Who said it came from nothing besides you? Don't put words in my mouth.All of existence coming from nothing is far more absurd.
God real or not?
Started by
Guest_stubblehamster
, Feb 15 2005 12:22 AM
6399 replies to this topic
#4001
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 05 March 2007 - 09:51 AM
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4002
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 05 March 2007 - 09:54 AM
Where did I say that you said anything at all? I'm giving an example to show the flaw in your example.Who said it came from nothing besides you? Don't put words in my mouth.
#4003
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 05 March 2007 - 09:55 AM
Really? Funny, because I don't remember putting any of that in any of my posts.Where did I say that you said anything at all? I'm giving an example to show the flaw in your example.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4004
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:01 AM
Putting any of what? What are you even talking about?Really? Funny, because I don't remember putting any of that in any of my posts.
#4005
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:04 AM
The universe was created from a combination of various heats and gases, not "nothing". I'm not saying that there is definitely no god/s, but I find it incredibly hard to believe. And I know you're next response is: "well where did those gases come from?" My only reasonable guess is that they were leftover from maybe another universe that existed before our present-day one, much like how destroyed stars spawn new ones.Where are you coming from? You said that believing that God existed was absurd ("invisible man watching us from the clouds is absurd"), so he said that spontaneous generation leading to the existence of everything was even more absurd.
Putting any of that "all from nothing" crap that you were assuming I was talking about earlier. Please learn to keep up with yourself in the future.Putting any of what? What are you even talking about?
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4006
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:07 AM
I never even mentioned the universe, I was talking about existence. I'm not talking about your belief, lack of belief, whatever. The point I'm making is 1. it is certainly not absurd to believe in God and 2. we function in day to day life through beliefs in various unvalidated things, and belief in God shouldn't be treated differently.The universe was created from a combination of various heats and gases, not "nothing". I'm not saying that there is definitely no god/s, but I find it incredibly hard to believe. And I know you're next response is: "well where did those gases come from?" My only reasonable guess is that they were leftover from maybe another universe that existed before our persent-day one, much like how destroyed stars spawn new ones.
#4007
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:13 AM
Well, the universe spawned creation, so it's only natural to discuss what spawned the universe, as I believed you were getting at. As far as Earth-Life, neither evolution nor creationism can be fully verified nor discredited, which made me say that I wasn't throwing out the idea of a "higher power." Furthermore, you're assuming that I myself function day to day in belief of unvalidated things, which I do not. Please give me at least one example of an "unvalidated belief" as big as, or close to, a belief in a deity.I never even mentioned the universe, I was talking about existence. I'm not talking about your belief, lack of belief, whatever. The point I'm making is 1. it is certainly not absurd to believe in God and 2. we function in day to day life through beliefs in various unvalidated things, and belief in God shouldn't be treated differently.
Edited by No. Just no., 05 March 2007 - 10:13 AM.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4008
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:23 AM
I wasn't talking about evolution or earth or the universe, I was talking about what spawned existence which an entirely different discusson. But whatever, we can move on. Sure you do, everything you do and work at is because of an inherent belief you have that will continue to live for quite some time. This is an unvalidated belief. You may call something "blue" because you believe it to be so. This belief is too, unvalidated. I could go on and on.Well, the universe spawned creation, so it's only natural to discuss what spawned the universe, as I believed you were getting at. As far as Earth-Life, neither evolution nor creationism can be fully verified nor discredited, which made me say that I wasn't throwing out the idea of a "higher power." Furthermore, you're assuming that I myself function day to day in belief of unvalidated things, which I do not. Please give me at least one example of an "unvalidated belief" as big as, or close to, a belief in a deity.
