Why I believe in God?

[BienvenuJDC]

Organisms change constantly, life isn't static, it is not possible for species that existed 1 million years ago to be identical today.

We may not see this today because it takes millions of years. However, you are ignoring the evidence we have of this occurring. The fossil record and phylogenetics both support this happening. Moreover, you're ignoring the fact of ring species, which is an example of this in process today.

How does the fossil record prove that?
I don't believe that the earth is millions of years old. There is very conflicting evidence that makes the age of the earth inconclusive. Carbon dating isn't accurate past about 6,000 years....oh, that's how old some think that the earth is...

We will never solve this without some real conclusive evidence...not just the statement that evidence exists either. I grow tired of the mere statements that there is tons of evidence. Nor does telling me that I 'don't understand' evolution prove itself as a viable argument.

I am done here...

[Babbalanja]

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?


I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.So there you have it, plain as day. This isn't an argument about facts or evidence, it's wishful thinking. I debated creationists for years, refuting every one of their shopworn talking points, until I realized that when they talked about evidence, they meant something completely different than what it means to scientific researchers. Creationism isn't a search for tentative knowledge, it's a search for comfortable certainty.

Does anyone still believe faith is a good thing if it motivates people to celebrate their ignorance of modern scientific research? Does anyone still believe credulity is just as valid a path to knowledge about the universe as empirical evidential inquiry?

As for "Why I Believe In God," I've said before that I doubt anyone believes because of logical "proofs" and creationist propaganda. These are just the rationalizations that come afterward.

Regards,

Istvan

[Odysseus93]

Personally I believe that the whole creationist-evolutionist debate is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how you believe the world got here in the first place, as long as you believe that it was created. The bible has been stated as spiritual truth, rather than scientific, and the whole "seven days" analogy is simply an attempt to put time on a being who is by definition, timeless. To put it simply, if God is timeless, as most people believe, couldn't his ""seven days" be billions of years to us? Anyway, shouldnt we be debating whether God exists or not, rather than how he created everything?

[Katy North]

We will never solve this without some real conclusive evidence...not just the statement that evidence exists either. I grow tired of the mere statements that there is tons of evidence. Nor does telling me that I 'don't understand' evolution prove itself as a viable argument.

I am done here...

You're not going to like me very much but...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/examples-of-evolution-occurring-now/1a9b01413a44374e3cde1a9b01413a44374e3cde-1404585051071

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/does-the-evidence-support-evolution/c9332f0a66a9e53880e6c9332f0a66a9e53880e6-1403619443814

And finally, for all you people who don't mind Bill Mahr and humorous critiques on fundamentalism...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/bill-maher-evolution-and-swine-flu/13e05250f200e23210f313e05250f200e23210f3-1596167291434

[BienvenuJDC]

You're not going to like me very much but...



After watching the first video, I concluded that the content has nothing to do with evolution at all. The assumptions made are far reaching. Especially to stretch the observances to humans and primates.

There is nothing really offered here worth consideration as evidence toward evolution.

[OrphanPip]

Actually, it's another common example of ring species, it shows how speciesation and breeding isolation occurs gradually.

[JommiL]

I wrote in my satire few moths ago, that is funny, that "human being is usually very proud. But still he wants to be more from apes than God."

Why? Because if we admit that God exists, it also means, that we have to make very serious decisions about our life and way how do we live it.

[BienvenuJDC]

Actually, it's another common example of ring species, it shows how speciesation and breeding isolation occurs gradually.

Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...

[DanielBenoit]

Why? Because if we admit that God exists, it also means, that we have to make very serious decisions about our life and way how do we live it.

One can say the same for theists who refuse to believe that they are a result of natural selection because to them it would make them deal with questions such as the meaning of their life in this new and different perspective. Bienevu admitted himself that he'd rather believe that he was created by a divine being rather than believe that he came about by "random chance". (which is not how evolution works if you know the meaning of natural selection.)


Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...

Please, show me where these "Grand Canyon size gaps" are. Yes like all scientific theories, evolution does have gaps. You know why? Because science isn't like religion and learns more and evolves as it progresses.

Orphan Pip and Katy North have taken the trouble to link you all of this information, at least you could give us your objections to it instead of just outright saying there are a ton of gaps, without even having the courtesy to point out to us where these gaps are.

[OrphanPip]

Again...it's not evidence. I don't buy into their conclusions....there are still Grand Canyon size gaps in the evidence...far more than these hypothetical conclusions can account for...

I don't get how it isn't evidence. If you ask the question, how does one breeding population become two isolated populations over time? Then ring species are a clear example of how it happens.

Edit: All it would take is for the salamander species in the North to go extinct, to leave you with two genetically isolated populations incapable of interbreeding.

[Babbalanja]

Please, show me where these "Grand Canyon size gaps" are. :rolleyes:

This is the conspiracy-theorist's stock in trade, concentrating on a list of perceived anomalies in a coherent model instead of proposing one of his own. Do you think it's merely coincidental that we're never allowed to consider the "gaps" in creationism, or gauge its statistical unlikelihood?

This is never a matter of someone actually wanting to learn. It's just the scattershot denials of someone with a bad science education and an axe to grind. If you address every point the denier makes, he'll welcome every one of your patient, rational responses by sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting I can't hear you la la la!

Anyone want to make a bet?

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

Edit: All it would take is for the salamander species in the North to go extinct, to leave you with two genetically isolated populations incapable of interbreeding.

That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...

[OrphanPip]

That is an unsubstantiated conclusion of the evolutionists...who are trying to prove the hypothesis...

No this was a prediction made by evolutionary theory far before we ever had the ability to understand the process at a genetic and molecular level. It strengthens the evolutionary theory that the more we learn about biological processes the more supported the theory is.

I don't see how you can't see that conclusion as plain evident. If the two species at the extremes of the "ring", which is more like a horseshoe, are not able to breed with each other, but still have gene flow between each other because of interbreeding along the ring. Then these two populations of salamander on the extremes are at the cusp of being separate species, if you cut off the gene flow between them, they would have nothing to relate them except ancestry.

[JommiL]

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

[DanielBenoit]

Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution.

If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them. Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a setter? If anything they are tautological results from situation like when two atoms collide. It's rather misguiding when we use the word 'laws' when refering to the nature of the universe, as if they were laws of jurisdiction and so forth. The 'laws' of science are our way of systematically describing situations by means of induction, so that we can make predictions, create new technology and so forth. The laws of motion are merely our systemization of a universally common occurrence amongst objects in space. There's no actual naturalistic 'law' written on a tablet in space saying 'In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.'

[JommiL]

That's because the discoveries in science confirm evolution.

- No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.

If God sets natures laws, then of course He too must've been under some kind of law in order to set them.

- Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.

Also, who says that the laws of nature needed a setter?

Well, as Einstein said, God does not throw the dice with universe, so... :o)

If anything they are tautological results from situation like when two atoms collide. It's rather misguiding when we use the word 'laws' when refering to the nature of the universe, as if they were laws of jurisdiction and so forth. The 'laws' of science are our way of systematically describing situations by means of induction, so that we can make predictions, create new technology and so forth. The laws of motion are merely our systemization of a universally common occurrence amongst objects in space. There's no actual naturalistic 'law' written on a tablet in space saying 'In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.'

- Laws of science - well described. We are just schoolboys. Also predictions will base in trust of laws and solid patterns, which will appear all around us.

[DanielBenoit]

- No they are not. They only confirm that we must be very, very humble.

Very well. You keep your humility and we will keep our anti-biotics, modern medicine, etc.



- Why He should be? If we compare God and man, man must create things with has been before, but this has nothing to do with God - He is allmighty. He creates, we just copy.

That's your assumption. You may have it.



Well, as Einstein said, God does not throw the dice with universe, so... :o)

I don't see how this has any relation to the point I was making. Besides, that Einstein quote was in reference to his disagreement with quantum theory. Turns out he was wrong.

[Virgil]

Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.


Man, I really dislike it when either sides of the theist/atheist spectrum use what these men said as spokesmen for their own beliefs. But what I dislike even more is when they use these men's personal beliefs as arguments against a certain scientific theory they happen to dislike.

Oh Daniel, I wasn't just appealing to any authority to defend my argument. Between this thread and others I' laid out what the correct Intelligent Design argument is. I appealed to Einstein and Newton only because the dope I was arguing with had an implicint appeal to his authority: "From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical" and "that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times." That's his indirect way to appeal to authority. I was refuting (after I had already laid out my argument) with other authority. The point being that there is no consensus.


Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?
I don't know what you're referring to. I believe in evolution and I said so many times.



Leaving aside criticisms of causality itself in both philosophy and quantum physics, I would like to simple point out that in your analogy of the dead body and the wire, you forcibly inject God into it. If I were a police officer at a crime scene, I would conclude that the dead body was caused by the wire because I saw it right there and made inductive conclusions. This example is ridiculous when compared to the existence of a supernatural entity. No one is denying the existence of the wire because it is perceivable through the senses. The unmoved mover (to use the Aristililean term) is no where in the picture in scientific revelation, He is merely semantically injected into it as the definition of the cause of the revelation a priori. To summarize it, you are assuming that God is even there, and thus the cause. The wire is there and thus can reasonably be concluded to be the cause.

