Why do you need a god?

[chielu]

Rufioag wrote: Summation: You arent going to recieve the benefits of a Job if you turn it down and You arent going to recieve the Gift of the Lord if you turn Him down.

Right, and this is how religion is pure business - come to our faith and reap the benefits - if you choose not to you're the one who will suffer for eternity. God gives freewill then says, if you don't choose me you're toast. I worked for a major telephone company that taught its employees to sell the benefits of paying a higher price for quality service and products - people could of course choose the less creditble competition, but it was at their own risk. So, yes, I agree . . . god created humankind in his own likeness - his marketing strategy is very alive in in big business!

[The Unnamable]

What a beautiful poem.

I have to be careful not to stray off topic here. I think this poem is relevant to the original question in that it sort of answers it, even while making clear why Plath can’t subscribe to any system of belief that depends on the idea of a loving, merciful supernatural entity.

Yew trees are often found in graveyards in the UK, where they have been considered as symbols of everlasting life by both Christians and Pagans. For Plath, however, they seem point to everlasting nothingness. The supposed comforts offered by faith are unavailable to her – she simply doesn’t believe. Life ends in blackness and silence. In fact, she finds the idea of religion self-serving and intrusive:

Twice on Sunday, the bells startle the sky ----
Eight great tongues affirming the Resurrection
At the end, they soberly bong out their names.

Ultimately they proclaim nothing more than their own existence. Notice how ‘bong out’ is a deliberately deflating use of simple onomatopoeia. To believers, the bells affirm the Resurrection; to Plath they just make noise. You say, “The candles emit a different light onto the effigy, giving it a tenderness;” I agree – and to me, this is something of a trick of the light – when illuminated by the gentle light of candles, the effigy appears to exude gentleness but when seen in the light of the world Plath recognises, they are simply “stiff with holiness”. She thinks the idea is a nice one, but untenable. The Yew tree points to the moon, which is ‘bald and wild’ – producing an image that is unadorned and raw, revealing only that absolute fact of blackness and silence. Of course, that’s just what Plath sees, but is this not a valid human emotion and, as this is a Literature forum, is it not interesting to read what other people think and feel in relation to the so-called ‘big’ questions of existence? This is why I disagree with part of your comment when you say, “it is her depression or the existing perceptions of her mind that prevails over the comfort and principles of worship, and not her inability to submit to an illogical or unproven faith” (I recognise that you expressed this as a question). I don’t like the idea that what she sees can be attributed to her ‘depression’. It implies that the inability to maintain a positive outlook is a form of mental illness. I believe that many here would subscribe to the view that it is. I don't.

[paledancer]

for me, it is both of them. Knowing that there is a great power makes me feel good and there is also the belief that I will find the eternal peace (heaven or wherever it is)
at the end of a proper life

[The Unnamable]

"The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth."
Mikhail Bakunin God and the State

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine The Age of Reason

And, in the interests of balance :lol: :

"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity (in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?"
John Updike Self-Consciousness: Memoirs

[RobinHood3000]

And, in the interests of balance :lol: :

"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity (in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?"
John Updike Self-Consciousness: MemoirsInteresting how he implies that theism is a creative venture...somehow, I don't think this statement helps his point much.

[shinigami]

Well, the way I see things.. People only need Gods to cling on to something.. As in.. just for the sake of having someone there.. dependence.. Here's a scenario:
Someone killed someone else so the person feels guilty but is never found, he turns to God and asks for repentance, thinking.. God has forgiven me, now he's happy again.. Why is that? Well, he has to ask forgiveness from someone.. "I think therefore I am". I believe that God really doean't exist and people only think they need him because they can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts.. They just want to be led...

[Regit]

Well, the way I see things.. People only need Gods to cling on to something.. As in.. just for the sake of having someone there.. dependence.. Here's a scenario:
Someone killed someone else so the person feels guilty but is never found, he turns to God and asks for repentance, thinking.. God has forgiven me, now he's happy again.. Why is that? Well, he has to ask forgiveness from someone.. "I think therefore I am". I believe that God really doean't exist and people only think they need him because they can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts.. They just want to be led...

I cannot believe that you quoted Descartes to demonstrate such a shallow point of view. If you have read "Discourse on Method" and actually understand what that phrase is supposed to mean, you would regret using it here. And you cannot ask God for repentance; you have to repent yourself before asking for forgiveness. Opinions will be opinions, but such serious lack of understanding for what you are talking about will deprive yours of much respect.

So you are arguing that everyone who believes in God believes because they "can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts", and everyone who believes in God "just want[s] to be led"? I take it you think that you can face "cold hard unfeeling accurate facts" better than Albert Einstein could; and you possess more independence and more leadership than Constantine I ever did. Think about it a while.

[RobinHood3000]

Break it up, fellas--condescend no more than necessary.

"Cogito, ergo sum"--the basic tenet from which Descartes began to build his life's philosophy from the ground up.

[Regit]

Of course, that’s just what Plath sees, but is this not a valid human emotion and, as this is a Literature forum, is it not interesting to read what other people think and feel in relation to the so-called ‘big’ questions of existence? This is why I disagree with part of your comment when you say, “it is her depression or the existing perceptions of her mind that prevails over the comfort and principles of worship, and not her inability to submit to an illogical or unproven faith” (I recognise that you expressed this as a question). I don’t like the idea that what she sees can be attributed to her ‘depression’. It implies that the inability to maintain a positive outlook is a form of mental illness. I believe that many here would subscribe to the view that it is. I don't.
You are right, I should not have used the word 'depression'. When I was reading the poem and its analysis on other sites, I saw many comments on her depression. I was not convinced by these analysis, precisely because of what you said, that it is just another "valid human emotion" and I can certainly identify with it. That's why I added the "perceptions" bit to try and back it up somewhat vaguely and unsuccessfully. When I saw words such as "cold", "black", "upset", or "griefs", or lines such as...
"...it is quiet
With the O-gape of complete despair. I live here."
...I immediately relate to feelings of despair and vulnerability that could heavily affect the mood of the poem. And the word 'depression' came in mind. But mood alone does not constitute meaning.
Although the message of other lines like "I simply cannot see where there is to get to" and, perhaps, of the whole poem can be easily mistaken for that of despair, they are, as you explained, emotions and ratios that every human is capable of. And they are valid reasonings of the mind. And I do understand, and agree with the point that you made. Thus, I will retract the word 'depression' as I think it damages the point I was making heavily.
I agree that the lack of religious belief is not caused solely by the lack of faith without needing proof and evidence. As we can see here that such faith can exist without necessarily leading to religious belief.

[Regit]

Break it up, fellas--condescend no more than necessary.
Do you feel the need to be a peacemaker constantly? That's great, except we do not require your service here just yet. I am perfectly aware of what I am doing. Perhaps if you contribute more than brief interceptions to a discussion you might feel the same passion in trying to get to the bottom of the arguments as I do. And that is exactly what I was doing: I was trying to provoke an interesting discussion. Do not mistake an attack towards the point that a person is making for a personal attack on that person. Just because an argument lacks understanding and sharpness, it does not mean that the person making it does. And that was, by no mean, what I was implying.


"Cogito, ergo sum"--the basic tenet from which Descartes began to build his life's philosophy from the ground up.
Actually, it orinally was "Je pense, donc je suis." And it is not a basic tenet of Descartes life's philosophy; it is simply a famous quote that other people relate to him the most (not to mention often misunderstood). He had written many philosophical works by the time he used this phrase in "Discourse on Method". I don't try to summarise philosophy to small quotes. The basic principle for his philosophy, I am sure, is the methodology of reasoning that he expressed clearly and in great detail in many of his works.