#4009
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:28 AM
Actually, I don't. Your "blue" example was a good one, but I know that colors are percived differently, by animals and even people. Since you could go on and on, why don't you? Like I said, I don't believe in anything, even if I see it, as there are infinite possibilites to everything.I wasn't talking about evolution or earth or the universe, I was talking about what spawned existence which an entirely different discusson. But whatever, we can move on. Sure you do, everything you do and work at is because of an inherent belief you have that will continue to live for quite some time. This is an unvalidated belief. You may call something "blue" because you believe it to be so. This belief is too, unvalidated. I could go on and on.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4010
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:45 PM
Your friend needs 5 bucks to pay a late fee on a movie. You help him out because you believe he is your friend. Whether or not he truly is remains unvalidated. Acknowledging the infinite possibilities to any one thing doesn't mean you can't hold a singular belief about it. For example,I acknowedge that there is an infinite amount of possibilties about the position of the earth. It could be flat, and the center of the universe; it could be a tiny globe in the snow globe of a demon; however, I believe it is one of many spherical planets revolving around a star. If you claim that you don't act in this manner, then I'd like to know how you function in society.Actually, I don't. Your "blue" example was a good one, but I know that colors are percived differently, by animals and even people. Since you could go on and on, why don't you? Like I said, I don't believe in anything, even if I see it, as there are infinite possibilites to everything.
#4011
Ish
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 11,507 posts
Mr. Wonderland
Reputation: 44
Good
Posted 05 March 2007 - 10:49 PM
i believe in God but a that same time i won't really be sure what my religion is until i'm 20 or 30
In a wonderland full of dreams that turn into reality.
PSN: Verbalinter39
~I$h
PSN: Verbalinter39
~I$h
#4012
Guest_Moneneko
Guest_Moneneko
-
- Guest
Posted 05 March 2007 - 11:00 PM
I myself do not believe in the Christian god, but I believe that there are many gods and goddesses out there.Like Athena and Aries. ^^But I won't bash anyone's opinion on god, it's not my right to tell people what to believe.
#4013
Guest_louzarr
Guest_louzarr
-
- Guest
Posted 06 March 2007 - 04:02 AM
I think a god exist in all of us.It's more like a concept, of everything that's unbelievable. There are so many wonderful and terrible things that happen everyday, and the reason for it is sometimes unfathomable. So a god is born, and people of the same community start to ask questions about existence and begin to wonder why things happen and then paganism begins and then all sorts of religion start to flood this world and the world we see today. Go figure.
#4014
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 06 March 2007 - 04:26 AM
Well, as far as your 5 dollar example, I wouldn't give it to him based on my "friendship" with that person, I'd give it to him because money's just that. As far as believing in any single idea, as many do, and your attempts at trying to persuade that I think in that same manner, are all just semantics.Your friend needs 5 bucks to pay a late fee on a movie. You help him out because you believe he is your friend. Whether or not he truly is remains unvalidated. Acknowledging the infinite possibilities to any one thing doesn't mean you can't hold a singular belief about it. For example,I acknowedge that there is an infinite amount of possibilties about the position of the earth. It could be flat, and the center of the universe; it could be a tiny globe in the snow globe of a demon; however, I believe it is one of many spherical planets revolving around a star. If you claim that you don't act in this manner, then I'd like to know how you function in society.
EDIT: You need to post in English or translate what you wrote so you don't get warned or anything, cause it does happen alot. Just so you knowMmm, no entiendo nada de lo que dicen, alguien aquí habla español??'
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4015
Guest_MP2703
Guest_MP2703
-
- Guest
Posted 06 March 2007 - 06:32 AM
sorry but unless numbers can prove it, (RE: episode of simpsons where homer removes crayon up brain an proves 2 ned flanders derez no god) i'm not quite convinced.... i know ppl out dere who r really committed 2 religion (no offense 2 dem) but i jus carn beleeve a myth or sumfin wifout d hard evidence backing it up.... an by hard evidence i mean in writting or sumfing.... not word of mouth...