Now I'm not even an empiricist when it comes to these deep philosophical questions of the universe, but I am as almost everyone else is when it comes to everyday life. This is why I've disliked these analogies which are so simplistic and hardly match the question at hand.
Oh Daniel, you didn't understand. I wasn't using the tripping as an analogy to proving God. I was using it to show the fallacy of the dope's claim that I was fallacious to "affirming the consequence." Affirming the consequence is used all the time. It is not fallacious. In fact I would say all scientific discoveries are in essence affirming the consequence. The scientific method is affirming the consequence. In fact that is how Darwin supports the theory of evolution, by observing the consequence and building an argument on how the consequence occured.

I'm am out of here.

[Babbalanja]

My dearest friend Virgil,

I'm not sure what problem you have with your Internet connection, but you must not have seen the part of my post where I explicitly explained the logical and methodological flaws in the Argument from Design. To reiterate, you can't use your conclusion to validate your major premise. It's not at all an appeal to authority.

But, no matter. You have seen fit to move on to your other favorite logical constructs such as the Appeal to Arrogance and the Argument from Unprovoked Personal Abuse. I simply assume that calling me a "dope" has to compensate for your inability to engage any of my actual statements.


Oh my God, this goes on and on and on. Let me just address this and get the hell out this thread and all religious threads.In the interests of your emotional health, I wish you would avoid taking part in discussions wherein you seem unable to control your temper.

Regards,

Istvan

[IceM]

Likely?

But we have never witnessed anything like this...therefore it is NOT science... and no better than something based on religious faith. Your ideas are based more on faith than what I base my beliefs on...

So....EVERY evolutionary link...has gone extinct...and you think that my faith is far fetched...

Charles Darwin discovered that on the Galapagos Islands, different islands had different birds; some islands featured birds with smaller beaks, some with larger, some with sharper talons, some with different mating calls. The species different in correlation with different topography. Over the 5-ish years spent observing the finches, Darwin realized that the finches changed over time--natural selection. As a previous poster said, the distance between islands ultimately led to different species.

If you choose to view this as myth or some "non-scientific study" feel free to do so. I won't blame you for adhering to ignorant dogma. I'll just consider you delusional.


Science learns? It does not learn anything. Almost every discovery in science will be fitted into evolution theory. If we just look those programs about nature, it is always evolution this, evolution that.
It is amazing, that we live in incredible rich universe filled with great wonders, and still we want to deny existence of God. Nature has very specific laws, and some has to be set them.

You're right; science doesn't learn. But the scientists that perpetuate and augment scientific theories do. Hardly any study found in science is catered to the topic of evolution just as any hardly any other finding on lung cancer is catered to cigarette smoke (for there are other causes). But if you want to consider science as some blasphemous, irrelevant field of study while your "beliefs" are superior, by all means, do so. Just understand that I'm allergic to illogicality and ignorance.

:puke:

[JommiL]

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

[BienvenuJDC]

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

Great comments!!

[OrphanPip]

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

Besides the fact that you're misquoting Einstein, who was speaking of his disbelief in the probabilistic nature of quantum physics, and the fact that Einstein was wrong on this one.

Order appears spontaneously all the time. Snowflakes form spontaneously and are highly ordered structures, as are claybeds, rock strata, whirlpools, etc.

The analogy of man made objects is a false analogy. As to moons and stars being more accurate than wristwatches... Well that's just silly. Time first of all is relative based on the velocity you are traveling at. If you're traveling at the speed of light time for you would progress slower than it would be for us here on Earth. Although, you wouldn't notice because it is relative, time would progress relatively slower for you, but for you on the spaceship traveling at light speed it would feel normal.

Also, days, minutes, and seconds are man made concepts for measuring time, and I don't see how you think stars and moons measure time... I could arbitrarily decide that a minute is 75 seconds and then that would make every hour 48 minutes, my system of time measurement would be just as consistent as yours, I would just have to make a second mean a different measurement of time. If I were on Mars the moons would pass several times in an "Earth day", but a Mars year would be several Earth years.

[AimusSage]

The problem with science is that it moves at an incredibly fast and increasing rate, almost everyday discoveries are made that correct previous assumptions. What people learn in their physics or chemistry class in high school is almost always outdated. Only if you are a scientist yourself in a particular field is it possible to be on the cutting edge. As such people tend to stick with what they know of science and disregard it subsequently as not fitting their own view of the universe, nature or whatever you want to call it.

Comprehending science is not easy, and sometimes it is easier to simply belief in 'something', many people say they belief in science, but what they really are saying is that science is their new religion. This is more or less equal to believing in God, which was the explanation given to natural phenomena in times when science wasn't advanced enough to explain them. The idea of God stuck and evolved only slightly from a natural phenomena to for example an entity that created and or controls nature/ and now people are taught that God exist, much the same way nowadays people belief that what science says is always true. The skeptic and other critical thinkers understand that nothing is certain, but that we can assume certain aspects of science, such as evolution to be accurate based on empirical evidence, even though it can always benefit from further evidence.

I do not want to deny anyone the right to belief what they want, but I do wish to encourage critical thinking, and as such I will always question their belief, as I do my own convictions, I have yet to hear a reasonable, critical explanation for the belief in a God such as the Judeo-Christian God of the bible and Torah. I recognize that people can find strength in their beliefs. What I regret is that they do not realize that the strength is already there in their own personality/existence without the need of a God or other superior being to guide them.

[Babbalanja]

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.By the way, that's exactly what suggests that the process by which Nature got that way is quite different than the process by which man creates, i.e. intelligent design.

Regards,

Istvan

[MSDGreen]

Daniel; You asked who says that law of nature need setter?

I answered with that Einstein quote; Do you think, that trowing dive could create all those laws. Your way to think is just like if i would say that goverment laws are not set. No-one has written them, they just appeared. Or what if you are going into art-museum, and you will see beautiful painting, and i say, that it appeared from nothing. Make any sense? Or if i say, that that Swiss wristwatch came from nothing? Beside, for exaple moons and stars are much accurate thanany clock. Well, I say that all those Rolex watches are coming from nothing. Do you believe that?

BTW: Nature is MUCH more complicated and much beautiful that anything, that man has ever created.

Where did God come from?

[Lacra]

Where did God come from?

Hehehhe, you remind me something. Long time ago, my first graders used to ask me this : "Where did God come from? "

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't know why we keep arguing. The more we try to hammer the point home, the more creationists plug their ears and close their eyes... "la la la la I can't hear you!" I don't know why they keep at it, but they do. It is more reasonable to think up a religious theory that takes evolution into account, you can't just ignore scientific facts and hope that they go away. I don't know how you would go about blending science and religion, maybe mutation/natural selection/evolution is the mechanism by which god(s) act... whatever, the point is, I can't respect any religion that chooses to ignore facts outright rather than change with the times. That's counter-productive.


I simply assume that calling me a "dope" has to compensate for your inability to engage any of my actual statements.


Haha, don't feel bad. Once, I disagreed with Virgil about American politics so he wrote:


Certainly it would have been interesting to have discussed this with someone who had knowledge of history or economics or had a job or paid bills or had been out in the world or even visited the United States. This is what happens when some 20 year old dope is fed a bunch of garbage over the internet and thinks they understand another country.


It's always the quiet ones.


Hehehhe, you remind me something. Long time ago, my first graders used to ask me this : "Where did God come from? "

Out of the mouthes of babes.

[MSDGreen]

Hehehhe, you remind me something. Long time ago, my first graders used to ask me this : "Where did God come from? "

The post that I was replying to was trying to say that because something exists, such as a watch, then it unreasonable to say that it came from nothing. Well using that logic, and assuming that God does exist then he/she must have been created by something intelligent, or must be designed. Watches were made by man, and so was God*. Maybe you could get one of your first graders to draw it out in crayon for you?

*This opinion has been crafted by the facts as they are. Should someone offer proof that there is indeed a God/Gods I will gladly change that.**

**Not being able to disprove something does not make that certain something true.

[Lacra]

The post that I was replying to was trying to say that because something exists, such as a watch, then it unreasonable to say that it came from nothing. Well using that logic, and assuming that God does exist then he/she must have been created by something intelligent, or must be designed. Watches were made by man, and so was God*. Maybe you could get one of your first graders to draw it out in crayon for you?

*This opinion has been crafted by the facts as they are. Should someone offer proof that there is indeed a God/Gods I will gladly change that.**

**Not being able to disprove something does not make that certain something true.

To draw for me? Why for me? My answer wasn't ironical, it was just memory, that's all!

[JommiL]

Funny thing, and revealing; Human mind is so tiny to understand eternity. As bible says, God has no beginning and no end.

[MSDGreen]

To draw for me? Why for me? My answer wasn't ironical, it was just memory, that's all!

If that is the case I apologize. I am glad that I could bring a moment of nostalgia for you. I hope you do understand how one can view your comment as being ironical.

