chicks are fascinated by boobs also (theirs or other women's). Maybe not all straight chicks, but enough of them to introduce it into the argument.
Now whether the straight chick in question will admit to you that she likes boobs also is another thing. I admit I'm quite lucky in that respect.
-
Alrighty then! New insights all around! :metal
-
OK, so the theists, atheists, and agnostics can agree on boobs.
Hey, it's a start.
-
our work is done...world peace lies ahead
-
Hate to break it to ya... but there are probably ppl who are asexual.
What shall we do with them? lol
-
fuck 'em!
-
Hate to break it to ya... but there are probably ppl who are asexual.
What's the fun in that?
-
Not to mention the number of people who are born with ambiguous genitalia. About the same occurrence as twins.
-
screw 'em!
-
Hate to break it to ya... but there are probably ppl who are asexual.
What shall we do with them? lol
Tell em to get a divorce so the rest of us can have more sex.
-
Did no one find my remarks humourous? I thought they were pretty clever.
-
Did no one find my remarks humourous? I thought they were pretty clever.
Well, you're name is "Pirate." That creates some pretty high expectations. The remarks were okay, but not "Pirate" worthy.
-
Nar, nar.
-
...why he would make it look like that happened.
It doesn't. One can only reach that conclusion by making faulty assumptions.
Question... I don't want to jump to any conclusions about your beliefs, but do you subscribe to the view that the earth is somewhere around 6000 years old, or am I misreading your post?
Ah...finally amidst half a page of incoherent half-informed raging, an actual question that can be responded to.
Seriously, a big :\ to you Bosk.
Thought this was a discussion board; not a place for blanket disregard for competing views. Sure you argue on ends about the theological implications among the other religious folks of the board; but when discussing with the non-theists you become smug.
But I will bite; if you are going to use that argument.
1) How dare you call some of us "half-informed" when you entire system of belief is based on observations through the lens of faith; your belief in a deity is based in perceived perfection or mathematical beauty of the universe. Fine. However your conclusions on those observations do not go through the rigors of inquiry; you simply draw a line from A to B; that is a seemingly perfect creation IMPLIES a creator. There is no DIRECT proof of his hands work; but according to your system is a good enough proof. We on the other hand draw conclusions that can be proved and seen; and if not we dare not make conclusions on life and purpose.
Your system of belief is based on personal conclusions (after all, other Christians have other views) on observations made in life; the secular world makes conclusions through the method of investigation and actual tangible proof. We don't surmise a ultimate answer (though we may assume constants to serve as temporary step forwards). And you dare call us "half-informed"? Please.
You are a lawyer, right? If your opponent draws conclusions outside of evidence and dismisses your case based solely on hard evidence as "half-informed" he would be thrown out of court. no?
2) If you use the "half-informed" argument in that my knowledge of Christian scripture pales to yours; fine. I agree. However, you MUST then admit that your knowledge of every other faith pales and that for you to draw your conclusions of the world through Christian scriptures is in fact "half-informed." Take your observations of life; study the teachings of Buddha with the same level of inquiry and deference as you do Christian scriptures; then continue with Hinduism, Shintoism, Jane-ism, Iroquois Tradition, etc...) THEN after all that, you feel Christian scriptures is the true word of god revealed then you have every opportunity to use "half-informed" when discussing this topic.
-
I would strongly suggest you actually go back and read what I was responding to and then try to think about what my post meant. You've completely missed the point.
-
Whether me or others, my points remain.
-
Yes, but the problem is, you don't seem to have any points other than some sort of hostility toward religion. Your posts, and several others on that half a page or so don't present any evidence and don't draw any conclusions from evidence. They are just "lol--religious people are stupid lol." That doesn't pass as an argument. You can hate on any religion you like or on religion in general. But if you want to post, then contribute to the discussion in some meaningful way, please.
-
His basic point is that we cannot call each others posts half-informed without explanation. It's a blanket statement that shows just how much the posts are being dismissed and discarded. Granted, some lacked any real weight to them but many others simply pushed the topic question of the thread, and thus furthering discussion and expanding on the thoughts presented.
-
...but many others simply pushed the topic question of the thread, and thus furthering discussion and expanding on the thoughts presented.
Yes, and posts that fall into that category were not what I was referring to.
-
Now that I look back on it, you were correctly right in your description of that particular page lol. In my head I was just estimating - the page that I entered on seemed fine. Although I can make the argument that boob and bacon praise is not exactly 'cromulent' discussion.