#4016
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 06 March 2007 - 10:25 PM
I don't really understand your point of view. You argue like you acknowledge certain truthes, but you claim to be a true skeptic. Like for instance, you said to me "The universe was formed by various gases," which suggests that you think that you acknowledge these gases and this universe are "real," or in other words you "believe" in them. But on the other hand, you claim to not be the kind of person I'm talking about, which can only be a skeptic in the purist sense, i.e. you acknowledge nothing as true and believe in absolutely nothing, including the chair you're sitting in and the keyboard you're typing on. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, I'm just wondering which exactly of my two distinctions you would say you identify with. I do agree with you that there are people that do not act or think in the way I'm talking about, I'm just not sure we agree on what exactly that entails.Well, as far as your 5 dollar example, I wouldn't give it to him based on my "friendship" with that person, I'd give it to him because money's just that. As far as believing in any single idea, as many do, and your attempts at trying to persuade that I think in that same manner, are all just semantics.
#4017
Guest_green ninja n
Guest_green ninja n
-
- Guest
Posted 06 March 2007 - 10:51 PM
I think the major reason that people have such a hard time believing in God is because of free will.Because we are able to even ask the question "does god exist?" makes people think that simply because there is doubt to begin with and we assume that god can controll everything then why are we left wondering about his existance? I think the major reason for this is so that our beliefe in God will be genuine and not forced upon us by our being predisposed to beliveing in him. I know most of you will argue this and try to rip it apart, well, good, I hope it does cause a response. This subject is very engaging and needs to be talked about more often. As to the creation theory of gases forming together and creating our universe "What created the gases, where did it come from?" I can't believe that all of these complex structures and cellular organisms and molocules were just some galactic "whoopsie daisy" This stuff around us had to be created by something, something willed all of this into being. How can something so intricate as life and the universe just be a giant fluke? I don't buy it for a second. Even if you trace it back in your mind to the begining there has to be a starting point and point of origin where all things come from. Why can't this be God? There is an underlying variable in sience that creates things, makes things move on it's own. Like cell generation, plant growth, weather patterns. Why could this not be God, this variable that causes life? Most of the stuff that people get hung up with in the Bible is just based on a certain point of view. They say that the world was created in seven days, what's a day to god? If time is a wink of an eye to god then how do we know what a day is to god? A day could be millions of years, but really we don't know. And that's what it really comes down to. We don't know and before we die we just have to make up our minds as to what we belive for ourselves.
#4018
Guest_maxim84
Guest_maxim84
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 08:01 AM
I believe that God is real.Sometimes people think that it's not real, but it's still my choice to believe in God. That's why they call it faith. Some people said that I have a blind faith because I cannot prove that God exist, but I have a lot of interesting forwards in the internet that tells me that I don't have to prove my God, just because I believe in him.I hope I don't offend anyone with my post here.
#4019
Guest_Zennalathas
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:41 AM
So, having jumped into this debate far too late in the game to make the realistic attempt of a response to over 330 pages worth of debating, I'll deal with what is on this page in browser, and continue the debate as it is written and read.