[BienvenuJDC]

Funny thing, and revealing; Human mind is so tiny to understand eternity. As bible says, God has no beginning and no end.

That which is Spirit can be eternal, while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...

[DanielBenoit]

That which is Spirit can be eternal, while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...

Dude, the Laws of Physics say nothing about "Spirit" or "eternity", in case you didn't know, physics has nothing to do with anything but the physical world, it has nothing to say about the spiritual world or it's existence/non-existence because it isn't philosophy or religion.

[BienvenuJDC]

while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...

2nd Law

[Babbalanja]

That which is Spirit can be eternal, while that which is physical cannot...according to our Laws of Physics...Which particular law of physics is that? Did they repeal the first law of thermodynamics ("Energy and Matter in the universe are constant") when no one was looking?

Regards,

Istvan

[Haunted]

Dude, the Laws of Physics say nothing about "Spirit" or "eternity", in case you didn't know, physics has nothing to do with anything but the physical world, it has nothing to say about the spiritual world or it's existence/non-existence because it isn't philosophy or religion.

Daniel, check out a book called the Physics of Christianity...there are also other books written by physicists that cover the subject of cosmological singularity.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Posts containing personal/inflammatory/disrespectful comments will be removed.

If you are not familiar with the Religious Texts Forum Rules, please read them before carrying on.

[JommiL]

Orphan; No it is not silly. Because scientists can calculate exact position for moon and planets, because they are moving extremely accurate.

Let me ask one question; EVERY material in this world will shrink when it´s temperature is getting colder. But there´s one exception. What it is? Water. Why? Because if water would shrink when it turns into ice, it would get more heavier than normal water, and it would sink into bottom of the seas. Result would be that quite soon bottom of the seas would be filled with ice. Do you think this is just coincidence?

Let´s get forward; Why earth is in angled? It´s position is not straight. If it would be straight, other side on the earth would be very hot, and other would be filled with ice. No reason to say, would this kind of circumstances allow that kind of rich life, that we see here now? Now when that little angle exists, we have opportunity to see and feel and live in different seasons.

And also; If nature has no laws, why very often we must copy things from it? Very few materials has that kind of features that there´s in nature. Let´s think about bones. Bones has very strong structure, they are very tough, but still they are very, very light. What happen, if our bones would be something like a steel? Moving would be quite difficult. And why bones are often hollow? Because hollow bone is A/ lighter and B/ stronger than solid one.

What if ozon layer would missing? What if earth would be littlebit more closer on farer from the sun? What if there´s no such thing like gravity? Can you imagine? Why just we have something like air? How our senses, mind, consciousness and thought are born? How we can see colours? Are these coincidences too? If you see even a henhouse in the fields, you would ever believe, if i told you that it came from nothing. And gravity... well, it is littlebit larger and more difficult thing than henhouse.

Perhaps you should read some chapters from book of Job, for example 38 and 39, and think again about your question?

[OrphanPip]

I have no idea where you learned basic chemistry, but I suggest you go back to it. All liquids become more dense as they get colder, as ice forms it becomes less dense because of the structure of the rigid hydrogen bonds.

The notion of the fine-tuned Earth is by itself logically flawed. If the Earth were not capable of sustaining life, then life would not have been able to evolve, or it would have evolved differently.

You are attaching tautologies to natural processes because you want to see a purpose in it. What you are doing is no different from the ancient Greeks assuming that lightning was the anger of the gods.

[MSDGreen]

Orphan; No it is not silly. Because scientists can calculate exact position for moon and planets, because they are moving extremely accurate.

Let me ask one question; EVERY material in this world will shrink when it´s temperature is getting colder. But there´s one exception. What it is? Water. Why? Because if water would shrink when it turns into ice, it would get more heavier than normal water, and it would sink into bottom of the seas. Result would be that quite soon bottom of the seas would be filled with ice. Do you think this is just coincidence?

Let´s get forward; Why earth is in angled? It´s position is not straight. If it would be straight, other side on the earth would be very hot, and other would be filled with ice. No reason to say, would this kind of circumstances allow that kind of rich life, that we see here now? Now when that little angle exists, we have opportunity to see and feel and live in different seasons.

And also; If nature has no laws, why very often we must copy things from it? Very few materials has that kind of features that there´s in nature. Let´s think about bones. Bones has very strong structure, they are very tough, but still they are very, very light. What happen, if our bones would be something like a steel? Moving would be quite difficult. And why bones are often hollow? Because hollow bone is A/ lighter and B/ stronger than solid one.

What if ozon layer would missing? What if earth would be littlebit more closer on farer from the sun? What if there´s no such thing like gravity? Can you imagine? Why just we have something like air? How our senses, mind, consciousness and thought are born? How we can see colours? Are these coincidences too? If you see even a henhouse in the fields, you would ever believe, if i told you that it came from nothing. And gravity... well, it is littlebit larger and more difficult thing than henhouse.

Perhaps you should read some chapters from book of Job, for example 38 and 39, and think again about your question?


And yet none of these things mean that it was designed. There are a seemingly endless amount of planets orbiting a seemingly endless amount of stars. (I am no astronomer by any means, but this is my understanding of it). What are the chances that one of these or many of these planets have the capabilities to support life or act exactly as the earth acts. When given so many possibilities it seems plausible that what has happened would happen, given a large enough pool of possibilities. It is truly amazing that we are here, and it does feel like a gift to be alive, but to chalk all this up to a all powerful being without any proof that one does or ever did exist is not an option for me. In my opinion, it takes away of what is actually amazing about Earth.

[JommiL]

Well, then too all those wristwatches are from emptiness, no-one has build them...

But you got the point of water anyway. Dont you?

Lets ask this way; What would be proof of designing to you?

[MSDGreen]

Well, then too all those wristwatches are from emptiness, no-one has build them...

But you got the point of water anyway. Dont you?

Lets ask this way; What would be proof of designing to you?

Gallium exands when frozen too. Short of a manifestation by a deity, that is not induced in a dream state or a hallucination, a miracle I guess, witnessing something that is impossible.

What would it take to shake your faith to the point where you could no longer believe in your creator?

[Haunted]

What would it take to shake your faith to the point where you could no longer believe in your creator?

why is this necessary? Please respect the rights of others to their beliefs. Thanks.

[NikolaiI]

The post that I was replying to was trying to say that because something exists, such as a watch, then it unreasonable to say that it came from nothing. Well using that logic, and assuming that God does exist then he/she must have been created by something intelligent, or must be designed. Watches were made by man, and so was God*. Maybe you could get one of your first graders to draw it out in crayon for you?

*This opinion has been crafted by the facts as they are. Should someone offer proof that there is indeed a God/Gods I will gladly change that.**

**Not being able to disprove something does not make that certain something true.

Yes.. I am familiar with this argument. But let's use the word "source" for a moment instead of "creator."

The first question to address is, "does everything have a source?"

I believe the answer to this is fairly clearly yes. Everything does indeed have a source. Now the idea that because everything has a source, there can't be an original source of everything, that doesn't make sense -- and yet that is what the argument used boils down to. The argument says, "Well, what is the source of the original source?" And if there isn't a good answer, then the conclusion "There is no source." But this doesn't disprove that everything has a source...

So I guess it comes down simply to that question, Does everything have a source? Does the universe have a source? If everything does, then the universe does...

Anyway it's remarkable how universal this idea is... and in fact how many people's spirituality consists of this... and not a God who smites people.

In my mind it's clear that it is a logical idea to say the universe has a source, and that there are existences, realities, dimensions, beyond what we currently know. To say there's no dimensions, realities, existence beyond what we know at this moment, to say there cannot be, that is the height of ignorance...

[JommiL]

why is this necessary? Please respect the rights of others to their beliefs. Thanks.

Good point but i´ll give my answer;

Just because there´s too much things in life that cannot find from wordbook of atheists. There´s too many "coincidents" in this universe, which - in VERY strange way are just too perfect.

[MarkBastable]

Why earth is in angled? It´s position is not straight. If it would be straight, other side on the earth would be very hot, and other would be filled with ice. No reason to say, would this kind of circumstances allow that kind of rich life, that we see here now? Now when that little angle exists, we have opportunity to see and feel and live in different seasons.


Yeah - good point!! And another thing - if there's no God, how come all the Australian animals are in Australia? I mean, not most of them - every single one!

Coincidence??!?? I think not, Mr Arnie so-called Atheist.

[Babbalanja]

And another thing - if there's no God, how come all the Australian animals are in Australia? I mean, not most of them - every single one!

Coincidence??!?? I think not, Mr Arnie so-called Atheist.Amen, brother. I also think it's significant that in God's precise and perfect Creation, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is exactly 22 divided by 7.

Not about 22 divided by seven, exactly 22 divided by seven.

Explain how that happens without an omnipotent Creator.

Regards,

Istvan Pangloss

[MarkBastable]

Actually, if we had twenty-two fingers and seven toes and a perfectly round head, I'd probably believe in God.



Amen, brother. I also think it's significant that in God's precise and perfect Creation, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is exactly 22 divided by 7.