[blp]

I've just dug up this old article, as it suggests an interesting explanation for humankind's need for religion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1085572,00.html

[RobinHood3000]

Do you feel the need to be a peacemaker constantly?<----------<<<<



Actually, it orinally was "Je pense, donc je suis." And it is not a basic tenet of Descartes life's philosophy; it is simply a famous quote that other people relate to him the most (not to mention often misunderstood). He had written many philosophical works by the time he used this phrase in "Discourse on Method". I don't try to summarise philosophy to small quotes. The basic principle for his philosophy, I am sure, is the methodology of reasoning that he expressed clearly and in great detail in many of his works.Is that so? Because from my understanding of Descartes, he was attempting to develop a philosophy that was rigorous in the sense of mathematical proof, and subsequently decided that the first thing of which he could be certain was that he himself existed. Or am I mistaken?

[Regit]

<----------<<<<
An avatar and a name confirms your wisdom and morality beyond any doubts that I am capable of. Thank you.


Is that so? Because from my understanding of Descartes, he was attempting to develop a philosophy that was rigorous in the sense of mathematical proof, and subsequently decided that the first thing of which he could be certain was that he himself existed. Or am I mistaken?
Which work are you takling about? Descartes attempted to develop many methodologies and many of his major achievements were mathematical works, yes. Thus, depending on what you meant, you might be accurate only to a certain degree, which I hesitate to discuss here because it may be off topic. But once again, I do not appreciate attempts to summarise great philosophical works into small paragraphs with a great number of technical inaccuracies. The least you can do is explain what you mean. The brief answer is no, "I think, therefore I am" is not Descartes' tenet of his "life's philosophy". If you would like to continue this discussion further, you can start another thread and I will make myself much clearer (see, I have gotten used to the rules too). Have you read Descartes' "Discourse on Method"? I studied it in my first year at University, and from what I have heard so far, I doubt that you have more than 50 words to say about it. But I apologise if my perception is false; and I would be very honoured to enter a discussion about a Descartes' work of your choice. If I have not read it, I will try to read it as sson as I can.

[RobinHood3000]

An avatar and a name confirms your wisdom and morality beyond any doubts that I am capable of. Thank you.No, it doesn't--what are you going on about? It confirms that I have a hero complex and thus tend to stick my nose wherever people start getting sarcastic.



Which work are you talking about? Descartes attempted to develop many methodologies and many of his major achievements were mathematical works, yes. Thus, depending on what you meant, you might be accurate only to a certain degree, which I hesitate to discuss here because it may be off topic. But once again, I do not appreciate attempts to summarise great philosophical works into small paragraphs with a great number of technical inaccuracies. The least you can do is explain what you mean. The brief answer is no, "I think, therefore I am" is not Descartes' tenet of his "life's philosophy". If you would like to continue this discussion further, you can start another thread and I will make myself much clearer (see, I have gotten used to the rules too). Have you read Descartes' "Discourse on Method"? I studied it in my first year at University, and from what I have heard so far, I doubt that you have more than 50 words to say about it. But I apologise if my perception is false; and I would be very honoured to enter a discussion about a Descartes' work of your choice. If I have not read it, I will try to read it as sson as I can.I haven't read any of Descartes' works (ask Unnamable--he can confirm that I tend to blather about things of which I have minimal experience). When I asked if I was mistaken, I wasn't being priggish--I was asking for clarification from someone who's at least read something I haven't. Besides, there's a lot to be said for brevity. Hmmph. :p

And if I may say so, passion usually tends to be a detriment to logical debate, in my opinion. I interceded because you seemed to be trying to provoke something other than a sophisticated response.

[Regit]

I haven't read any of Descartes' works (ask Unnamable--he can confirm that I tend to blather about things of which I have minimal experience). When I asked if I was mistaken, I wasn't being priggish. I misunderstood you; it was hard to read your intention. My apologies. I don't have to waste The Unnamable's time on this matter, I will take your word for it.

And if I may say so, passion usually tends to be a detriment to logical debate, in my opinion.Passion does sometime interfere with logical debate; you are right, but not as much as the lack of research and lack of logical argument supporting a statement.

I interceded because you seemed to be trying to provoke something other than a sophisticated response.That is simply your misunderstanding.

[Green Lady]

People need a God or maybe even gods because they need some type of foundation. Sometimes our foundation is the knowledge of man. Whether you believe in one or the other is not important to point that you at least believe something. To have no beliefs is to be pulled about by the hurricane that is life and eventually ripped to pieces. Neither are a crutch, though some of the opposite belief may say so. They are something to build your life upon. What your foundation is though, will determine what you build upon it.

[My Word Is Law]

One of the reason's I believe in God is because I can't believe in death just being darkness. Like, if there is no God, when I die I will just go out, like a candle. My conciousness would cease to exist and there would be no remnant of me. I can't believe that. Call me selfish or unaccepting or stupid, but it's true. Another reason I believe in God is because I think Darwinism has too many holes in it to be plausible, and Creationism is the only other option.

[RobinHood3000]

I can believe it. The thought of nothingness after death is depressing, radical, and often frightening. But I prefer nothingness to eternal torment, thanks very much.

There is never an "only other option." To imagine that humanity has narrowed the origins of the universe to the sole two possibilities is nothing short of big-headedness.

In as far as science vs. Creationism (this is probably the wrong thread for this, but at least you'll read the response): the fact that science takes its sweet time to plug its holes doesn't mean you should disregard it right then and there.

[My Word Is Law]

I meant the only other plausible option for me to believe in that I've heard of. Not the only other option total :lol:

[cuppajoe_9]

I take it you think that you can face "cold hard unfeeling accurate facts" better than Albert Einstein could
I'm sorry, but could the theists please stop claiming Einstein as one of their own? Albert may have believed in some sort of god, but he certainly did not believe in the Christian one, or anything like him.

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
-Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, p.66

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.
-Albert Einstein, as quoted in a memoir by Life editory William Miller in Life, May 2, 1955

See?

[RobinHood3000]

I meant the only other plausible option for me to believe in that I've heard of. Not the only other option total :lol:OKay, just so we're clear :p.

[ShoutGrace]

I'm sorry, but could the theists please stop claiming Einstein as one of their own? Albert may have believed in some sort of god, but he certainly did not believe in the Christian one, or anything like him.

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
-Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, p.66

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.
-Albert Einstein, as quoted in a memoir by Life editory William Miller in Life, May 2, 1955

See?

Christian theists certainly may not claim Einstein as one of their own. But ultimately he believed in a transcendent mind which had ordered the Universe in a directed and intelligent fashion. I'm not entirely sure whether or not he believed that this organizer was supernatural in a classical theistic sense or not. I need to get somewhere else before I can arrange his quotes in like fashion.

[Regit]

I'm sorry, but could the theists please stop claiming Einstein as one of their own? Albert may have believed in some sort of god, but he certainly did not believe in the Christian one, or anything like him.
Yes I see. Let's review.

I hate to pull out my dictionary again, but may I remind you that "theist" means "a person who believes in God", and not just a Christian or "anything" like it? Here we are:

Theist: n. of or relating to theism, one who believes in the existence of a god or gods/ a believer in a personal God.

Thus the fact that, in your own words, he "may have believed in some sort of god" is enough to make him a theist. Ok?

And my comment was a reaction to this comment:
People only need Gods to cling on to something.. As in.. just for the sake of having someone there.. dependence.. Here's a scenario:
Someone killed someone else so the person feels guilty but is never found, he turns to God and asks for repentance, thinking.. God has forgiven me, now he's happy again.. Why is that? Well, he has to ask forgiveness from someone.. "I think therefore I am". I believe that God really doean't exist and people only think they need him because they can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts.. They just want to be led... No mention of a Christian God or "anything like him", just God.

See?

My point was that Einstein believed in "some sort of of God" and he can still face "cold hard unfeeling facts" better than the person who suggested that he couldn't. Ok?

And watch it, I never said that I was a theist, and I didn't claim anything.

[cuppajoe_9]

Regit:

I apologize for the poor wording. By a theist I meant a dogmatic religious person of any stripe. I cannot tell how many times I have heard something along the lines of "Einstein believed in God, so why don't you?” and I am, frankly, sick and tired of explaining to such people that while Einstein believed in a god (maybe) it certainly wasn't the same one that the Christians pray to.

For the record, I do not agree with shinigami. While he may have hit on one of the reasons that some people need a god figure, it is certainly not the only reason.

I apologize again for any offense.