The debate of what is and is not true, as uninteresting as it is circular, is not entirely relevant to the debate to the existance of a god, or the universe. Perception, whether blue is the same colour for everyone or a seperate and unique reaction in the eye of everyone to a specific frequency of light, has very little to do with this question of "Why are we here? Who put us here? Did anyone put us here?" Essentially, the question is once of science. God either exists or he does not. That question also lies entirely upon the principal that we can dissern, eventually and through thorough deduction, that something is truthful or dishonest, existant or non-existant. The position of "true skeptic" as you've put it negates itself, in that, if you believe in nothing (not just that nothing is true), then the thoughts you are putting on this forum are also, not real. The conscience mind you have that allows you to believe in one thing or another, does not exist. This questions how it is possible for you to be in existance at all, since, in your theory, you don't exist. How can you trick yourself into being? If you believe that you do not exist, then you could not interact with the world, that does also not exist. Existance isn't relative to anything. It simply is. You cannot say that something exists in relation to something that does not. There would be nothing to compare. There is simply the one object, idea that is in existance.Alternatively, if your position is simply that you ae the only one in existance, then the world would be remade every time you closed and openned your eyes. And, since the world IS now in existance relative to you in that it exists only when you perceive it to be so, that would make you a god-like persona. In addition, after having your own ego boost you to the new position of power, you will have negated any existance of god, or even possibility, as no omnipotent being could be sliced out of existance and spliced back in at a mortal's whim. Your stance inherently lends itself to destruction, and also has very little place in the debate on God's existance.In accordance to the gasses making the universe: in what way is it less probable that gasses all compressed so tightly because of the gravitational forces, that the explosion caused what we know to be the universe. This also suggests that there was existance before this universe, negating a creator figure being necessary to OUR existance. In what way is this less probable? Since, in reality, we are simply dealing with probabilities anyways. A magical man in the sky that watches over us all, does seem less probable than something our science has all ready combed data from, does it not? (Whether you believe God is a magical man in the sky or not is simply irrelevant, and is just semantics).To cover my donkey: If you're going to lay something down a la the Matrix, please keep in mind that everything did exist in the Matrix, it was simply existing in a different form than that which was being percieved. It was data, and followed every rule/law inherent in that bit of data's reasonable limits.I don't really understand your point of view. You argue like you acknowledge certain truthes, but you claim to be a true skeptic. Like for instance, you said to me "The universe was formed by various gases," which suggests that you think that you acknowledge these gases and this universe are "real," or in other words you "believe" in them. But on the other hand, you claim to not be the kind of person I'm talking about, which can only be a skeptic in the purist sense, i.e. you acknowledge nothing as true and believe in absolutely nothing, including the chair you're sitting in and the keyboard you're typing on. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, I'm just wondering which exactly of my two distinctions you would say you identify with. I do agree with you that there are people that do not act or think in the way I'm talking about, I'm just not sure we agree on what exactly that entails.
The problem with free will is one of a god's omniscience. If this being knows everything that is logically able to be known by a being with this much power, then free will cannot exist. 1) God knows every action/thought that is occuring at this point in time, and every action/thought that will ever occur. That is the definition of omniscience, which is paramount to the definition of God. To say his level of knowing is anything less is to go against the definition of God as laid out in the holy books. Should God not meet these requirements, God is not the title that should be associated with the being, and any devotion to this stripped-down being would mean that a lot of worship has been going to the wrong person. 2) An omniscient being is never wrong. This being knows all. It does not just believe it is right. It is always right.3) You cannot act outside of what God has all ready observed you doing, or else he would be wrong. 4) If you cannot act outside of a path that has all ready been written for you, you do not have free will. You make no decisions that are not foretold. There is nothing within your power to do something that God has all ready seen to happen.So, either God does not exist, or we have no free will. There is no middle ground. This is neither a proof for or against any gods, and cannot be used to rationalize the existance, or lack there of, of an 'intelligent designer'. Because this is good for neither case, it also does not belong in this discussion.Now, onto what IS admissable: the arguement of irreducible complexity. Because things in the world are so complex, we, as humans, immediately attach the notion that an intelligent designer must have created them. The classic example of this would be the analogy of a watch. It is complex; it had an intelligent designer; that must be the way the