Not about 22 divided by seven, exactly 22 divided by seven.

Explain how that happens without an omnipotent Creator.

Regards,

Istvan Pangloss

[MSDGreen]

why is this necessary? Please respect the rights of others to their beliefs. Thanks.

Please understand I am not trying take away anyones right to believe what they like. A question was asked of me and I answered as best I could and returned the question. The question was modified so that it was relevant. If you don't want to answer the question that is fine, but try to respect my right to ask people questions. Thanks.

[Babbalanja]

Actually, if we had twenty-two fingers and seven toes and a perfectly round head, I'd probably believe in God.Enough of your impiety, Mark.

Consider the fact that if the loving Creator hadn't made retroviruses, trypanosomes, and birth defects, scientists wouldn't have to expand their knowledge to try to eradicate these things. And then where would we be?

Hard evidence, my friend, that the Lord works in mysterious ways.

Regards,

Istvan

[NikolaiI]

Good point but i´ll give my answer;

Just because there´s too much things in life that cannot find from wordbook of atheists. There´s too many "coincidents" in this universe, which - in VERY strange way are just too perfect.

Your faith is a good thing for all of us. :)

What I don't get... those militant atheist... when I used to read their posts.. they consider all of us believers to be the "same." Even though some are fundamentalists, some are liberals, etc., etc... for me God is the sacred, the holy, the consecrate, the divine... the divine being full bliss, peace, knowledge, power, etc...

And scientists have come to a conclusion... that the universe is a like a holographic universe...and an infinitely repeating fractal pattern... which is something I thought of long before...

Some people don't realize this and that the scientists have come to these conclusions, which reveal a lot of beauty, complexity, (also simplicity) and mystery to the universe... they just hate those things!.. they would prefer every scientists to be a staunch atheist. :p

[JommiL]

MSDGreen, yes, i understand your point.

Mark; Ah, How´s in Australia? I truly want to visit in that country in some day. I Live in Finland - and it is very cold in here and winter... well, a LOT more of snow in here than in Australia!

Good question. Also there was Indians in America, Blacks in Africa, idiots in Finland etc. No-one knows exactly, how old earth is, but to ME it could make sense, that in some day - many, many thousands years ago earth´s ground was much more solid. If you check out the world map, you see, that Africa and south-America will fit together as figure? Anyway, my point of view is that if this theory is true, perhaps kangaroos had one large population earlier in specific location - in that magnificent, endless landscape on Australia, and then land fell down, and water separated Australia from mainland? Fact is, that land is living all the time. Most of the kangaroos had to stay in Australia, and then, after all, population was stronger there? Also human being and most of the animals MUST stay with they friends and with they race, because other oppornity is to die.

Think this and tell me, what do you think? I will gladly hear your opinion.

[prendrelemick]

Well, then too all those wristwatches are from emptiness, no-one has build them...

But you got the point of water anyway. Dont you?

Lets ask this way; What would be proof of designing to you?





Perhaps a big sign written in the sky. He could use the northern lights or something. It could say: "HELLO DOWN THERE! Yes it's me, GOD, and I did create the Universe- so think on!"

That would be enough. Not much to ask of someone who can make ice bergs float, is it?

[Babbalanja]

And scientists have come to a conclusion... that the universe is a like a holographic universe...and an infinitely repeating fractal pattern... which is something I thought of long before...

Some people don't realize this and that the scientists have come to these conclusions, which reveal a lot of beauty, complexity, (also simplicity) and mystery to the universe... they just hate those things!.. they would prefer every scientists to be a staunch atheist. :pI just wonder why it matters what scientists think. Many times I've said that I believe people profess faith for reasons that have nothing to do with facts and evidence. All this talk about the physics of religion seems irrelevant.

What I'd prefer is that believers be honest about the reason for their faith, that it's something that comes from within each one of them. No more cod statistics. No more pseudoscientific rationalizations. And no more of your New Age word salads.

Regards,

Istvan

[MarkBastable]

What I don't get... those militant atheist... when I used to read their posts.. they consider all of us believers to be the "same." Even though some are fundamentalists, some are liberals, etc., etc...

Speaking as a militant atheist, I don't think that's true. Amongst my siblings, with whom I get on very well, I can identify the following: a staunch Baptist who's a pillar of the church; a trained minister who lost his faith in God but who has developed a fondness for the rituals of the Catholic Church; a pragmatic agnostic who as a young and less sceptical man smuggled Bibles into Soviet Russia; and a sister who's entirely unengaged with any kind of religious debate on the basis that it's less interesting than almost everything else. I have atheist friends, Christian friends, Muslim friends, Jewish friends and Hindu friends. (This isn't because I'm a particularly gregarious and tolerant guy - it just goes with being a Londoner.)

But sticking with the varied range of beliefs, currently and historically, among my siblings, I think it's worth asking why we get on well. It's because we share a view of the world that has to do with tolerance, kindness and the free, mutual expression of intellectual mockery - directed, often, at each other. We argue when we need to, we show utter lack of respect for each other's views when it amuses us to do so and we simply accept each other when that's what'll keep us all happy.

My Christian brother honestly believes that the fires of Hell await me, my (Catholic) wife and, unless something is done, my children. I think that he's kidding himself if he thinks he can avoid oblivion. However, we don't let any of this spoil dessert.

[atiguhya padma]

I don't see why religious beliefs should need the protection of some code of respect. Either beliefs stand up for themselves through reasoned argument or they don't. If they don't then we shouldn't expect people of reason to refrain from showing how ridiculous or irrelevant they are. Besides, beliefs should be criticised. And in doing so, it is not the believer or any individual that is under attack. It is the belief or view that is being held. If you feel that you are your belief or that your view is inextricably linked to your self, then that's your problem.

[JommiL]

Perhaps a big sign written in the sky. He could use the northern lights or something. It could say: "HELLO DOWN THERE! Yes it's me, GOD, and I did create the Universe- so think on!"

That would be enough. Not much to ask of someone who can make ice bergs float, is it?


No, you would not do that, it´s only that airplane with some smoke in the tail...

Why? Do you understand, that that sign exists in WHOLE universe? And BTW: Do you remember, what happened to Noah? Do you remember, that road to tree was guarded with two angels & flaming sword. Noah told that flood will come. And still no-one listened. This is very good point to think - it is NOT even matter of faith always, only caring.

[BienvenuJDC]

No, you would not do that, it´s only that airplane with some smoke in the tail...

Why? Do you understand, that that sign exists in WHOLE universe? And BTW: Do you remember, what happened to Noah? Do you remember, that road to tree was guarded with two angels & flaming sword. Noah told that flood will come. And still no-one listened. This is very good point to think - it is NOT even matter of faith always, only caring.

Not to mention the Pharisees who tried to discredit Christ's miracles as being from Beelzebub. If people don't want to believe, then they will deny anything.

[atiguhya padma]

Actually the crux of the matter is, if you want to believe you'll believe anything. Virgin birth? No problem. Raising people from the dead? No problem. Miracles happening in a physical predictable universe? No problem. All you need is the mindset to support any irrational claim, and you'll believe it. Bit like fairy stories and folk tales.

[blazeofglory]

For all ideas originate from our beliefs and by believing in something we form our ideas. The idea of god therefore precedes the existence of god for us. I do not mean god comes after our idea but our capacity to understand the existence of god.

[NikolaiI]

I don't see why religious beliefs should need the protection of some code of respect. Either beliefs stand up for themselves through reasoned argument or they don't. If they don't then we shouldn't expect people of reason to refrain from showing how ridiculous or irrelevant they are. Besides, beliefs should be criticised. And in doing so, it is not the believer or any individual that is under attack. It is the belief or view that is being held. If you feel that you are your belief or that your view is inextricably linked to your self, then that's your problem.

Everyone deserves respect and love. I am not saying that we should show love here, but we should show respect. Especially since that is the law laid down by the authorities of this site. It's not just believers whose beliefs should be respected here but also atheists or anyone - everyone. No one should be insulted, ridiculed, etc., for their beliefs and yet they are. By idiots.

And what you say about separating the person and their beliefs... well, that doesn't hold up too much. Just consider how some people go on the attack... "Well, that is just the stupidest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say!"

I think that refutes your objection... the last one, that is.. in your post.. What if someone said that to you? It's not that you have some mis-identity or you identify yourself too much with your belief. It's just that if someone insults your beliefs in a descriptive enough way, then you just don't want to be around or near that kind of negativity...ugliness. Am I wrong, Atiguhya padma?

[prendrelemick]

No, you would not do that, it´s only that airplane with some smoke in the tail...

Why? Do you understand, that that sign exists in WHOLE universe? And BTW: Do you remember, what happened to Noah? Do you remember, that road to tree was guarded with two angels & flaming sword. Noah told that flood will come. And still no-one listened. This is very good point to think - it is NOT even matter of faith always, only caring.



My point was, some of us need something a bit more unequivocal. This is a cynical age.

[laidbackperson]

A lot has been debated about evolution theory in last couple of days and I have come to know about some good theists.