[Green Lady]

I'd just like to say something else. If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine. If there is a God and I've been following Him, then I'll be fine. I say, better safe than sorry.

[BeingaBunny]

i need god coz i need someone to hate

[blp]

I'd just like to say something else. If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine. If there is a God and I've been following Him, then I'll be fine. I say, better safe than sorry.

This is what's known, by me, who invented the term just now, as the 'safe tracker-fund heresy'. Your place in the inferno is waiting - an earthy tunnel, too narrow to fit your body comfortably, through which you will be forced to crawl for eternity. :brow:

[BeingaBunny]

I wonder how Einstein defined god. I doubt his definition would fit most others. God could be a moment, a trigger, an action - the cause. God is whatever caused what we consider reality to come into being. And the flaw to that is...what caused god? What caused whatever caused god? And what caused that? There will always be an unexplainable something. God is simply something that can't be explained.

Well, to most people that will probably make some sense. I am too far lost myself. The only existence I THINK I am sure of is my own. I don't know if I believe in other people or not. I think I could be god, and everyone else is here to entertain me. Don't know.

I'll tell you guys right now. If I am god, do not bother praying. Unlike the one called Him, I do not care. I am not that vain. I do not create to judge - I create to love.

[blp]

Christian theists certainly may not claim Einstein as one of their own. But ultimately he believed in a transcendent mind which had ordered the Universe in a directed and intelligent fashion. I'm not entirely sure whether or not he believed that this organizer was supernatural in a classical theistic sense or not. I need to get somewhere else before I can arrange his quotes in like fashion.

Well, the thinking may simply be out of date. A key Einstein quote is 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Stephen Hawking retorted later in the century, that, after all, he did - by which he meant that it was all rather more random and unpredictable than previously thought, making it likely that there simply was no governing intelligence (I think we can take his reference to a god as symbolic).

[RobinHood3000]

If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine. Make no mistake, I'm glad you feel this way, but if that turns out to be the case, do you really have a choice?

[Mililalil XXIV]

Well, the thinking may simply be out of date. A key Einstein quote is 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Stephen Hawking retorted later in the century, that, after all, he did - by which he meant that it was all rather more random and unpredictable than previously thought, making it likely that there simply was no governing intelligence (I think we can take his reference to a god as symbolic).
What is too complex for a finite mind will look random. I often have things in mind that I have not yet expressed, which must be expressed in a particular order, before I am understood. It takes time to grow in knowledge of the ETERNAL.

[RobinHood3000]

What minds are infinite?

[Mililalil XXIV]

I'll tell you guys right now. If I am god, do not bother praying. Unlike the one called Him, I do not care. I am not that vain. I do not create to judge - I create to love.
We don't pray as a means of being judged, but to interact with LOVE HIMSELF, and to learn HIS Love as Participants in the Mystery of its Fulfillment.

[Bandini]

Regit:

I apologize for the poor wording. By a theist I meant a dogmatic religious person of any stripe. I cannot tell how many times I have heard something along the lines of "Einstein believed in God, so why don't you?” and I am, frankly, sick and tired of explaining to such people that while Einstein believed in a god (maybe) it certainly wasn't the same one that the Christians pray to.

For the record, I do not agree with shinigami. While he may have hit on one of the reasons that some people need a god figure, it is certainly not the only reason.

I apologize again for any offense.

I lkie the cut of your jib! Welcome to the site matey.

[cuppajoe_9]

Thanks Bandini. Good to be here.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I'd just like to say something else. If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine. If there is a God and I've been following Him, then I'll be fine. I say, better safe than sorry.

Unfortunately, you missed a point. Your argument (originally worded far better by the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascale) is equally valid for all religions: for christianity, islam, buddhism, zoroastrianism, hinduism - not to mention every crackpot cult, schism, faction, denomination and sub-branch. Trouble is - all of these are mutually exclusive. If catholic christianity were the only religion, you could certainly apply your theory by following that faith - unfortunately for you, this would butter no parsnips with the mormons, christian scientists and rastafarians; as far as these are concerned, you would be an unbeliever and hence condemned. But if you were to follow these doctrines as well, the catholics would disown you.

Given the huge number of faiths to pick from, your chances of guessing right are little better than if you never bother to choose! A fact that Blaise Pascale, inventor of probability theory, should have been well aware of.

[cuppajoe_9]

If we assume hell exists and that religion is divinely inspired, we also have to assume that everybody goes to hell.

1. Hell exists.
2. Religion is the result of divine inspiration, and therefore infallible.
3. More than one religion teaches that everybody who is not a member of that religion goes to hell.
4. These religions do not allow a person to be a member of more than one religion simultaneously.
5. Therefore everybody falls into the category of "not a member of a religion that teaches that non-members go to hell".
6. Therefore everybody goes to hell.


Fortunately, hell does not exist, and religion is a social construct.

[Broken]

Hmm, so your claim is that if any religion is to be considered divinely inspired, then all religions must be divinely inspired? Perhaps I am missing your logic.

Fortunately, we are free to seek truth and discern where lies the line between truth and social construction.

[cuppajoe_9]

Yeah, I am assuming that all religions are devinely inspired, and I realize that very few people believe that. However, if we assume that say, Jesus and Mohammed are the messengers of God, then everybody still goes to hell.

This is all, of course, complete nonsense.




Bit of stand-up comedy I think is relevant:

Rowan Atkinson (dressed up as satan, reading from a list as though calling the next patients into a doctor's office): Murders? Yes, just through here. Rapists? Bank managers? Yes, let's see here, Satanists? Yes, hello, lovely to meet you too. Atheists? Bet you feel a right lot of nit-wits now, don't you? Christians? Yes, the Jews were right after all, I'm afraid....

And so on.

[blp]

What is too complex for a finite mind will look random. I often have things in mind that I have not yet expressed, which must be expressed in a particular order, before I am understood. It takes time to grow in knowledge of the ETERNAL.

So - you're saying you're smarter than Stephen Hawking? I'm impressed.



Fortunately, hell does not exist, and religion is a social construct.

Phew. That's a load off.

[RobinHood3000]

Haha, Rowan Atkinson--smarter than he looks.

[blp]

Fortunately, we are free to seek truth and discern where lies the line between truth and social construction.

Are you speaking as a follower of a religion?

[Broken]

Speaking as one with an eye toward the truth.

Sometimes religion helps and sometimes it hurts in that quest. Religion is, as an institution, a human construction - as is nearly everything around us in today's world. My personal opinion, blp, is that there is truth to be found within religious institutions, despite religious man's best efforts to keep that truth hidden under a weight of self-righteous and deluded thinking.

I look upon the natural world and see evidence for the existence of a creator God, and I look within myself and see a connection to something greater than what I have achieved; both of these point me to religion - so far as it is defined as 'Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.'

[Bandini]

I must admit to numinous moments myself. The world can be amazing. I just don't like all the 'my god's bigger than your god stuff' - and some of the patently ridiculous man made stuff that is used to enforce negative thinking and hate. I frequently find myself appreciating my life and the world and sometimes find myself, sort of offering 'thanks'. I don't believe in 'a God', so perhaps it's a hangover from my early schooling? Strangely, this song lyric just playing in the other room:

"Youre wasting your breath on life after death
Coz Im almost sure
If hell does exist than the Devils a scientist
Finding a cure"

Synchronicity - man!

[BeingaBunny]

We don't pray as a means of being judged, but to interact with LOVE HIMSELF, and to learn HIS Love as Participants in the Mystery of its Fulfillment.

I did not say that people pray as a means of being judged, but certainly the christian God does judge you upon your actions in life, which would include praying. I would find it incredibly insulting to be created only to be judged by my creator at the end of the rough journey that is life. I love love, but in church the only love I see is from preacher to preacher boy and that's not my bag.

[BeingaBunny]

I look upon the natural world and see evidence for the existence of a creator God.

How so? :bday_2:

[Starving Buddha]

I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?