Wait what the fuck am I saying?
-
Ok I was coming back to this thread to apologize for missing what you are referring to; however...
Yes, but the problem is, you don't seem to have any points other than some sort of hostility toward religion.
WHAT?! Give me one evidence of my hostility to religion; do I threaten them? Do I argue for attacks? I continuously argue for their growing irrelevance and cite examples of RELIGION's hostility to the world.
Am I hostile to you? Or, like many of the religious of the world; does a critique of your beliefs fall under the category of hostility?
Your posts, and several others on that half a page or so don't present any evidence and don't draw any conclusions from evidence.
WHAT!? All my arguments are founded in a anthropological, paleontological, sociological, historical, logical basis and never from the softer, often more vague and un-grounded schools such as philosophy. Or do you mean I lack evidence from your particular interpretation of a text.
A man who lives through a faith based belief system calls for "evidence" Oh please... :\
They are just "lol--religious people are stupid lol." That doesn't pass as an argument. You can hate on any religion you like or on religion in general. But if you want to post, then contribute to the discussion in some meaningful way, please.
WHAT?! Once again, your smug, pretentious attitude for your faith shows itself. Please you or ANYONE else, point to one thing I said that can be considered "lol-religious people are stupid." I would NEVER say they are stupid, and your claim that I do further galvanizes my point of your disregard and apparent contempt for those outside of your faith.
Au contraire mon ami, its EXACTLY you who's posts can be dumbed down to "lol non-Christians are stupid."
Please, continue to revel in the irony, your deliberate ignorance and your blind hypocrisy.
And before you blanket summarize this post; let me help you by saying NOTHING here is an attack on you or your faith or those of any faith.
and again, big big :\ to you.
-
Okay, so you still have not presented any evidence in your posts, you continue your attacks, and now are restorting to namecalling. Care to reconsider your approach and try one last time or shall I just show you the door now?
-
Curious? I did not see any name calling in that post. I saw references and opinions on how you have been acting but no where did he call you a name. I think you have a very nice door and clearly you have spent a lot of money on it but not everyone may appreciate the way you brag about it.
-
Uh, what? :lol
Anyway, I'd guess I'm somewhere between bosk and WW on this.
The idea that we should draw from evidence and proof of God to justify our belief or unbelief is kind of strange to me, yet it seems to keep coming up at the crux of this discussion. I'm with what Will Wallace said a couple pages back: faith is trust in something you believe is worthwhile. All the things on Earth and in space may or may not be proof one way or the other, I don't see what they have to do with whether you should continue to believe or not. The universe is way to vast for us to be able to account for sure everything that's in it.
-
Curious? I did not see any name calling in that post. I saw references and opinions on how you have been acting but no where did he call you a name.
Aside from the hostile tone of the entire post, you must have missed where he called me smug, pretentious, ignorant, and a blind hypocrite.
I think you have a very nice door and clearly you have spent a lot of money on it but not everyone may appreciate the way you brag about it.
Nice try, but no amount of flattery will make me allow you entract through anything other than the service entrance. :biggrin:
-
Aside from the hostile tone of the entire post, you must have missed where he called me smug, pretentious, ignorant, and a blind hypocrite.
Hmm... The way it was phrased; referring to only one aspect of your stance on this matter would lead me to not consider it actually calling you said names. I will have to ponder on it further... hmmm.. hmmm... hmmm... indeed.
Nice try, but no amount of flattery will make me allow you entract through anything other than the service entrance. :biggrin:
Not even the back door? :-*
-
Uh, what? :lol
Anyway, I'd guess I'm somewhere between bosk and WW on this.
The idea that we should draw from evidence and proof of God to justify our belief or unbelief is kind of strange to me, yet it seems to keep coming up at the crux of this discussion. I'm with what Will Wallace said a couple pages back: faith is trust in something you believe is worthwhile. All the things on Earth and in space may or may not be proof one way or the other, I don't see what they have to do with whether you should continue to believe or not. The universe is way to vast for us to be able to account for sure everything that's in it.
Why is it strange to justify belief in God? If I had to ignore lingering doubts about religion, I wouldn't be involved in it.
-
There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.
-
There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.
I'm talking about defending specific, historical claims of Christianity. People can be spiritual without having any justification for being so, but I find that kind of strange. Why believe something if you have no reason to believe it's true?