I will just put my viewpoint.

The evolution theory may not be exact as such but I honestly do not reject the idea that initially there could have been unicellular life, simple organisms, amphibions, vegetation and slowly over the period of times more complex creatures and apes and then humans appeared on earth.
Dinosaurs could well have disappeared due to a big meteorite striking the earth. Species could have survived and become extinct as per survival of the fittest.

Also Bible’s story of seven days could be just symbolic wherein a day could be, lets say more than a billion years as one member has pointed.

However, I also tell myself that many points of this theory may not be conclusive evidence, and may be, things can be explained in some other better way, some future day by science - as science continues in it pursuit of truth.

Also when we seek truth, we have always to ask -Why?
For e.g. in evolution theory, we can ask - Why should there be tendency to evolve from unicellular life to higher life forms, in first place.
And if an atheist says it is in nature of things, I will again ask why? If there is an answer for it also, I can put another why before him, and then another why and so on?
Similarly, I can ask why there has to be forces like gravity, or electricity or magnetism and so many other things.

The answer can be very well in one of NikolaiI’s post where he has used a very correct word- Source.

True believers can take God as source of all above, as they take God as source of all love and mercy and all other things.

There is a good chance that life exists in many other planets on universe but why can not be the same God or Power, still responsible for everything.

The idea that, we, human beings, who have the capability to think and love and create life and who have invented aeroplanes, space shuttles, internet, cell phones, nuclear bombs etc are only a coincidental by-product of a hot, dense mass that burst with a big bang some 13 billions year ago, does not jell to me.

May be, if it could have occurred 15 or 16 billions years ago, it could have made more sense.

In nut shell, I think there can be many people like me who believe in God and also many points of the evolution theory.

[NikolaiI]

My point was, some of us need something a bit more unequivocal. This is a cynical age.

But this is completely subjective. For one who lost all their possessions and their family, and their friends, they would grieve, perhaps they would recover or perhaps they would become most depressed and cynical. But for another person, let's say they suffered a little less but somehow overcame their problems to come to a peaceful, meaningful, harmonious existence. For them it is not cynical but the opposite. So it is subjective - maybe you see more people today are cynical... but maybe I see more people are becoming enlightened. In fact I think there are so, so many more people these days who are so close to enlightenment. In general people are turning away from fundamentalism and superstition and turning towards logic and spirituality. Many people are finidng peace, and truth within, and finding deep love, and they are sharing it, forming connections... so that is why I say that we are close to being much more enlightened as a race.

[Babbalanja]

I also tell myself that many points of this theory may not be conclusive evidence, and may be, things can be explained in some other better way, some future day by science - as science continues in it pursuit of truth. I believe the exact same thing. And I believe a better theory will come from scientific researchers, not religiously motivated ideologues.


Also when we seek truth, we have always to ask -Why?But as far as natural phenomena go, why do we never get a sufficient answer? The absurdity of the universe---the human condition---is that the why questions are meaningless.



The idea that, we, human beings, who have the capability to think and love and create life and who have invented aeroplanes, space shuttles, internet, cell phones, nuclear bombs etc are only a coincidental by-product of a hot, dense mass that burst with a big bang some 13 billions year ago, does not jell to me. Homo Sap has a pretty inflated sense of his own self-worth. He loves to think of himself as God's most beloved creation, or as able to tap into the wellspring of pure Being, or at the very least as the crowning achievement of evolution. None of these things are any more than wishful thinking, part of the boundless narcissism of our species.

Regards,

Istvan

[Satan]

I understand why - perhaps it has something to do with your alias :smilewinkgrin:

But remember - there´s a lot on things, that cannot be found in atheists wordbook. Many people think, that believing in God is weakness. But it is not. If anyone really wants to check out, what bible will teach about moral etc. it is very obvious, that it creates lot of strenght.
There´s many paradoxes in life. One of them is that we must be weak - we must admit that we need each other - to be strong. Being just "strong" without mercy and hope and caring, we are doomed into loneliness, after all. But then we hit our nose into tall, hard wall: No-one can live just alone and survive mentally. For example - as well known fact is - our mental state of mind and ability grow as humans stops otherwise. This is just a basic information about psychology.
I have no qualms with your clinical attempt at reducing the concept of a supreme being to a mere psychological need. Do keep in mind that your all too humane moral projections upon any such entity are only a romantic and narcissistic need to identify and connect yourself with something beyond explanation or knowledge.

I also needn't remind you that the concept of a supreme being and religion are two different things. Morality is mostly a matter of convenience which changes its state with time and place; the reason why civilization needed to invent legality of human actions.


Thank you. My response was to highlight a logical slip on your part - I find the logical progression for your views usually less salient.
I don't and perhaps you wouldn't either, had you kept the context of the post in mind which I was replying to. Why is that the existence of billions of dead pieces of rock and gas do not ascertain to absence of a creator, but a small obscure green planet becomes the testament to a divine design and authority? What's your logical explanation of this wishful thinking?

If any such being is indeed beyond human perception and logical explanations, then it doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. To quote Ludwig Wittgenstein: "a nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing can be said."

[JommiL]

"Satan believes in God, but he will not worship him."

- Pentti Saarikoski, Finnish poet.

"I also needn't remind you that the concept of a supreme being and religion are two different things. Morality is mostly a matter of convenience which changes its state with time and place; the reason why civilization needed to invent legality of human actions."

So very very wrong and no they are NOT. I can assure you, but i believe that you are totally hopeless in this matter.
Anyway, this means that there´s no good or bad. Everyone knows, that they exists. How the heck every time we just do something - like steal, lie etc. - everyone hates it? Believe me, i know satanism very well indeed. It is very easy way to think and see from upper level. It is just VERY big lie in every way.
There´s no such thing that "ubermench". We are just men. What is humanity? We will wound easily, we must stay "in the frontline" if we want to succeed and if we want to be better in every day. But still were are mortals. In this point; Dear Satan, you can live your life as you want to. Everyone has opportunity to choose. But this i´ll tell you; IF you love life, you don´t have any future. You just have some "pleasures" and foolish & full-of-lies feeling about being strong and independent. If you like, live it. But i dont want that you would do that. I could say, that "yeah, live your life, but DONT come back tome and say, that you were wrong." No. Why i should think like that? If i would, i would say, that YOU have no opportunity to build yourself. And because everyone has that opportunity, so do you. THIS is the matter of faith and hope. This means, that you have possibility to choose. But it is up to you, how you use this choice. No-one can´t do it for you, just yourself. So because you say, that you are responsible of ALL of your actions, feel free to do it and use your total freedom. But IF you will choose wrong way - man - it is just your fault.
Why? Because - in the last act - total freedom is the final corner on hell. We NEED moral laws because under them we are safe. If we just deny God and morality, we can keep anything as value. No good, no bad, no judgment, no law: No reason to be true, valuable human and humble, only reason and opportunity to live like a pig in the field, after all. Is that humanity? Is that humanity, that people kill each other? So; feel free to do and live anyway you like. Inner moral can be different than that we show to other people. I wonder also, why Jesus blamed those guys that they were just like gold-plated? White, nice looking tombs, and just bones inside. And there´s no any reason to say, what this kind of actions will lead us. Or do I?

[NikolaiI]

God is the absolute. A lot of times, or perhaps every time, atheists will reject this view. They say there is no absolute. Yet God is that, or in other words, God is Reality. Who would think there is nothing at all more real than this known existence?

For example death. Atheists today say that death is the end of our existence. But they never questioned if existence is at is appears. What some found was that death and life are not opposites, but they form a whole, they are one. They're yin and yang.

It makes no sense to think there is nothing beyond what we currently know. If anyone takes the view that there's nothing beyond what he or she knows, then they have immediately sealed their continued separation from truth. And yet this is what people are fighting about all the time. And they resort to tactics such as lumping all who say there is a soul as the same as those fundamentalists who demand you read the Bible... who can be scary at times.

So what is God? God in Hinduism is written about in scriptures as the Witness. God's the Witness, of what? Of the nearly infinite information which is this universe, this matrix. But God is beyond the matrix. And how can we understand what the matrix of information, which we call this universe, is? It's like a dream. It has no real existence, exactly like a dream.

To be free, to reach God, to know God, that is the highest experience. Yet in this existence there is seeming imperfection, and for that reason people deny the existence of God. The matrix of information which is the entire universe we know, that is merely a tiny point in God. God is Reality, and the universe is a tiny point within Reality. But within this tiny point, which to us is the whole universe, is the only place where it seems that God is not. Rather, it seems that events and information are unconnected.

And because it seems so bewiledering, for whatever reason that it seems that information is unconnected - that leads people to say that there is no way to know everything. In the worst case of this, people become ugly to each other. That's the cause of almost all suffering.

Now there have been many divine saints such as Christ, Muhammad, peace be upon them, and others who are less well-known. These divine saints saw God, and they knew the highest divine consciousness. Only on the lower levels is there difficulty. In the lower levels it seems as though there is a serious battle between good and evil. But the higher levels one knows the reality beyond this universe, as well as knowing that within this universe there is nothing to fear. They saw that anyone can come to God, can be free of all the bonds. And since this world will always have people who wish to play these games of life and all that is in life; they at least gave the answer to the interpersonal relationships, the answer being love.