"God" is a focal point. I look at it this way: We have this thing called a mind that has an amazing ability to manifest what it thinks about. Ths is an incredible power, but one that quickly can get out of control. We also have this by-product called an EGO that has a tendoncy (sic) to think of itself, and its needs before anything else. Now how do we manifest? Through the projection of our emotional will, or will power. What we project out comes back onto to us because this reality is of a reflective nature. It is also psymbolic. It is through psymbols, that we are able to focus our minds and create through the use of our will power. The concept of "God" allows us to focus on something that is above the material- the spiritual. It provides us with the means of transcending the state of existence that keeps us bound physically, and which is a source of suffering because it is in the process of constantly changing. We are bound here by desire and fear. An anology would be, mind is a room, and there is a door. In order to get out of the room (spiritual release), we must have a key. The key is a psymbolic concept, and that concept is "God". It allows us to focus our will (which is the turning of the key), which leads to our opening the door. But once the door is opened, we must leave the concept behind because it was just a metaphor. To hang onto the metaphor (as if it were a literal "thing") would be to remain stuck in the room. When we pass through the door, all concepts are let go of.

[talhaakdis]

we have souls , we are energies and there is a concept of god and we can say : so there exitst a god !! and god needs to be believed ... and we need it we eat for not to starve so we need to feed our souls for not to kill it..

[Starving Buddha]

we have souls , we are energies and there is a concept of god and we can say : so there exitst a god !! and god needs to be believed ... and we need it we eat for not to starve so we need to feed our souls for not to kill it..

Yes, the god concept is what allows us to feed the need. But it is the need that keeps the wheel of suffering turning. At some point in one of our innumerable lives, we will all reach the conclusion that we have had enough, and we will then seek to get off the ride. The concept of soul is analogous to the concept of god (remember we are made in his image!) A Psymbol

[talhaakdis]

soul may not be a image...seek for kirlian photographing...yes god may be an image but this is an exam this is life yes we suffer but god does nothing every bad things comes from human beings...we devastated lands, diminished the species.. people are sometimes angels but some people sometimes devils...there exist a hell and paradise. god's books kuran, bible etc always teached peace but humans have their free wills right they sometimes need to burn devastate...I have a principal look good see good act good and wait for good dont think to much everything is complicated yes but smallest ones isnt complicated cuz they are one's...

[Starving Buddha]

soul may not be a image...seek for kirlian photographing...yes god may be an image but this is an exam this is life yes we suffer but god does nothing every bad things comes from human beings...we devastated lands, diminished the species.. people are sometimes angels but some people sometimes devils...there exist a hell and paradise. god's books kuran, bible etc always teached peace but humans have their free wills right they sometimes need to burn devastate...I have a principal look good see good act good and wait for good dont think to much everything is complicated yes but smallest ones isnt complicated cuz they are one's...

Kirilian photography reveals auras. "Soul" is but another term used to denote the spiritual energy that holds matter to form. The problem with the soul concept, is that we begin to believe that when the body dies, there is something of our self that carries on. When the body dies so too do the memories that were associated with it. So too does the ego id-entity that went with it. You see, we spend so much time in life striving to affirm ourselves and who we think we are not realizing that our self is temporary as is everything else. We do have an eternal part of us, that is the divine seed within, but it is non-id-entified. It is the peice of the whole that we carry with us through our lives, but returns to the source when we finally bring about our release through enlightenment.
As far as good and evil goes, I agree, it is entirely up to man. We are the angels and we are the devils. We are the ones who cause evil and who sacrifice ourselves for the common good. We all have within us, the potentials for both extremes. As we are reflections of life and life is a reflection of us, it (life) also carries within itself the potential for both extremes... However, in order for life to survive, it must kill. In order for my body or your body to continue living something must die (be it animal or plant). To the prehistoric people, when something was consumed, it was a religious experience with that animal offering itself as a sacrifice for the person to continue living; there was a deep reverence for the whole universe. That is what we have lost in our modern world- is the deep spiritual connection and reverence for life, which we are not the masters, but merely organelles within the universal organism.
And again, hell and heaven are but metaphors, not literal places. They are states of mind (psycho-spiritual states) They are also universal archetypal psymbols found the world over because they connote the same ideas: that within us we posses the ability to rise above the suffering or to sink into the suffering. In the mystical see of life, most sink, but some learn to swim.

[AuntShecky]

People need God or "a god" to blame when things start going badly.

No. Seriously -- I've always thought that those who believe that their personal belief is the ultimate Truth to be
extremely smug and arrogant. On the other hand, atheists who zealously deny the existence of a supreme being are
equally arrogant.

The only answer: to keep an open mind, to listen to everything, to observe closely the world that has been either created or randomly spun itself into existence.

[kari]

I don't at all do the blame game when things go wrong. Sometimes I find myself feeling like I just don't get what is going on in my life, but I have never felt resentment or anything like that with God for the bad stuff that happens in my life. For the original question, I think it is nice (to believe in God), to know that no matter what, you are never truly alone. Such a big blessing, for just believing.

[Joreads]

I beleive that some of us need something or someone to believe in. Faith can help you through the roughest of times.

[Pendragon]

I can tell you this: whatever is going to happen will happen whether or not one believes in God. Take the latest disaster, the cyclone in Bangladesh. That happened, and I am certain that it hit both believers and non-believers alike. I would still choose to believe in God knowing that it changes nothing about what may happen to me. There is always hope that prayer will touch Him. And if not, I bear my load as I must anyway.

God Bless

Pen

[kingdomofgod123]

We need god for our happiness and to protect over selves from bad and evils.
Did you know that anything you accomplish in your life is meaningless unless you give yourself to God. Did you know that only God can give you the strength to reach your dreams. Did you know that if you achieve something without gods help that it is not real. Did you know that only those things you do that are Gods will is important. gvelc.com. With out him I cant assume this world.

[Granny5]

I can tell you this: whatever is going to happen will happen whether or not one believes in God. Take the latest disaster, the cyclone in Bangladesh. That happened, and I am certain that it hit both believers and non-believers alike. I would still choose to believe in God knowing that it changes nothing about what may happen to me. There is always hope that prayer will touch Him. And if not, I bear my load as I must anyway.

God Bless

Pen

Pen, this is all so true. I'd rather be happy with my belief in God than to face life alone. I do believe that prayers are head and some are answered. Maybe it's our belief in God that helps us help ourselves? I don't know for sure, but I'm betting on the fact that it can't hurt and it helps us accept this world. When my Mother was ill, I found out that you reach a point where you stop asking for intervention and accept what is happening. When you pray for help in accepting what is going to happen and let things take the course they are sure to take, it's easier to get through it. I have to believe that God has a hand in helping us through tough times.

[Bakiryu]

Life is my god. I have no holy writ. Belief is what keeps us from madness.

[Sweets America]

Pen, this is all so true. I'd rather be happy with my belief in God than to face life alone. I do believe that prayers are head and some are answered. Maybe it's our belief in God that helps us help ourselves? I don't know for sure, but I'm betting on the fact that it can't hurt and it helps us accept this world. When my Mother was ill, I found out that you reach a point where you stop asking for intervention and accept what is happening. When you pray for help in accepting what is going to happen and let things take the course they are sure to take, it's easier to get through it. I have to believe that God has a hand in helping us through tough times.

Your post and Pendragon's post are both very touching, and this is what I like in religion, the fact that it gives hope, whether there really is a God or not. The most important is to have faith, and it can help those who do have it. I don't think I have faith, but it has happened to me to pray at times. I didn't care who I was praying to, I just hoped that I would be heard.

Wait a minute: I am just realizing that what I just wrote sounds quite selfish. When I said I didn't care about which God I was praying to, it sounded as if I only thought of myself and my problem and I had no consideration for the God in question. That was not what I meant. In my prayers I try to be as respectful as I can towards the person or entity I am talking to. I try not to pray often also, I only pray when I'm desperate because I would somehow feel selfish as well if I prayed for a problem that I could solve myself with some efforts.

[jon1jt]

Your post and Pendragon's post are both very touching, and this is what I like in religion, the fact that it gives hope, whether there really is a God or not. The most important is to have faith, and it can help those who do have it. I don't think I have faith, but it has happened to me to pray at times. I didn't care who I was praying to, I just hoped that I would be heard.