universe works. The problem with this arguement is that the only way God could exist in this sense, is if God were simple. Now, a being that is omnipotent, omniscience, reads all of the thoughts of every human (maybe animals) all day, answers prayers, performs miracles, and created the universe, cannot possibly be construed as simple. In what way could a being that is capable of those things be as simple as a single atom, that being the only truly simple piece of matter in the universe? It simply isn't an admissable statement in this debate, so:If a watch required an intelligent designer, we corralate its complexity with the watch maker. Now, that watch maker is also a complex being, with a nervous system, recipatory system, etc... So, we immediately jump to the conclusion that he too had an intelligent designer. Please keep in mind that 'God made us in his image'. This being, God, also is most probably a complex being, leading to the question: "Who made God?"Now, before you tell me that this cycle is one that spirals infinately backwards until the only way to stop it is to claim "God" at a point, and claim that this being is simple and yet retains all his complex ability. Of course, I've all ready established that a being capable of so many things cannot be labelled as anything but complex, even if HE/SHE were irreducibly so. The irreducible complexity comes into play when discussing certain organisms that we have not discovered an evolutionary pattern in. What is forgotten is that science DOES have gaps, but they are gaps that get smaller with each passing year. For religious believers to declare amnesty in these gaps is absurd. Science and technology must simply progress further, which they will, in order to fill them in. It is not imporbable that one day, there will be a unified Theory of Everything. It may be a long way off, but that doesn't mean that relgion's answers suffice in the meantime.I'll elaborate on what it means to be irreducibly complex. It is when an organism is complex, but should any one part of it be removed, it will not function. Evolutionary theory falters (a breif moment) on this situation, as how can an organism devellop into something where none of the parts can be removed? Wouldn't it have needed those parts prior to the evolution? Believers oft jump on this as an example of intelligent design. What is failed to be considered is: scaffolding. Buildings, as they are being put up, rely on scaffolding to remain standing. When the construction is complete, the scaffolding is taken down, and yet the building still stands on its own. What is seen in irreducibly complex beings, is a creature at the height of its evolution, in that it has all of its scaffolding taken away.So, there are answers in science where theologians have claimed otherwise. It simply takes a good deal of reading, thinking, and deduction, rather than immediately assosciating things to a fictional book character.Also, you've taken it upon yourself to suggest that God simply was the creator. This definition grinds so largely against religious ideas, that it hardly stands. Your form of belief is referred to as deism. It is the belief that there was a creator, who sparked the beginning of the universe, but did not stick around to see how it turned out, or even have an interest in the goings-ons of humans. This form of belief is typically assosciated with intellectually elite's scientific papers in which they use God as a metaphor for life, and nature. But, this is a poetic tool, not a proof, nor an intuitive belief. This is simply labelling the beginning of the universe "God". It doesn't mean that God is even a being, but simply the name of an occurance, which inherently belittles the very idea itself. If you've just named an occurance, then all the world's belief, worship, and prayers might just as well have been pointed at the Civil War, a birth, or the first World Cup.I think the major reason that people have such a hard time believing in God is because of free will.Because we are able to even ask the question "does god exist?" makes people think that simply because there is doubt to begin with and we assume that god can controll everything then why are we left wondering about his existance? I think the major reason for this is so that our beliefe in God will be genuine and not forced upon us by our being predisposed to beliveing in him. I know most of you will argue this and try to rip it apart, well, good, I hope it does cause a response. This subject is very engaging and needs to be talked about more often. As to the creation theory of gases forming together and creating our universe "What created the gases, where did it come from?" I can't believe that all of these complex structures and cellular organisms and molocules were just some galactic "whoopsie daisy" This stuff around us had to be created by something, something willed all of this into being. How can something so intricate as life and the universe just be a giant fluke? I don't buy it for a second. Even if you trace it back in your mind to the begining there has to be a starting point and point of origin where all things come from. Why can't this be God? There is an underlying variable in sience that creates things, makes things move on it's own. Like cell generation, plant growth, weather patterns. Why could this not be God, this variable that causes life? Most of the stuff that people get hung up with in the Bible is just based on a certain point of view. They say that the world was created in seven days, what's a day to god? If time is a wink of an eye to god then how do we know what a day is to god? A day could be millions of years, but really we don't know. And that's what it really comes down to. We don't know and before we die we just have to make up our minds as to what we belive for ourselves.