They gave poems and other writings from their spiritual awareness which help us to become aware of the eternal, infinite existence beyond this matrix of information which is God. Love is the center of all of these writings and poems and all of their talks. God is at the center.

[atiguhya padma]

Everyone deserves respect and love. I am not saying that we should show love here, but we should show respect. Especially since that is the law laid down by the authorities of this site. It's not just believers whose beliefs should be respected here but also atheists or anyone - everyone. No one should be insulted, ridiculed, etc., for their beliefs and yet they are. By idiots.

And what you say about separating the person and their beliefs... well, that doesn't hold up too much. Just consider how some people go on the attack... "Well, that is just the stupidest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say!"

I think that refutes your objection... the last one, that is.. in your post.. What if someone said that to you? It's not that you have some mis-identity or you identify yourself too much with your belief. It's just that if someone insults your beliefs in a descriptive enough way, then you just don't want to be around or near that kind of negativity...ugliness. Am I wrong, Atiguhya padma?

People deserve respect not ideas or beliefs. Can you imagine a philosophy professor complaining to the principal that people don't respect his philosophical views? He or she would be laughed at. if ideas, beliefs or viewpoints do not hold water, we should stop trying to artificially keep them
afloat. The fact that nowadays Christians are forever harping on about respect for their religious views shows just how weak their arguments are: they cannot defend their ideas well enough, so they're left with the last resort, respect, which leaves them free to propound nonsense and jargon without due review. It's the old story of the Emperor's new clothes.

[atiguhya padma]

NikolaiI,

I have seen plenty of people that you describe in your penultimate sentence. They are entrenched in their views to such a way that any argument, any evidence that doesn't agree with them is seen as negative and therefore something to avoid. This then means that everything confirms and strengthens their beliefs. but that's fine. what isn't fine is expecting everyone to hold their tongue because such people are around. even the church needs dissenters and radicals. Faith today would be nowhere without such people.

[NikolaiI]

People deserve respect not ideas or beliefs. Can you imagine a philosophy professor complaining to the principal that people don't respect his philosophical views? He or she would be laughed at. if ideas, beliefs or viewpoints do not hold water, we should stop trying to artificially keep them
afloat. The fact that nowadays Christians are forever harping on about respect for their religious views shows just how weak their arguments are: they cannot defend their ideas well enough, so they're left with the last resort, respect, which leaves them free to propound nonsense and jargon without due review. It's the old story of the Emperor's new clothes.

You completely did not get what I was saying.

Do you understand that comments about someone belief, if phrased a certain way, can be very little different from insulting the actual person. For example what I used as an e.g., "That's absolutely the stupidest, most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say."

The other thing is - I do have a very valid complaint. It's not just people who disagree with me I have a problem with. It's people who are radical and fundamentalist themselves, who will go on to say all kinds of nasty stuff in continuation.

It's also the complete closed-mindedness and lack of thought which sometimes comes.

Don't defend anonymous people on the internet so easily because sometimes the worst comes out in them in an anonymous setting like this. If someone goes on the attack quite often, calling those with spiritual ideas delusional frequently, saying they have mental problems... this is not really helpful to anyone, themselves or others.


NikolaiI,

I have seen plenty of people that you describe in your penultimate sentence. They are entrenched in their views to such a way that any argument, any evidence that doesn't agree with them is seen as negative and therefore something to avoid. This then means that everything confirms and strengthens their beliefs. but that's fine. what isn't fine is expecting everyone to hold their tongue because such people are around. even the church needs dissenters and radicals. Faith today would be nowhere without such people.

Atiguhya, I did not give a list of those who I respect and admire but they are absolutely nothing like what you just described.

[JommiL]

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain

Faith and believing are pretty same thing, right? Funny thing; everyone who flies in airplane is believer. He believes, that plane stays in the air. If he/she do not believe, he/she will not go in the plane.

[MarkBastable]

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain

Faith and believing are pretty same thing, right?

No, they aren't. Believing is a thing and - according to Twain - faith is believing under a specific circumstance. So, to break that down semantically, if I were to say that Murder is killing when the law says you mustn't, that would not lead to the conclusion that 'murder and killing are pretty same thing'.

Semantic inconsistency apart, what's the point you're trying to make? Are you saying that anyone who believes anything believes everything?

[JommiL]

No. I try to say, that believing and faith - also, is needed.

[Babbalanja]

Faith and believing are pretty same thing, right? No, they're not. If I believe something for a comprehensible reason, there's no faith involved. I believe we will see the sun rise every morning because I know the reason we see the sun rise. Religious believers consider faith a virtue because it involves professing belief in things that can't be rationally affirmed.


Funny thing; everyone who flies in airplane is believer. He believes, that plane stays in the air. If he/she do not believe, he/she will not go in the plane.The difference is that the belief is based on a rational understanding of what makes planes fly and the reasonable expectation that the machine has been responsibly built and maintained.

That's the exact opposite of faith.

Regards,

Istvan

[JommiL]

Well, i must disagree. Even faith can be rationally affirmed.
And basically people are showed they true side: Jesus made miracles and there was still those, who did not BELIEVE in him.

[Babbalanja]

Well, i must disagree. Even faith can be rationally affirmed.No it can't. That's what makes it faith. Can a believer rationally affirm John 3:16, or does he simply profess to believe it's true because he thinks it's immoral to doubt it?


And basically people are showed they true side: Jesus made miracles and there was still those, who did not BELIEVE in him.The Doubting Thomas story shows why religious believers consider faith a virtue. Anyone can affirm something if it's supported by evidence, so there's no moral dimension to professing such a belief. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

And that's where religious belief diverges from any regular human search for knowledge: facts and evidence are considered irrelevant. With religion, it's a moral imperative to believe, not an intellectual conclusion.

Regards,

Istvan

[JommiL]

Yes it can be affirmed;

Hebr. 11;1

And yes, it is intellectual conclusion, and it is very easy to me.

[Jeremydav]

You can't prove something using itself. That's one of the worst logical fallacies that can be made.

[blazeofglory]

Belief in God is something we do it as an influence and of course we were told to believe in God. We were told the Biblical story of creation before we learned Darwin's theory of evolution. And thus our elders or seniors have instilled in our defenseless mindsets to beleive in God and we do now out of that impression and that is how faith goes on and on and on timelessly

[Dekarto]

I believe in God because He has touched my heart so deeply with his Holy Spirit that anything else than to love, obey and worship him was impossible.

Faith is not something man can achieve on his own, it is an act of God.

"We love Him because He first loved us." - 1 John 4:19

[Dekarto]

Belief in God is something we do it as an influence and of course we were told to believe in God. We were told the Biblical story of creation before we learned Darwin's theory of evolution. And thus our elders or seniors have instilled in our defenseless mindsets to beleive in God and we do now out of that impression and that is how faith goes on and on and on timelessly

This is incorrect. I was an atheist for many years and I learned about evolution long before creation. I was not brought up as a Christian, but rather in an anti-Christian home. People believe in God because they see the the Truth in His eternal Word and they see the undeniable fact that He exists and ultimately we feel His presence in our hearts. I was never "brain washed" to be Christian, it is something I became later in life. This is also the case for many other people. Take Buddhists in China as an example. These may not have heard of Christianity and creation all their lives and then, when they are eventually introduced to Christianity, they start believing in God. These facts do not agree with your statements.

[Genocide]

I was an atheist for many years and I learned about evolution long before creation. I was not brought up as a Christian, but rather in an anti-Christian home. People believe in God because they see the the Truth in His eternal Word and they see the undeniable fact that He exists and ultimately we feel His presence in our hearts. I was never "brain washed" to be Christian, it is something I became later in life.

Can I ask why God and Christ are always used synonymously? Where there is God there is Christianity. I respect your change in belief, Dekarto, but it confuses me. You started off with no religious beliefs and then gravitated towards Christianity. Why? Why not Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Wicca? Did you just happen to live where there is a large community of Christians?


Take Buddhists in China as an example. These may not have heard of Christianity and creation all their lives and then, when they are eventually introduced to Christianity, they start believing in God.

That's not only China, but it's most of the world. The spread of Christianity was forced on many. If your example is focused on today I can only say that religion is a tool for assimilation. How much easier is it to fit in and get involved when you're in church every Sunday?

Regardless, I believe in a God. Maybe it's a security blanket I use as an answer as to "Why isn't there just nothing?"

[blazeofglory]

This is incorrect. I was an atheist for many years and I learned about evolution long before creation. I was not brought up as a Christian, but rather in an anti-Christian home. People believe in God because they see the the Truth in His eternal Word and they see the undeniable fact that He exists and ultimately we feel His presence in our hearts. I was never "brain washed" to be Christian, it is something I became later in life. This is also the case for many other people. Take Buddhists in China as an example. These may not have heard of Christianity and creation all their lives and then, when they are eventually introduced to Christianity, they start believing in God. These facts do not agree with your statements.