-
Okay, so you still have not presented any evidence in your posts, you continue your attacks, and now are restorting to namecalling. Care to reconsider your approach and try one last time or shall I just show you the door now?
1) If you had read the post you would notice I asked several times; evidence for what?
2) If you had read the post you would notice I stated I never "attacked" anyone's faith or beliefs and for you to say that I "continue" to do so is unfounded. Negative critiques are NOT attacks. Get this straight.
3) If you had read the post you would notice I asked you, or anyone else, to show me where I "attacked" people's faith or said anything that can't be backed up with evidence from history.
Smug: a negative criticism.
pretentious: a negative criticism
deliberately delusional: a negative criticism
blind hypocrisy: a negative criticism
HOSTILE: a negative criticism
(Ok I admit, me saying "revel in the irony" was a tad uncalled for...)
A-hole, f**tard, d****bag,....there are your insults there buddy. And I would never say those things.
You outright calling me "hostile" is what made me furious and further dumbing me down claiming my posts are on the level of ""lol--religious people are stupid lol." without any evidence (as you so highly hold in regard, apparently) was what did it. So please, take a look at who started with the "attacks," as you so call them.
The only threads on religion I partake in are those of debate on its validity and necessity. You act as if I come in to your "Bible a Month" thread to lay some assaults or the like. In your bellowing for "examples" i would like you to justify calling me hostile. Angry, perhaps. Hostile. Yea right... Or should you go the way of any other religious type with power and shut me up; because you elevate negative criticism to personal attacks. Its funny, but not unexpected, how this micro-example of religious disagreements replicates in the macro space.
-
Its funny, but not unexpected, how this micro-example of religious disagreements replicates in the macro space.
You've got to be kidding.
-
There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.
I'm talking about defending specific, historical claims of Christianity. People can be spiritual without having any justification for being so, but I find that kind of strange. Why believe something if you have no reason to believe it's true?
Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.
-
There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious.
This was a really good read.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Part-Brain-Interpretation-Spirituality/dp/0966036700
-
There isn't really any solid justification for 'needing' to be religious or to have faith, that I can think of. Same goes for not being religious. The way I see it, all you really need for justification is a personal want or preference to be either.
I'm talking about defending specific, historical claims of Christianity. People can be spiritual without having any justification for being so, but I find that kind of strange. Why believe something if you have no reason to believe it's true?
Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.
I consider those both benefits of organized religion. But they're not justifications for belief by themselves, in my opinion.
-
I think I see what you're saying, WW, and if so, I think I agree.
:biggrin:
-
Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.
I consider those both benefits of organized religion. But they're not justifications for belief by themselves, in my opinion.
Yeah, but by the time you may (or may not) start asking for the justification, you've gotten so used to the benefits over the years that it's very unlikely you'll wean yourself off.
rumborak
-
Emotional reasons, perhaps? Maybe some people simply find comfort in the prospect of an afterlife, or the existence of a loving 'father'. Social reasons? Maybe people enjoy the community that comes with organized religion. Personally, I am not religious because I don't really need these things for my livelihood.
I consider those both benefits of organized religion. But they're not justifications for belief by themselves, in my opinion.
Yeah, but by the time you may (or may not) start asking for the justification, you've gotten so used to the benefits over the years that it's very unlikely you'll wean yourself off.
rumborak
That's not true in my case. I nearly rejected religion at 18 years old, right around the time you think you know everything. But if I ever come to a point where I know Christianity is bogus I won't hang around because of church potlucks. But I'm not there yet. Maybe I'll read some books by the Jesus Seminar. :biggrin:
Honestly, and unfortunately, I don't think many Christians today consider that they should know why they believe in God. If they ever question, they start by reading some crummy Christ-myth book or the God Delusion and it destroys their faith. But I'll grant that some probably consciously make the decision to "have faith" because it's comforting.
-
My point is that a lot of people recognize that religion is a lifestyle choice (these days) more than anything. I'm saying that the people who realize that it's just as likely that a god exists as it doesn't can and do still choose to be religious for personal reasons - and the same goes for people of the other persuasion. I'm going to be skeptical about any kind of argument to back up belief or nonbelief, in my opinion it's just unnecessary and missing the point.
-
Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially. Other than the (potential) cost of being wrong, and knowing that you might be wrong. The first one adds no cost (you lose nothing if you're wrong), the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.
rumborak
-
I'm with you TheVoxyn. I don't mind people being religious at all, but I don't know I just can't convince myself to believe in any of these thing.
-
Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially.