Actually, it doesn't make sense to make me sit here and disprove something you cannot prove. The onus is on the believer to PROVE that what he believes in is true, or else he is credulous (read Clifford's papers to understand what I mean). Athiests aren't forced to go around disproving unicorns, but should some one believe in them, they'd be ridiculed for it until they could prove it. They would be labelled insane, ridiculous, and unintellignet if they attempted to prove a unicorn's existance. Religion and God are the only concepts that seem to dodge this responsibilty, because millenia of belief has engraved our society with the taboo of doubting religion. Why religion is exempt from having to prove its right to existance is beyond me, as it certainly falls into the same category as unicrons: something none of us can prove exists or is not in existance. Anyone with a full-fledged belief in God, is in the same boat as those who believe in other fictional beings. The onus is on them to prove it, not for us to disprove it. Again, to believe in something that cannot be proven is to render oneself credulous, and ultimately harmful to society (again, read Clifford to get the jyst of this concept...it is certainly too long to add onto this all ready long post).Please, continue this debate. I'm certain there will be many more hackneyed claims to follow.PS: Think I'll ever set the record for longest post?I believe that God is real.Sometimes people think that it's not real, but it's still my choice to believe in God. That's why they call it faith. Some people said that I have a blind faith because I cannot prove that God exist, but I have a lot of interesting forwards in the internet that tells me that I don't have to prove my God, just because I believe in him.I hope I don't offend anyone with my post here.
#4020
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:07 AM
No, I was telling you a popular theory on the formation of 'everything', not my personal bias on the situation (though I'll believe that theory long before I believe in a 'god' of sorts). The theory I presented was at least plausible, whereas I don't understand how some believe that "god" made everything. Who or what made God then? If s/he can appear out of nowhere, then why couldn't everything else have? I have yet to hear an explanation from a "religious" type on the explanation of the creation of God. If you have any, I'd be open to hear it.And as far as what we were talking about what skepticism entails, that could include anything and everything. Don't get me wrong, there are a few beliefs to which I hold as my own personal truth, and that was what I was kind of driving at, that truth is perception, much like politics.I don't really understand your point of view. You argue like you acknowledge certain truthes, but you claim to be a true skeptic. Like for instance, you said to me "The universe was formed by various gases," which suggests that you think that you acknowledge these gases and this universe are "real," or in other words you "believe" in them. But on the other hand, you claim to not be the kind of person I'm talking about, which can only be a skeptic in the purist sense, i.e. you acknowledge nothing as true and believe in absolutely nothing, including the chair you're sitting in and the keyboard you're typing on. I'm not calling you a hypocrite, I'm just wondering which exactly of my two distinctions you would say you identify with. I do agree with you that there are people that do not act or think in the way I'm talking about, I'm just not sure we agree on what exactly that entails.
Edited by JCAM-CTZOG, 03 October 2010 - 08:04 AM.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4021
Guest_SS4X9
Guest_SS4X9
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 01:24 PM
first, i do not believe in god's power (power such as the sole creator of things, the alpha and omega, and the almighty one), but i do believe that there are may be another deity besides human, and may be one of them are to be called gods, put it simple, i do not believe in god's godly power.... for me, god is another living things, like us human, no special power..... so from here, to avoid any misunderstanding, i will use "god" as the "god like in the bible" and i will use "another deity" to describe the living things beside human 9which is may be called god0al rite, its quite pointless for me to prove something doesnt exist when it does not exist.... but i will do that pointless thing.... starting off from the basic, god is neither can be seen nor touch.... thus it doesnot exist in the earth.....for what create the universe and all in it...., i believe that we all have learned in our school that the planet it self is formed by a hardened/materialisation of gases, and that form this very planet..... so theres no creepy hands of god making it....at least, that what i believe
#4022
Guest_Death-Jester
Guest_Death-Jester
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:11 PM
I'd really hate the idea of existance simply being random chance and that us and our existance are just a pointless spec of life that evolved from a one in a billion chance. Because the human race simply will not last forever, and evertything we build will eventually dissappear, if there is no higher entity that created us and thus no higher meaning for us, then ultimately everything comes to nought and there would be absolutely no point to doing anything what-so-ever.For those who simply refuse the idea of God or have trouble in understanding God's existance or beggining then think of it this way. There have been a number of scientific theories, most notably string theory, that hypothesise on higher dimensions then our regular 3 or 4, up to 26 in fact. God could be thought of as another higher dimension, that which is infinite. If you simply cant accept spiritual faith that God always was and always will be, then you can think of God as the embodiment of an infinite, higher dimension which in some way relates to and affects the lower dimensions, affecting space, time and everything. In string theory it is hypothesised that there are parrallel universes existing as tiny membranes of vibrating strings. The dimension of God would have to go beyond conventional space & time in such a way that it would exist prior to the Big Bang, and if one imagines the area that all the parallel universes of string theory exist in then this could be likened to the existance of higher dimension God prior to the creation of the universe.If you can wrap your head around that then my esteemed congratulations and I hope this brings a new understanding of God's existance.