Wait a minute: I am just realizing that what I just wrote sounds quite selfish. When I said I didn't care about which God I was praying to, it sounded as if I only thought of myself and my problem and I had no consideration for the God in question. That was not what I meant. In my prayers I try to be as respectful as I can towards the person or entity I am talking to. I try not to pray often also, I only pray when I'm desperate because I would somehow feel selfish as well if I prayed for a problem that I could solve myself with some efforts.

well said! this reminds me of Shadowlands, one of my favorite films, where the C.S. Lewis character loses his wife to a vicious cancer and afterward says he prays because he doesn't know what else to do.

i believe we pray when we think, too, but not always, it depends on the situation. i wonder if it's true.

[Pendragon]

well said! this reminds me of Shadowlands, one of my favorite films, where the C.S. Lewis character loses his wife to a vicious cancer and afterward says he prays because he doesn't know what else to do.

i believe we pray when we think, too, but not always, it depends on the situation. i wonder if it's true.Yes, I believe we pray in our thoughts, Jon. I believe in a God who is able to hear them. When one takes into consideration the enormous amount of sound that this Earth produces on a daily basis, to have no faith that God can hear your prayer above all of that noise, and pick up on each individual plea, that is a God not worthy of worship. But I firmly believe that He can and does hear, and what mankind cannot understand is that "No." is a answer. Sometimes God sees what we don't.

An example is Hezekiah from the Bible. God sent Elijah to tell him to prepare himself, for he would die. Hezekiah prayed and began to remind God of all that he (Hezekiah) had done for God. God said, "OK. Go tell him I will add 15 years to his life and give him a sign this is so." What happened? During that extra 15 years, Hezekiah managed to displease God and bring trouble on Israel. Perhaps he would have been better off just to accept God's will and go on.

God Bless

Pen

[mazHur]

We need a God to brush off the pain of our sufferings and to find strength in weaknesses

[Sweets America]

Yes, I believe we pray in our thoughts, Jon. I believe in a God who is able to hear them. When one takes into consideration the enormous amount of sound that this Earth produces on a daily basis, to have no faith that God can hear your prayer above all of that noise, and pick up on each individual plea, that is a God not worthy of worship. But I firmly believe that He can and does hear, and what mankind cannot understand is that "No." is a answer. Sometimes God sees what we don't.

An example is Hezekiah from the Bible. God sent Elijah to tell him to prepare himself, for he would die. Hezekiah prayed and began to remind God of all that he (Hezekiah) had done for God. God said, "OK. Go tell him I will add 15 years to his life and give him a sign this is so." What happened? During that extra 15 years, Hezekiah managed to displease God and bring trouble on Israel. Perhaps he would have been better off just to accept God's will and go on.

God Bless

Pen

Actually, what Jon and you said makes me realize that I have ALWAYS prayed in my thoughts! I don't think I have ever spoken in prayer. It had never come to my mind that perhaps God or any other deity could not hear my thoughts. I think I took it for granted that he/she would hear my thoughts only when I wanted him/her to! :p

[weepingforloman]

I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?

Just because there's no proof doesn't mean there's no evidence- and, if there was a God, wouldn't you be able to experience Him in some way? I know I have.

[Dark Star]

We can easily enough assume that there is no evidence when no one has ever been able to put forth a shred of evidence for it (barring the debunked Aquinas arguments for a need for a designer which seem to be re-spun yearly and only 'provided' evidence of a DEISTIC god, not a personal one). You'd think that with thousands of years of believing in one someone would have found something by now...

That said, I'm sure you're going to throw out gnosis as evidence (or someone else is, this tends to happen in these discussions). The problem with this is 1. Its known for having neurological causes, not any sort of mystical ones. 2. Testing has revealed that people experiencing 'gnosis' experience the exact same experience no matter what religion they're from and simply interpret it within the framework of their beliefs. On top of that, people taking psychedelic drugs get the exact same experience as those who experience gnosis. This brings up some critical problems in using it for evidence:

Which god, goddess, or gods and goddesses is providing this experience to you? How can you pick one in particular (or a particular pantheon) and use that as evidence for him/her/them when people of ALL religious beliefs share the exact same experience? And how do you explain the fact that a person tripping on LSD is experiencing the same 'gnosis' as you? Have they found a way to cheat God into giving them a feeling they don't deserve, perhaps? For that matter, why assign any sort of divinity in the first place to something that is known to have neurological origins? God of the Gaps doesn't work there since that gap has been filled.

[Pendragon]

To play a little with the no designer theory, why do very knowledgeable and well respected scientists who are considered cutting edge in zoology, entomology, botany, marine biology, etc. keep showing us the wonder of the natural world, and it is a fabulous place full of wonders that makes my heart beat faster anyway, use the word "designed"?

I saw a National Geographic show on the great snakes, the purpose being to decide if one could swallow a man. The term 'designed" came up over and over. The answer is no, unless, you are caught in such a way as to snap the collar bone. The shoulders must pass the mouth, which is (alert, here comes that d word) designed to stretch upward, but not sideways. The inner teeth are designed to "walk" the meal down into the serpent's belly.

You're dead if the big snake catches you, you might as well have stood in front of a steam roller. But you won't be swallowed, unless you are very thin.

[Remarkable]

I don't believe in God.Not wanting to offend anyone,I will just add that I think believing in God means taking some things for granted.

[Dark Star]

To play a little with the no designer theory, why do very knowledgeable and well respected scientists who are considered cutting edge in zoology, entomology, botany, marine biology, etc. keep showing us the wonder of the natural world, and it is a fabulous place full of wonders that makes my heart beat faster anyway, use the word "designed"?

I saw a National Geographic show on the great snakes, the purpose being to decide if one could swallow a man. The term 'designed" came up over and over. The answer is no, unless, you are caught in such a way as to snap the collar bone. The shoulders must pass the mouth, which is (alert, here comes that d word) designed to stretch upward, but not sideways. The inner teeth are designed to "walk" the meal down into the serpent's belly.

You're dead if the big snake catches you, you might as well have stood in front of a steam roller. But you won't be swallowed, unless you are very thin.

You're using the word 'design' in a completely different sense than they are. 'designed' does not necessarily mean 'designed by a cosmic, deistic force'. In the sense of that snake, it means 'designed' as in the R&D work done by evolution. I'm sure if you actually asked any of these scientists what they meant when they say 'designed' they would clarify that they don't mean what you're thinking of.

Not to mention, even if one was to concede that some form of deistic designer is necessary to start everything off and put it in place there is still a LOT of leg-work necessary to show that this god is in reality the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

I recommend checking out Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea as it deals with some of these very issues.

[Etienne]

The perception that things have to be created, that there must be a beginning, contrarily to what many believe is quite a preconceived idea, not a "necessary" idea. In greek mythology, for example, at the beginning there was chaos, which was always there. Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, that there was no beginning. Of course others did believe there was a creation, but my point here is that when the world was perhaps freer of some preconceived idea, that there might have been something eternal, that there was no beginning was a very reasonable position.

If you look at the reasons why one might believe today that there must be a beginning, what are the reasons for that? We cannot say that it is an evolution in human thought from the idea of an eternal "something" since there is no clear reasoning behind such an idea besides opinions really.

So using "but there must have been a beginning" argument is not rational but merely an wild guess, and in this case it is a premise which validity is based on the conclusions you are trying to justify with this premise, any syllogism using this premise therefore becomes some kind of logical snake trying to swallow it's tail.

Other point. Beginning implies a temporal perception. Time is relative to space (no space, no time) and space is relative to matter (no matter, no space) so to have time you need matter. Before the Big Bang, there was energy, no matter, also meaning no time. So time started with the Big Bang, saying that the pre-Big Bang "substance" has ALWAYS been there is a non-sense, as it was only point zero. Time is not something absolute and linear, and to talk about creation and such we have to get over this temporal perspective.