You seem to have been conditioned into believing in Christian faiths and you have wrongly thought that Chinese people have come to Christianity just because they have thought it is better than Buddhism. Most of what Christian missionaries do is they try to convert people into Christianity and by injecting more and more money they are influencing them. That said I am not critical of your faith and I respect others' faith, but now this is simply a comment on your critical opinion. What is more to articulate the Christian idea of creation is a narrow point of view and Christianity is one of the hundred faiths which suffer all kinds of dogmas and discretions. I personally do not subscribe to the personal God you do have and though I am born of an orthodox Hindu family yet I believe not in a personal, national, mythological, religious or invented God the way you do. Nobody can evidently say God exists nor they can disregard the idea of God. We are in a dilemma of belief and disbelief. But I am always open to ideas and never approve of theism and atheism for both lead to narrowness. In someway I repudiate that Christianity is better than Buddhism for simple and gullible Chinese Buddhists to convert. Now Buddhism is deemed a scientific religion by many and it does not suffer the fallacies and myths of Christianity. With all that said I apologize that I am not hitting upon your personal faiths but this is a general comment only, not directed against the domain of your faith at all

[Dodo25]

Nobody can evidently say God exists nor they can disregard the idea of God. We are in a dilemma of belief and disbelief.

Yeah I'm in a huge dilemma too, about whether I should believe that there is Narnia in my closet. I mean, I can't disprove it, and either it is there or it is not, so the odds seem 50-50.. Maybe if I open my closet, someday, there will be Narnia.

Or recently a friend told me about the flying spaghetti monster. Should I believe in it? I mean it's a tough choice, it might exist and there is no evidence against it.. I think I better believe in it, if it does exist and finds out I didn't care about it, it might get angry and throw spaghetti sauce at me, and I really don't want spaghetti sauce all over my clothes..

I can't understand those irrational 'A-Narnianists', these people who don't believe in Narnia. I mean, how arrogant are they to assume that there is existance without it. They can't prove it. Actually, not believing in Narnia is a religion too, they believe in solid closet walls instead of Narnia.

[blazeofglory]

Yeah I'm in a huge dilemma too, about whether I should believe that there is Narnia in my closet. I mean, I can't disprove it, and either it is there or it is not, so the odds seem 50-50.. Maybe if I open my closet, someday, there will be Narnia.

Or recently a friend told me about the flying spaghetti monster. Should I believe in it? I mean it's a tough choice, it might exist and there is no evidence against it.. I think I better believe in it, if it does exist and finds out I didn't care about it, it might get angry and throw spaghetti sauce at me, and I really don't want spaghetti sauce all over my clothes..

I can't understand those irrational 'A-Narnianists', these people who don't believe in Narnia. I mean, how arrogant are they to assume that there is existance without it. They can't prove it. Actually, not believing in Narnia is a religion too, they believe in solid closet walls instead of Narnia.

There is worldplay in your statement and I do not understand what you really want to put forth

[Dodo25]

There is worldplay in your statement and I do not understand what you really want to put forth

I used sarcasm and reductiones ad absurdum to make an important point: It is irrational to believe (in) something if there is no evidence for it. The burden of 'proof' (or evidence) thus rests on the believer. Not 'believing' would then be the 'default option', and not a narrow-minded choice, and definitely not a fundamentalistic one, if we allow the possibility of changing our minds after new evidence comes up.

Edit:
And 'solid closet walls' by the way stands for 'chance'. Some believers make statements like 'atheists have faith in chance'. The misunderstanding here is that it actually requires no faith to not believe, because God (or Narnia) is much more complex and thus more improbable to just happen to exist (or pop into existance) than anything else, including the universe itself. It means that this


Regardless, I believe in a God. Maybe it's a security blanket I use as an answer as to "Why isn't there just nothing?"
is not a good answer, because just 'postulating' something even more complex and unexplainable than the thing (universe) we're trying to explain only complicates the problem.

[Dekarto]

Can I ask why God and Christ are always used synonymously? Where there is God there is Christianity. I respect your change in belief, Dekarto, but it confuses me. You started off with no religious beliefs and then gravitated towards Christianity. Why? Why not Buddhism? Judaism? Islam? Wicca? Did you just happen to live where there is a large community of Christians?

God and Christ are used synonymously because Christ is part of the triune God; The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God consists of these three personalities. You can search the internet for the Trinity to learn more about this unique characteristic of God. The answer to your second question on why I became a Christian instead of a follower of any other religon, is simple. As a Christian I believe in the salvation system of Calvinism (http://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html), a doctrine that teaches that people are saved through the grace of God by an unconditional election. While this doctrine of salvation may not explain to you the reason for my personal conversion, it can throw some light on the matter. My personal testimony would be that one day some time ago, I for some reason came across some articles arguing for the existence of God. I was not very convinced at first, but gradually I started to realise that I had been a fool for many years; a fool to deny the existence of God. I prayed to God and said that if he really was out there, convince me that He is, and thereafter lead me to the right conclusions about Him. Unaware of the great act I had done by placing my faith in God, the perseverance of the Saints (http://www.gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html) was starting working within me, and after that I have found it impossible to deny God; both because of the logical reasons why He exists and the personal experiences with Him and the great changes that have taken place in my life (I was the typical a-hole atheist before I was saved, but no longer). I mention that I prayed to God and asked Him to lead to me to right conclusions about Him, and He lead me to the Christian faith. The overwhelming evidence for the truth of this religion I just could not ignore and an inner convincing feeling made me place my trust in this religion as the right one. (Although there are many Christian churches and doctrines that are wrong.) Being a Christian feels so right, and then it probably is.
And no, I'm not in a Christian community, I don't go to church, and I'm not baptised either. My faith is a personal one.


That's not only China, but it's most of the world. The spread of Christianity was forced on many. If your example is focused on today I can only say that religion is a tool for assimilation. How much easier is it to fit in and get involved when you're in church every Sunday?

Indeed it has been forced on many to attend church and be baptised (by water), but one can never force anyone to truly believe in something. They can lie about it and call themselves Christians, but this does not mean that they are baptised by the spirit and truly knows God and will go to Heaven. Not all 'Christians' will go to heaven.


You seem to have been conditioned into believing in Christian faiths and you have wrongly thought that Chinese people have come to Christianity just because they have thought it is better than Buddhism. Most of what Christian missionaries do is they try to convert people into Christianity and by injecting more and more money they are influencing them.

Again, some Chinese people may call themselves Christian and not be so, but why would they? The only thing they have coming by doing so is persecution by the Chinese government. The only thing that matters is the personal faith and relationship with God, accepting His Son Jesus Christ as Savior. I strongly doubt that most Christian missionaries convert people by offering them riches. A true believer in Christ will not be influenced by these earthly items; a missionary that truly believes in Christ will not offer money to the chinese for convertion, and a true chinese believer will not accept the money and convert because of it.

I could go on and on answering your questions and statements, but rather I will suggest the amazing Christian website www.gotquestions.org. This site can and will answer all your questions on Christianity. But in the end it is up to you if you accept the religion or not.

[Dodo25]

I could go on and on answering your questions and statements, but rather I will suggest the amazing Christian website (...). This site can and will answer all your questions on Christianity.

In what way do you think posting a link that states things like 'homesexuality comes from sin, and people are not born homosexual' or 'humans lived with dinosaurs' supports your case??

Studies on twins raised separately in different environments have shown beyond reasonable doubt that being homosexual is to a huge extent determined by genes -> birth. So are some babies born as sinners and some aren't?

And the dinosaur thing is simply ridiculous, dating methods based on several different isotopes with different half-life times have independently reached the very same conclusion: Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago (with the exception of birds that is).

Not only are the 'answers' on this site preposterously wrong, they're also dangerous and highly offending. Thinking that being gay is a matter of choice or of weak character is discriminating. Indoctrinating others (children) with such believes, i.e. the dinosaur-human myth, messes up their minds and damages education.

This kind of stuff is the reason why faith is dangerous. If people don't learn how to think and find it acceptable to hold beliefs without evidence, we'll continue to have problems with discrimination and simply terrible general education.

[Dekarto]

In what way do you think posting a link that states things like 'homesexuality comes from sin, and people are not born homosexual' or 'humans lived with dinosaurs' supports your case?? Studies on twins raised separately in different environments have shown beyond reasonable doubt that being homosexual is to a huge extent determined by genes -> birth. So are some babies born as sinners and some aren't?

Firstly, in my post I do not have any specific cases that needs to be supported. Secondly, I am not responsible for what the articles on that site says about various things, I merely suggested it as a notable site visiting if you have questions regarding the Christian faith. About homosexuality: No one are born homosexual. There are indeed some people that have tendencies to be homosexual, but this does not force them to be homosexual. These tendencies may have some genetic origin, but in the end it is a sin like every other sin that needs to be suppressed. I think it is more offensive to say that homosexuals are without choice than to say that they actually do have a choice.