#4023
Guest_sadwanker
Guest_sadwanker
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:49 PM
Even though I'm an atheist, Im all for the basic message of most religions: Love and be nice and respect the ones around you.Unfortunally some people forgets the love part, and starts hating the ones that are not like themselvesReligion is one thing, fanatism is another...And just for the heck of it.... here is an amusing pic
#4024
Guest_seventhsage
Guest_seventhsage
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 05:45 PM
hmm, 300 pages in and no one has yet to make a really solid point, mostly you're just shooting each others idea down... Personally i'm pagan, if anyone wants to take a shot at the gods of old, feel free. Artemis is my patron, even though she is mostly followed by females. I have remained chaste, as she expects her followers to do. I also call on Athena to offer me guidence when I face a problem that I cannot handle. Even though I don't name christianity as my religion, I am very tolerant of other religions. I have a close group of friends, one a southern babtist, another an athiest, and the third a jack of all trades, studying everythign from egyptian to modern day catholocism. My rant and rave is now complete...-jason
#4025
Guest_amateursuperhero
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 08:28 PM
I think you're missing the point of what I was saying, which is excusable if you've only read the last page of discussion. I'm not arguing about what is true and what is not ture, I'm questioning whether or not IWRH is a person who acknowledges that there is truth or that there is not truth. Whether or not their truly is doesn't really concern me, but the fact that it is nearly impossible to argue with a true skeptic does.The debate of what is and is not true, as uninteresting as it is circular, is not entirely relevant to the debate to the existance of a god, or the universe.
Let me take you back to how these examples originally came up. A couple people stated that it is ridiculous to believe in God, because this belief is unvalidated. My point, as illustrated in that example, is that people believe in various things every day, and allow those beliefs to guide their daily actions. My argument was that this reality is no more absurd than believing in God. The point is I was not at all arguing about whether God actually exists or not, rather whether or not it is absurd to believe he exists.Perception, whether blue is the same colour for everyone or a seperate and unique reaction in the eye of everyone to a specific frequency of light, has very little to do with this question of "Why are we here? Who put us here? Did anyone put us here?" Essentially, the question is once of science. God either exists or he does not. That question also lies entirely upon the principal that we can dissern, eventually and through thorough deduction, that something is truthful or dishonest, existant or non-existant.
You're making essentially the same argument I would make to someone who holds this "true skepticism" point of view. However, there are these people in the world that I've been talking about, that believe in nothing. However there are people that question the very reasoning faculties you're using to make this argument. Contradictions, as like everything else, holdno relevence to a true skeptic. But yes, I disagree with skepticism for precisely the reasons you've pointed out as well as a few others. I just wanted to find out where IWRF stood so I could continue arguing with him.The position of "true skeptic" as you've put it negates itself, in that, if you believe in nothing (not just that nothing is true), then the thoughts you are putting on this forum are also, not real. The conscience mind you have that allows you to believe in one thing or another, does not exist. This questions how it is possible for you to be in existance at all, since, in your theory, you don't exist. How can you trick yourself into being? If you believe that you do not exist, then you could not interact with the world, that does also not exist. Existance isn't relative to anything. It simply is. You cannot say that something exists in relation to something that does not. There would be nothing to compare. There is simply the one object, idea that is in existance.