[weepingforloman]

We can easily enough assume that there is no evidence when no one has ever been able to put forth a shred of evidence for it (barring the debunked Aquinas arguments for a need for a designer which seem to be re-spun yearly and only 'provided' evidence of a DEISTIC god, not a personal one). You'd think that with thousands of years of believing in one someone would have found something by now...

That said, I'm sure you're going to throw out gnosis as evidence (or someone else is, this tends to happen in these discussions). The problem with this is 1. Its known for having neurological causes, not any sort of mystical ones. 2. Testing has revealed that people experiencing 'gnosis' experience the exact same experience no matter what religion they're from and simply interpret it within the framework of their beliefs. On top of that, people taking psychedelic drugs get the exact same experience as those who experience gnosis. This brings up some critical problems in using it for evidence:

Which god, goddess, or gods and goddesses is providing this experience to you? How can you pick one in particular (or a particular pantheon) and use that as evidence for him/her/them when people of ALL religious beliefs share the exact same experience? And how do you explain the fact that a person tripping on LSD is experiencing the same 'gnosis' as you? Have they found a way to cheat God into giving them a feeling they don't deserve, perhaps? For that matter, why assign any sort of divinity in the first place to something that is known to have neurological origins? God of the Gaps doesn't work there since that gap has been filled.
Part of the general belief of Christians (or at least a great number of us) is the idea that God reveals Himself in varying degrees and ways to almost every person. The experience of drugs is, perhaps, similar, but this could be considered as a way in which God attempts to show Himself to those who would otherwise not encounter Him. I believe it is very logical that, if there is a creator God, He would use the wiring of our brains to make us aware of Him, or able to experience Him. You commit something of a fallacy here: you assume that anything which is scientific excludes God, which is in fact begging the question. If there is a God, science cannot exclude Him. He would be the very foundation of science. Neurology cannot disprove God, nor can any science, because, even if all natural knowledge is attained, yet there can be no answering of the supernatural. So how exactly do you propose we go about verifying the existence of God- how could someone have "found something" by now? Or ever? God is immeasurable: after all, you cannot quantify justice, cannot measure mercy, cannot weigh out love (agape, that is- I have heard arguments that eros can be quantified).

And, in any case, I was not referring to gnosis when I said "evidence." There are several examples: a.) innate moral law. It serves no evolutionary purpose, yet is found to be a constant in almost every human. B.) the fact that Christ, who very few would call insane, claimed to be God, not in a pantheist, "we are all divine" sense, but in a much more bold, dynamic sense- He claimed to be That Which Is Before Anything Was, and He is not lightly to be brushed aside- even Einstein admired Him. C.) The very universality of the belief in God. Even if it can be sufficiently proven (and I do not believe it has, though I do not claim any great knowledge on the subject) that theism has neurological roots, the fact that it exists despite the fact that it, like moralism, serves no evolutionary purpose, would suggest that something more is at work.


The perception that things have to be created, that there must be a beginning, contrarily to what many believe is quite a preconceived idea, not a "necessary" idea. In greek mythology, for example, at the beginning there was chaos, which was always there. Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, that there was no beginning. Of course others did believe there was a creation, but my point here is that when the world was perhaps freer of some preconceived idea, that there might have been something eternal, that there was no beginning was a very reasonable position.

If you look at the reasons why one might believe today that there must be a beginning, what are the reasons for that? We cannot say that it is an evolution in human thought from the idea of an eternal "something" since there is no clear reasoning behind such an idea besides opinions really.

So using "but there must have been a beginning" argument is not rational but merely an wild guess, and in this case it is a premise which validity is based on the conclusions you are trying to justify with this premise, any syllogism using this premise therefore becomes some kind of logical snake trying to swallow it's tail.

Other point. Beginning implies a temporal perception. Time is relative to space (no space, no time) and space is relative to matter (no matter, no space) so to have time you need matter. Before the Big Bang, there was energy, no matter, also meaning no time. So time started with the Big Bang, saying that the pre-Big Bang "substance" has ALWAYS been there is a non-sense, as it was only point zero. Time is not something absolute and linear, and to talk about creation and such we have to get over this temporal perspective.
Your argument is flawed: what about enthalpy? The universe is continually running down, it is moving from more ordered to less, and will likely reach a point of absolute chaos- a homogeneous mass of uniform matter. If we are to accept this, we must admit that a highly ordered beginning and a supremely chaotic end are necessary. The concept of eternal matter does not hold up.


You're using the word 'design' in a completely different sense than they are. 'designed' does not necessarily mean 'designed by a cosmic, deistic force'. In the sense of that snake, it means 'designed' as in the R&D work done by evolution. I'm sure if you actually asked any of these scientists what they meant when they say 'designed' they would clarify that they don't mean what you're thinking of.

Not to mention, even if one was to concede that some form of deistic designer is necessary to start everything off and put it in place there is still a LOT of leg-work necessary to show that this god is in reality the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

I recommend checking out Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea as it deals with some of these very issues.
Creation was never used by a canonical writer to prove the existence or identity of God- they relied on historical not prehistorical arguments.

[Etienne]

Your argument is flawed: what about enthalpy? The universe is continually running down, it is moving from more ordered to less, and will likely reach a point of absolute chaos- a homogeneous mass of uniform matter. If we are to accept this, we must admit that a highly ordered beginning and a supremely chaotic end are necessary. The concept of eternal matter does not hold up.

From what you told me, I don't think you really understand what enthalpy is... As for moving to more ordered to less, I have absolutely no idea what you mean, perhaps you can elaborate on this? A homogeneous mass of uniform matter? Again, please elaborate as to the how and why with sources please... And I'd like to precise that I never talked about eternal matter expect about Aristotle's theory which I only used to show that the concept of creation has not been seen as a necessity before and that the concept of eternity made as much sense as the concept of creation to the human mind, only preconceived ideas or wild guesses will make a creation seem like a necessity. My real argument was in the second part, where I never talked about eternal matter at all.

[Pendragon]

Other point. Beginning implies a temporal perception. Time is relative to space (no space, no time) and space is relative to matter (no matter, no space) so to have time you need matter. Before the Big Bang, there was energy, no matter, also meaning no time. So time started with the Big Bang, saying that the pre-Big Bang "substance" has ALWAYS been there is a non-sense, as it was only point zero. Time is not something absolute and linear, and to talk about creation and such we have to get over this temporal perspective.And BOOM! Etienne, we're back at that first law of thermodynamics-- energy cannot be created nor destroyed and the equation of E=MCsquared.
I said that energy was God, which gave rise to the question of "Who then, created God?" Another poster disliked The Big Bang, asking "Who then struck the match?" Can you not see that all of this is simply circular logic. Or as Ambrose Bierce once put it: "Having made A the proof of B, preceding to turn around and make B the proof of A." I get a headache just thinking of the illogic. I believe the Bible, perhaps in a different matter than traditional thinking, but I am far from traditional.

God Bless

Pen

[Etienne]

And BOOM! Etienne, we're back at that first law of thermodynamics-- energy cannot be created nor destroyed and the equation of E=MCsquared.

No, not at all, you're again going in a temporal perception here. I think you didn't read my post carefully. Energy can have "always" been there, but I explained how saying "always" is innacurate as it implies a temporal perspective. If we want to keep this perspective, saying that it has never been there would be more accurate, but from a perspective that abstracts time, you can simply say "it was there" with no temporal referent.

"I said that energy was God, which gave rise to the question of "Who then, created God?""

I never asked you this. But why/how would this energy create books and stuff? I mean energy was used in atomic bombs to kill people, energy is used to create evil? Are you claiming that we are using God to do evil? The previous and official solution to the problem of evil was that evil is the absence of God. Saying God is energy (and by extension matter) means that is omnipresent and that the problem of evil becomes a major problem to you. As not only evil is made in the presence of God, but it is with the PARTICIPATION of God.


Another poster disliked The Big Bang, asking "Who then struck the match?" Can you not see that all of this is simply circular logic.

Well let's consider the cyclic Bing Bang/Big Crunch theory. Let's start when the Universe is in a Big Crunch, suddenly the universe shrinks back to pure energy, time stops, the following Big Bang can be "immediate" but since time has stopped saying "immediate" is wrong since it's a temporal word used to describe a not temporal reality, from a temporal perspective, the Big Bang is immediate to the Big Crunch, there doesn't even exist anything in-between the two as a temporal perspective can only exist where there is time.