Maybe sola fide once-saved-always-saved Christianity, but almost all religions require a great deal of self-sacrifice.
-
Pure belief doesn't require anything.
-
Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially.
Maybe sola fide once-saved-always-saved Christianity, but almost all religions require a great deal of self-sacrifice.
Yeah, and lately, I feel more and more like that's the most popular brand of Christianity. Although the lack of personal responsibility is obviously an appealing doctrine.
Pure belief doesn't require anything.
Huh?
A set of beliefs regarding how to live one's life, especially if there are supposed eternal consequences, "requires" certain action.
-J
-
I know plenty of people that expect to go to heaven for basically just believing in God.
-
To any normal person it requires evidence and inquiry, which could be a difficult and possibly mental taxing task.
Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially.
I understand that your more or less generalizing the end point. To go more deeply; you are giving up a great deal depending on the religion. If right you have given up nothing and have received your reward. If wrong you have wasted many hours/days even years: praying, attending church, teaching your children wrongly, spreading your wrong beliefs to others; possibly persecuting others based on your beliefs, rulling out scientific reason and fact based on beliefs, ect...
You pretty much waste the only life you will have being wrong or are punished because another religion was right.
the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.
This is probably the worst part, people who willfully dismiss reality. These people vote and it is painful that they do. I'm less perturbed if someone sees evidence and is wrong about how they interpret it or do not know any better. Those who are intellectually dishonest are below dirt; they do nothing but hurt society.
I know plenty of people that expect to go to heaven for basically just believing in God.
Well aren't they in there own little world; every "official" text would suggest otherwise. Assuming it's Christianity
-
I know plenty of people that expect to go to heaven for basically just believing in God.
You know plenty of stupid people.
-
Don't I know it! :\
-
To go more deeply; you are giving up a great deal depending on the religion. If right you have given up nothing and have received your reward. If wrong you have wasted many hours/days even years: praying, attending church, teaching your children wrongly, spreading your wrong beliefs to others; possibly persecuting others based on your beliefs, rulling out scientific reason and fact based on beliefs, ect...
yeah, but the trick is that religions, all religions, are set up so that you never find out. That is, the only people who ever find about whether it's right or wrong are dead people, who conveniently can't tell you about it.
So, you can never be proven wrong in your lifetime and thus there isn't really a price tag attached to being religious. I mean, these days there is a bit; every bit of scientific news that negates some claim your religions has made is a bit of a "sting". But, there's a simple solution to that; don't read up on those things. I don't think it's particularly surprising that the widespread understanding of Evolution in religious circles is "one day an ape became a man". It's a convenient misconstruction because they know if they actually looked into it, they would have to deal with some very unpleasant questions; and that would be a "price tag".
rumborak
-
To go more deeply; you are giving up a great deal depending on the religion. If right you have given up nothing and have received your reward. If wrong you have wasted many hours/days even years: praying, attending church, teaching your children wrongly, spreading your wrong beliefs to others; possibly persecuting others based on your beliefs, rulling out scientific reason and fact based on beliefs, ect...
yeah, but the trick is that religions, all religions, are set up so that you never find out. That is, the only people who ever find about whether it's right or wrong are dead people, who conveniently can't tell you about it.
rumborak
I see what you're saying, but it's not so much a "religious trick" as it is a fact of death. From a scientific point of view, the "trick" is that we can never find out what happens to a consciousness after we die. Do we enter a state of euphoria due to a release of chemicals in the brain that give the illusion of paradise? Do we cease to exist?
-
There is no scientific reason to believe that conscienceless continues after death. All logic would point to eradication of the individual once the brain ceases.
-
I think first you would have to show that the human mind is more than just a product of the physical brain. And having read neuroscience articles over the last 10 years, I see no reason to assume it is not.
rumborak
-
Interesting. Articles such as?
-
The myriads articles in all kinds of popular magazines for example, the ones talking about how the brain is partitioned for certain tasks, with different areas responsible for reasoning, for personality, for self-identification etc. etc.
For example, I remember reading this article that talked about "interesting" brain injuries. One of them was to do with personality; the wife of the injured said "there's nothing 'wrong' with my husband. He functions completely normally, can do all the tasks he could do before. But, after the injury, he was a different person. His whole personality had changed, and I was simply no longer in love with this new person."