If you'd like to talk about existentialism I'd love to do it in another thread. But as I'm sure you understand by now, I think you misunderstood my intentions.Alternatively, if your position is simply that you ae the only one in existance, then the world would be remade every time you closed and openned your eyes. And, since the world IS now in existance relative to you in that it exists only when you perceive it to be so, that would make you a god-like persona. In addition, after having your own ego boost you to the new position of power, you will have negated any existance of god, or even possibility, as no omnipotent being could be sliced out of existance and spliced back in at a mortal's whim. Your stance inherently lends itself to destruction, and also has very little place in the debate on God's existance.
Again, as I continuously tried to point our to IWRF, I am not talking about our universe. I am not talking about our existance. I'm talking about existance itself. It is less probable to think that existance arose from nothing without any sort of facilitation than it is to think that there exists a omniscient man in the sky. We have plenty of referents for large bodies that govern ignorant smaller masses. We do not have a referent for something that came from absolutely nothing. If you'd like to go on to debate this, I'd absolutely love to, I think that's the real heart of the debate here. The notion that belief on one position or the other got me slightly sidetracked.In accordance to the gasses making the universe: in what way is it less probable that gasses all compressed so tightly because of the gravitational forces, that the explosion caused what we know to be the universe. This also suggests that there was existance before this universe, negating a creator figure being necessary to OUR existance. In what way is this less probable? Since, in reality, we are simply dealing with probabilities anyways. A magical man in the sky that watches over us all, does seem less probable than something our science has all ready combed data from, does it not? (Whether you believe God is a magical man in the sky or not is simply irrelevant, and is just semantics).
consider your donkey covered.To cover my donkey: If you're going to lay something down a la the Matrix, please keep in mind that everything did exist in the Matrix, it was simply existing in a different form than that which was being percieved. It was data, and followed every rule/law inherent in that bit of data's reasonable limits. The problem with free will is one of a god's omniscience. If this being knows everything that is logically able to be known by a being with this much power, then free will cannot exist.
There was no creation of God. That which has always existed can have no creator, it's a rather black and white contradiction. Don\'t worry, I realize this is to simple an answer. I\'ll give a rather quick explanation of my belief that is going to jump all over the place. You can ask me to elaborate on anything from there. I'm assuming that everyone would accept the notion that existance must have come from something. If you don't, that's entirely different debate. If you accept what I'm assuming you do, then you must accept that existance must have a cause. The question then becomes "what is to say this cause must be your God?" My answer is that our existance is governed by a certain set of physical laws. Laws are the sort of things that have an ethereal but definite existence which can only be created by a being with a conscious intellect. Planets can be born by a magnicient and miraculous interraction of cosmic gases. However the laws lying beneath this process, which allow it to occur in the first place, have no comparable means of origin. Laws can only be instituted by a conscious creator. That is how I'd explain God if I had five minutes to do it. Please grill me, I know I rushed that but I'm spending way too much time typing this post.No, I was telling you a popular theory on the formation of 'everything', not my personal bias on the situation (though I'll believe that theory long before I believe in a 'god' of sorts). The theory I presented was at least plausible, whereas I don't understand how some believe that "god" made everything. Who or what made God then? If s/he can appear out of nowhere, then why couldn't everything else have? I have yet to hear an explanation from a "religious" type on the explanation of the creation of God. If you have any, I'd be open to hear it.
That's a relief. It'd be interesting to have a discussion on truth sometime.And as far as what we were talking about what skepticism entails, that could include anything and everything. Don't get me wrong, there are a few beliefs to which I hold as my own personal truth, and that was what I was kind of driving at, that truth is perception, much like politics.