The fact that pre-Big Bang had no time doesn't really mean that it was always there but that it was never there as well depending on your perspective. So no one "pulled the trigger" or anything, things started at the beginning. I'll repeat it you have to understand carefully the implication of this absence of time. Saying "who triggered it" is mostly the same kid as a kid saying "who closed the lights (the sun)".

[Dark Star]

Part of the general belief of Christians (or at least a great number of us) is the idea that God reveals Himself in varying degrees and ways to almost every person. The experience of drugs is, perhaps, similar, but this could be considered as a way in which God attempts to show Himself to those who would otherwise not encounter Him.

Similar? Try 'exactly the same', just as it is the same feeling people of every other religion experience. This does beg a question, though, why does he 'show Himself' to people of other religious beliefs when they are performing religious activities involving deities other than him when this will surely do nothing but make their faith in un-true deities more strong?


IYou commit something of a fallacy here: you assume that anything which is scientific excludes God, which is in fact begging the question. If there is a God, science cannot exclude Him.

I disagree. Science, by its very nature, excludes the supernatural. It deals only in things we can or will have physical evidence for; until God presents physical evidence for his existence he is excluded by science.


Neurology cannot disprove God, nor can any science, because, even if all natural knowledge is attained, yet there can be no answering of the supernatural.

I never said that it can 'disprove' God. I simply don't see a need to add a supernatural explanation to something that has known natural causes; it would be like saying the reason the planets orbit around the sun is because God is shooting pool with them. We already know a natural explanation for why it happens, so why try to tack on an unnecessary supernatural one?


So how exactly do you propose we go about verifying the existence of God- how could someone have "found something" by now? Or ever? God is immeasurable: after all, you cannot quantify justice, cannot measure mercy, cannot weigh out love (agape, that is- I have heard arguments that eros can be quantified).

How we go about verifying the existence of such a deity is your problem, not mine. As you may recall, it wasn't me that made the claim that there is evidence of him. ;)


And, in any case, I was not referring to gnosis when I said "evidence." There are several examples: a.) innate moral law. It serves no evolutionary purpose, yet is found to be a constant in almost every human.

False. It serves a VERY important evolutionary purpose; it is absolutely necessary for our species to survive. A species does not survive if they all take a dog-eat-dog approach and kill each other for anything they want. Group morality is necessary for survival and this has even been displayed in primates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology This should be a nice start.


B.) the fact that Christ, who very few would call insane, claimed to be God, not in a pantheist, "we are all divine" sense, but in a much more bold, dynamic sense- He claimed to be That Which Is Before Anything Was, and He is not lightly to be brushed aside- even Einstein admired Him.

This is a rather bad argument which has several problems:

1. Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed to be prophets of God. There were many people, even in Jesus' time that claimed to be God. How do you know this person was right? How is it that you can know the other scriptures are not divinely inspired and that is?
2. This argument presumes the historical existence of Jesus which is far from certain. The man has to have existed to have made these claims and a set of contradictory documents written from 60 to 100 CE, when no one felt the need to write about him or seemed to know anything about him during his lifetime, makes it rather difficult to say its certain. And that's the tip of the iceberg of the Jesus-as-myth argument.
3. Throughout history, many, many have claimed to be God aside from the ones following in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic traditions. In many cultures (Rome and Egypt come to mind) the head of state was thought of as a god. Why is their testimony to being god not proof of their actually being god, or of the existence of the Roman or Egyptian pantheons?
4. Being widely admired (even by Einstein) does not constitute evidence for divinity. For that matter, I find it quite irrelevant since Einstein was quite open about not believing Jesus was divine as were many other 'admirers'. What they admired was moral system (excluding all the hellfire), which I may add, dates back to thousands of years before the writing of the Gospels.


C.) The very universality of the belief in God. Even if it can be sufficiently proven (and I do not believe it has, though I do not claim any great knowledge on the subject) that theism has neurological roots, the fact that it exists despite the fact that it, like moralism, serves no evolutionary purpose, would suggest that something more is at work.

This is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum. Something being popular does not mean it is true. You also seem to fail to take into account that there are MANY forms of theism and that it cannot be applied to one particular deity. There were theistic communities that worshipped other deities long before Judaism or Christianity even existed; why is the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one the true deity? Because its the one most commonly believed in now? Religious opinions shift greatly over time. I'm curious if theism will no longer be true when it phases itself out or a different deity is being worshipped instead of the Christian one?


Creation was never used by a canonical writer to prove the existence or identity of God- they relied on historical not prehistorical arguments.

False. See: Aquinas' arguments which are still used today. And the historicity of those arguments is debatable, at best.

[Pendragon]

No, not at all, you're again going in a temporal perception here. I think you didn't read my post carefully. Energy can have "always" been there, but I explained how saying "always" is innacurate as it implies a temporal perspective. If we want to keep this perspective, saying that it has never been there would be more accurate, but from a perspective that abstracts time, you can simply say "it was there" with no temporal referent.

"I said that energy was God, which gave rise to the question of "Who then, created God?""

I never asked you this. But why/how would this energy create books and stuff? I mean energy was used in atomic bombs to kill people, energy is used to create evil? Are you claiming that we are using God to do evil? The previous and official solution to the problem of evil was that evil is the absence of God. Saying God is energy (and by extension matter) means that is omnipresent and that the problem of evil becomes a major problem to you. As not only evil is made in the presence of God, but it is with the PARTICIPATION of God.



I would not put it that way. The Tree in the Garden was Pure. Knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor evil. But in tasting of the tree, man had knowledge now, and the choice of what to do with it: Good or evil. Man has indeed done much good with what knowledge he had. He made that knowledge grow, he discovered how to make concrete and steel, how to build cities. He found cures for diseases. He also discovered horrible things best left alone. But he could not, for he was curious. Thus, poisons, airborne bacterial warfare, nucular warfare and worse became man's toys.

Man himself will destroy his world if not stopped. Right now the wrong person pushing the wrong button and we're slag.

[mazHur]

things seem going off topic apparently.

Simply we could say we need God because we need Him, we do need a creator of all causes,,,,no cause no effect !

[Etienne]

I would not put it that way. The Tree in the Garden was Pure. Knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor evil. But in tasting of the tree, man had knowledge now, and the choice of what to do with it: Good or evil. Man has indeed done much good with what knowledge he had. He made that knowledge grow, he discovered how to make concrete and steel, how to build cities. He found cures for diseases. He also discovered horrible things best left alone. But he could not, for he was curious. Thus, poisons, airborne bacterial warfare, nucular warfare and worse became man's toys.

Man himself will destroy his world if not stopped. Right now the wrong person pushing the wrong button and we're slag.

My point is that if God is the energy, that means he is everything and participating in everything since he is also omnipotent. That means he is participating to every action, good and evil, high and low, far and near.

The thing is that theists usually find an answer to a single issue by dodging arguments, but they cannot construct a whole solid and coherent structure to explain their belief rationally. And let's go further, how can we explain that people who are considered saints or having had revelations had conceptions of God that are outdated by science and theology has evolved. Theology is not supposed to be an "evolutive" science since it is based on dogmas, and therefore the interpretation and message should have been the same unchanging one since the beginning.

Your best bet is to drop rationality and go back to the original credo quia absurdum. Keep all your beliefs and dogmas as you want, that's not what I'm saying but remember this: credo quia absurdum, I believe because it is absurd.

And more, any religion can be defended in the same way as your perspective of it, so then the usual answer "but I feel, I know deep withing me, etc. etc." Well this is not rational, so since you cannot explain rationally the belief of X over Y, explaining X rationally is deemed to failure.

[Pendragon]

Well this is not rational, so since you cannot explain rationally the belief of X over Y, explaining X rationally is deemed to failure.The point is, my friend, you are so certain that there is no God, any proof that doesn't line up with what you have determined to be true you can find ways to dismiss. Well, I have put out ways to prove God's existence using your own science, and It got me called Jesus, and told to shut up. I find science proving God not disproving him. You Have a nice day.