EDIT: Another one was even more interesting. It had knocked out the "decision center" in some people's brains. There was one recollection of a guy who fell into a pool and was at the bottom of the pool. He knew exactly that he would die if he didn't start to swim to the surface. But, he simply couldn't make the decision. Whatever that "spark" is there in all of us that makes the transition from thinking about stuff to actually doing it, it was gone in him. Somebody eventually pulled him out, otherwise he would have drowned.
rumborak
-
EDIT: Another one was even more interesting. It had knocked out the "decision center" in some people's brains. There was one recollection of a guy who fell into a pool and was at the bottom of the pool. He knew exactly that he would die if he didn't start to swim to the surface. But, he simply couldn't make the decision. Whatever that "spark" is there in all of us that makes the transition from thinking about stuff to actually doing it, it was gone in him. Somebody eventually pulled him out, otherwise he would have drowned.
Yeah, that would be the premotor cortex. Crazy stuff.
I've read some interesting stories where some sort of mental trauma can cause a person to either lose short term memory entirely after a certain point in their life, or have the opposite effect (they start to remember every detail of every situation, to a ridiculous degree). Mind-blowing.
And I agree, there's no reason to assume that there's an aspect of the self that isn't somehow manifested physically. But to be fair, that's an area (the nature of consciousness) that is very sketchily understood, even among neuroscientists.
-J
-
I think partly it's not "well understood" because people are half looking for this mystical entity that corresponds to the soul, but fail to find it.
rumborak
-
Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially. Other than the (potential) cost of being wrong, and knowing that you might be wrong. The first one adds no cost (you lose nothing if you're wrong), the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.
rumborak
I don't agree with this. We lose sight of the difficulty associated with religious practice because we live in a relatively free society. But consider Christians in other parts of the world, people who risk their lives in order to believe. I find it unlikely that they would potentially sacrifice their necks for something they know is bogus.
-
Most Christians wouldn't sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. Most "believe" but not in the same way they believe the sun will rise the next morning. If belief was that radical, so would evangelism be. It's a matter of feeling that it's real. That's the problem of treating God like a person. You may be able to say that there's "evidence" for his creation, but there's no personal and emotional actions of God like there were in the OT. You talk to him in words but he doesn't respond in words. There's supposed to be a personal relationship but there's no personal responses. So it's easier to believe more strongly that hefdaddy42 exists than that God does. At least you can get personal responses from hef.
-
Well, the thing is, religion promises everything, at no cost essentially. Other than the (potential) cost of being wrong, and knowing that you might be wrong. The first one adds no cost (you lose nothing if you're wrong), the second one, well let's put it this way, a lot of people are quite comfortable with maintaining beliefs they know are quite at odds with external evidence.
rumborak
I don't agree with this. We lose sight of the difficulty associated with religious practice because we live in a relatively free society. But consider Christians in other parts of the world, people who risk their lives in order to believe. I find it unlikely that they would potentially sacrifice their necks for something they know is bogus.
I don't know dude. If people in a Western country can convince themselves that the Earth is 6,000 years old, there apparently is no bound to what the human mind can construct as "reasonable conclusions". As so many studies have shown, most of people's conclusions and decisions are based on gut feeling, and get rationalized after the fact. So, in the end, the conclusion is the first point that needs to be satisfied, how to get there is secondary.
rumborak
-
Personally, I'd lump those who refuse to believe the earth is round with those who refuse to believe in a God. Both ignore reality and chose to place their hope in a hopelessly tortured convolluting of all available evidence.
-
lol
-
Personally, I'd lump those who refuse to believe in BigFoot with those who refuse to believe in a God. Both think that the evidence (for example - the Bible, and molds of oversized footprints found in the woods) are creations of man.
\
-
*squints*
-
I hope there is a Bigfoot.
-
Personally, I'd lump those who refuse to believe the earth is round with those who refuse to believe in a God. Both ignore reality and chose to place their hope in a hopelessly tortured convolluting of all available evidence.
Not sure if serious.
-
He's a creationist, so he probably is serious.
-
:|
-
Personally, I'd lump those who refuse to believe the earth is round with those who refuse to believe in a God. Both ignore reality and chose to place their hope in a hopelessly tortured convolluting of all available evidence.
lolreality
-
I love when P/R topics get to this point. *continues eating popcorn*
-
I don't believe in god, but I'm fine with people that do. Most of the time, it's healthy for them so it's all good. But when they start to associate it with "reality", "evidence" and even "objective fact", it is... I don't quite know how to put that... ridiculous, perhaps? Let's just say that it bothers me a bit.