Good Bless

Pen

[Etienne]

I didn't tell you to shut up, and I didn't read anywhere, stop acting like a martyr. Is it that you cannot find anymore arguments and are trying to end it in a way that you save your face and put the blame of your exit on me? I'm sorry, if you want to end this, don't put the blame on me.

That you find science proves God is your choice, however you have to be able to show it, I've given refutations to your arguments, of "your ways to prove God's existence" (there is nothing in what you said to prove God's existence, it was merely trying to find a place for God in scientific concepts, by the way) you just end the discussion by saying "well it's my opinion". Science is not a matter of opinion but of rational argument, so if you believe what you're saying you should be able to refute my arguments, not just evade them or call it a day and go away. Falling back on your positions like this and ending discussion tends to show the underlying cause of your belief: faith, and not rationality, like you are trying to tell us.

I am not certain there is no God, I just see no reason to believe there is one, there is a fundamental difference. And I do not think science is disproving God, but I think that the opposition reality vs historical theology tends to show that most beliefs in God were are absolutely irrational, and coherent with many psychological observations toward other phenomenon. So the only rational data we can form a judgment from seems to lead toward the idea that religious feelings are that, nothing more than a feeling. But there is no formal proof anywhere, clues would be a better term.

[Niamh]

mod note:can we please just discuss the question asked without personally offending other members or misinterpreting posts. Everyone is intitled to their opinons and beliefs. We are here to discuss topics and not preach our personal beliefs.
Merry Christmas everyone.
And be nice.:)

[Pendragon]

I didn't tell you to shut up, and I didn't read anywhere, stop acting like a martyr. Is it that you cannot find anymore arguments and are trying to end it in a way that you save your face and put the blame of your exit on me? I'm sorry, if you want to end this, don't put the blame on me.

That you find science proves God is your choice, however you have to be able to show it, I've given refutations to your arguments, of "your ways to prove God's existence" (there is nothing in what you said to prove God's existence, it was merely trying to find a place for God in scientific concepts, by the way) you just end the discussion by saying "well it's my opinion". Science is not a matter of opinion but of rational argument, so if you believe what you're saying you should be able to refute my arguments, not just evade them or call it a day and go away. Falling back on your positions like this and ending discussion tends to show the underlying cause of your belief: faith, and not rationality, like you are trying to tell us.

I am not certain there is no God, I just see no reason to believe there is one, there is a fundamental difference. And I do not think science is disproving God, but I think that the opposition reality vs historical theology tends to show that most beliefs in God were are absolutely irrational, and coherent with many psychological observations toward other phenomenon. So the only rational data we can form a judgment from seems to lead toward the idea that religious feelings are that, nothing more than a feeling. But there is no formal proof anywhere, clues would be a better term.That post seems to have been deleted, and no it wasn't you, Etienne, my friend. I'm not going to be a martyr. and wouldn't mind refuting any points I disagreed with. My point was about the 2ond law of thermodynamics, and pointing out that God could have been there all along, that energy was God. People still want to know who created God then? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Flat statement made scientifically, yet they wont accept it from me. When God enters the equation, however much the formula fits, I will be told I'm wrong. That I don't understand science. I seem to understand science much better that you will ever allow yourself to understand God.

God Bless

Pen

Sorry Niamh. If this seems rough delete it, but I have taken worse,

[Etienne]

My point was about the 2ond law of thermodynamics, and pointing out that God could have been there all along, that energy was God.

Yes it "could", however that doesn't fit with theological views of God, I'm not saying it's "scientifically" impossible.


People still want to know who created God then?

I guess you totally missed my point? Go back to where I explain how time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there was not really any creation, only a beginning. And if you really cannot accept that things just began, then there are other scientific theories that I have already pointed out, like the infinite cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch. What I observe is that you always come around the same arguments completely ignoring ignoring the refutations I have made of it.


Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Ill repeat creation or destruction implies time, and time has no grip on energy. If there is only energy, no matter, it also means there is no time. So energy was not created before the Big Bang, it was just there in a timeless state, so basically saying it was never there or always there are both as right and wrong, as the language, and even the human mind, implies a temporal perspective, therefore to figure it it has to be abstracted. Do understand this please and stop saying I'm just saying you don't understand science, when in fact you I bring you arguments, you ignore them and turn them into personal attacks against you.


Flat statement made scientifically, yet they wont accept it from me.

Putting the "2nd law of thermodynamic" doesn't make a statement scientific. A scientific statement implies a method. Your statement was an hypothesis. God might be that initial energy. Ok it can, however that doesn't prove anything and there is no argument towards believing this, it is simply a supposition that comes from an initial belief in God, therefore the argument is simply your belief.


When God enters the equation, however much the formula fits, I will be told I'm wrong. That I don't understand science.

Well address the refutations, you are simple going back on your positions and act like an offended virgin so you don't have to address these refutations, it seems.


I seem to understand science much better that you will ever allow yourself to understand God.

You are accusing me of resorting to ad hominem arguments simply because I offer arguments against your hypothesis, and then yourself, use ad hominem arguments.

I find your statement contrary to what has happened in this thread. I wonder how many time will I have to repeat you my arguments for you to address them or take them in consideration instead of considering being refuted as being an ad hominem argument and discarding the refutation for that reason.

I find your attitude very deplorable and at the same time pretty typical, when you are at the end of the rope of your arguments, try to find a way out saving your face and putting the blame on the other.

[Tosca]

I do not want to argue. I do not have time to read all 23 pages. But, I have read the title of the topic and would like to post my comment on it.

We need God. He sent his Son, Jesus, to die on the cross, to shed blood, so that we may be saved. No God, no Jesus. No Jesus, no salvation...no salvation means Hell for all of us. Without a personal realtionship with Jesus (who came from God) we are not going to Heaven. So of course we need God :)

[Logos]

General Mod Note to All:

Please discuss the TOPIC and not EACH OTHER.

Thank you :)

[Pendragon]

I find your attitude very deplorable and at the same time pretty typical, when you are at the end of the rope of your arguments, try to find a way out saving your face and putting the blame on the other.You are always telling me to refute arguments you have put forth. I have no interest in what some philosopher may have said. You do not deal with the equation at hand. You find ways to circumnavigate it. The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics will not and can not be circumnavigated. I said my self that time doesn't enter the picture until after the creation. Time has no effect on the 2ond law of thermodynamics. E=squared. The energy capable of creating a universe. That is God my friend. Chance could not create something as complex as bacteria.
I have been patient, but you reject God. On the day of judgment, my hands will be clean.I will still pray for you.

1Cor.14

1. [38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

[LadyW]

On a personal level, I don't believe that all the members of one religion believe and worship in the same God, in the same way. It means something different to each individual. Some may believe there really is a physical presence somewhere overlooking everything whereas others may believe that God is not a physical being, but all the goodness and hope in the world. Maybe, some people aren't sure yet and are willing to go through life trying to learn and come to a conclusion about the whole thing. When you're totally alone, when you're hurt, what's there for you? Is it your conscience, your own mind, or something else? I personally believe we are never really alone.

[mazHur]

you seem to be beside me
when none other is around.

According to mystics God only enters the heart when all others depart. It is this feeling which makes us
believe we are never really alone.
the One who is with us in our loneliness is none except God!

[LadyW]

exactly :)

[Etienne]

You are always telling me to refute arguments you have put forth. I have no interest in what some philosopher may have said. You do not deal with the equation at hand. You find ways to circumnavigate it. The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics will not and can not be circumnavigated. I said my self that time doesn't enter the picture until after the creation. Time has no effect on the 2ond law of thermodynamics. E=squared. The energy capable of creating a universe. That is God my friend. Chance could not create something as complex as bacteria.

Have you even read my posts???????? You know these part about time that took 90% of my posts?


I have been patient, but you reject God. On the day of judgment, my hands will be clean.I will still pray for you.

Don't even bother praying for me, if God is what we are told he is, he doesn't need prayers to know who deserves anything.