Everyone are born sinners. It is not as you suggest that some are born sinners and some are not. Everyone inherit the original sin that dates back to Adam and Eve, from their parents. But sin is in many forms. Homosexuality is just one kind of sin, pedophilia, for example, is another. Disbelief in God is also a sin. Lust of the flesh is a sin. Murder is a sin. But the thing is that all sin is equal in value. No sin is worse than any other.



And the dinosaur thing is simply ridiculous, dating methods based on several different isotopes with different half-life times have independently reached the very same conclusion: Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago (with the exception of birds that is).

There is a common opinion among most people today that every theory science produces is an absolute fact. And that everything they read on wikipedia or watch on Discovery Channel is true. Well, this is wrong. There is debate among scientists on whether we can trust the dating methods used to determine the age of ancient fossils and other items. There are also many non-scientific reasons for why dating methods may be flawed. Let me use a simple example: When God created Adam and Eve, they were already adults, and a doctor would tell just the same. Why not think that when God created the Earth, it will, similar to the case of Adam and Eve, appear much older than its actual age?



Not only are the 'answers' on this site preposterously wrong, they're also dangerous and highly offending. Thinking that being gay is a matter of choice or of weak character is discriminating. Indoctrinating others (children) with such believes, i.e. the dinosaur-human myth, messes up their minds and damages education. This kind of stuff is the reason why faith is dangerous. If people don't learn how to think and find it acceptable to hold beliefs without evidence, we'll continue to have problems with discrimination and simply terrible general education.

I disagree with you here on several points. First of all, the answers on the site are not at all wrong, and much less offending. The site never claims homosexuals to be weak characters. And about education, I think it is rather the opposite; the teachings of today's society are wrong and perverted, not the teachings of the Bible. In fact, study of Scripture will reveal that it is not wrong in any areas and is actually compatible with science in many areas (assuming the scientific theories which are compared to religious views are correct in their statements, of course). Christians do not hold beliefs without evidence, science, on the other hand, often does. What proof do you have for the Big Bang theory? None. What proof do you have for dinosaurs living hundreds of millions of years ago? None. Christianity on the other hand answers both these questions. The Earth was created by a creator (which is logical when one thinks about it) and that life did not come to life out of nothing. And dinosaurs are documented in the Bible which is actually the most trustworthy ancient document. I think you should re-think your hasty statements and study the Christian points of view before you are too judgemental.

[Genocide]

And 'solid closet walls' by the way stands for 'chance'. Some believers make statements like 'atheists have faith in chance'. The misunderstanding here is that it actually requires no faith to not believe, because God (or Narnia) is much more complex and thus more improbable to just happen to exist (or pop into existance) than anything else, including the universe itself. It means that this is not a good answer, because just 'postulating' something even more complex and unexplainable than the thing (universe) we're trying to explain only complicates the problem.

I don't believe I said it was a good answer.... but seeing as I don't see a better one.... :]


No one are born homosexual. There are indeed some people that have tendencies to be homosexual, but this does not force them to be homosexual. These tendencies may have some genetic origin, but in the end it is a sin like every other sin that needs to be suppressed. I think it is more offensive to say that homosexuals are without choice than to say that they actually do have a choice.

Hm, call me naive to think that people don't actually still think like this. I believe people are born homosexual. I mean, as far as guys go I think there is a clear indicator of what they prefer sexually. Why would a person choose to have a hard life? Have people like you telling them they are sinners for loving whomever they happen to fall in love with.


Everyone are born sinners....But sin is in many forms. Homosexuality is just one kind of sin, pedophilia, for example, is another. Disbelief in God is also a sin. Lust of the flesh is a sin. Murder is a sin. But the thing is that all sin is equal in value. No sin is worse than any other.

Is discrimination a sin?


And about education, I think it is rather the opposite; the teachings of today's society are wrong and perverted, not the teachings of the Bible.

Huh, you're right. Because here are a few of my favorite teachings of the Bible. I live by them. Really.

“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”---- 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 NAS

So women can't have short hair and men shouldn't have long hair... well there was a man named Samson...

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
---- Deuteronomy.22:5.

OH! So not only must women have long hair but they can't wear...pants? Okay THIS one makes sense too!

“And the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel: 'Suppose a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to her husband. Suppose she sleeps with another man, but there is no witness since she was not caught in the act. If her husband becomes jealous and suspicious of his wife, even if she has not defiled herself, the husband must bring his wife to the priest with an offering of two quarts of barley flour to be presented on her behalf. Do not mix it with olive oil or frankincense, for it is a jealousy offering – an offering of inquiry to find out if she is guilty. "'The priest must then present her before the LORD. He must take some holy water in a clay jar and mix it with dust from the Tabernacle floor. When he has presented her before the LORD, he must unbind her hair and place the offering of inquiry – the jealousy offering – in her hands to determine whether or not her husband's suspicions are justified. The priest will stand before her, holding the jar of bitter water that brings a curse to those who are guilty. The priest will put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you, and you have not defiled yourself by being unfaithful, may you be immune from the effects of this bitter water that causes the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority and defiled yourself by sleeping with another man"- at this point the priest must put the woman under this oath – "then may the people see that the LORD's curse is upon you when he makes you infertile. Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and make you infertile. "And the woman will be required to say, "Yes, let it be so." Then the priest will write these curses on a piece of leather and wash them off into the bitter water. He will then make the woman drink the bitter water, so it may bring on the curse and cause bitter suffering in cases of guilt. "'Then the priest will take the jealousy offering from the woman's hand, lift it up before the LORD, and carry it to the altar. He will take a handful as a token portion and burn it on the altar. Then he will require the woman to drink the water. If she has defiled herself by being unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse will cause bitter suffering. She will become infertile, and her name will become a curse word among her people. But if she has not defiled herself and is pure, she will be unharmed and will still be able to have children. "'This is the ritual law for dealing with jealousy. If a woman defiles herself by being unfaithful to her husband, or if a man is overcome with jealousy and suspicion that his wife has been unfaithful, the husband must present his wife before the LORD, and the priest will apply this entire ritual law to her. The husband will be innocent of any guilt in this matter, but his wife will be held accountable for her sin.” ---- Numbers 5:11-31 NLT

This is a favorite bed time story of mine.

"But of these things be not ashamed, lest you sin through human respect;…Of constant training of children, or of beating the sides of a disloyal servant; or of a seal to keep an erring wife at home.” ---- Sirach 42:1,5-6 NAB

Do you beat your children?

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” ----1 Corinthians 14:34-35

“Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.” ---- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 NLT

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” ---- 1 Timothy 2:11-14

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people."---- Leviticus 20:18

‘You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.” ---- Ephesians 5:22-24 NLT

“But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” ----- Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ... If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days. ... And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. ... But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” ---- Leviticus 12:1-5

“Give no woman power over you to trample upon your dignity.”---- Sirach 9:2 NAB

“Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.”---- Colossians 3:18 NAB

“Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior.” ---- 1 Peter 3:1-2 NAB

Well.... this must be why Hillary lost.

There are many, many more quotes that I don't actually believe you follow... but if you think that the Bible has it right... then that's you, I guess.

[blazeofglory]

God and Christ are used synonymously because Christ is part of the triune God; The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God consists of these three personalities. You can search the internet for the Trinity to learn more about this unique characteristic of God. The answer to your second question on why I became a Christian instead of a follower of any other religon, is simple. As a Christian I believe in the salvation system of Calvinism (http://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html), a doctrine that teaches that people are saved through the grace of God by an unconditional election. While this doctrine of salvation may not explain to you the reason for my personal conversion, it can throw some light on the matter. My personal testimony would be that one day some time ago, I for some reason came across some articles arguing for the existence of God. I was not very convinced at first, but gradually I started to realise that I had been a fool for many years; a fool to deny the existence of God. I prayed to God and said that if he really was out there, convince me that He is, and thereafter lead me to the right conclusions about Him. Unaware of the great act I had done by placing my faith in God, the perseverance of the Saints (http://www.gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html) was starting working within me, and after that I have found it impossible to deny God; both because of the logical reasons why He exists and the personal experiences with Him and the great changes that have taken place in my life (I was the typical a-hole atheist before I was saved, but no longer). I mention that I prayed to God and asked Him to lead to me to right conclusions about Him, and He lead me to the Christian faith. The overwhelming evidence for the truth of this religion I just could not ignore and an inner convincing feeling made me place my trust in this religion as the right one. (Although there are many Christian churches and doctrines that are wrong.) Being a Christian feels so right, and then it probably is.
And no, I'm not in a Christian community, I don't go to church, and I'm not baptised either. My faith is a personal one.



Indeed it has been forced on many to attend church and be baptised (by water), but one can never force anyone to truly believe in something. They can lie about it and call themselves Christians, but this does not mean that they are baptised by the spirit and truly knows God and will go to Heaven. Not all 'Christians' will go to heaven.



Again, some Chinese people may call themselves Christian and not be so, but why would they? The only thing they have coming by doing so is persecution by the Chinese government. The only thing that matters is the personal faith and relationship with God, accepting His Son Jesus Christ as Savior. I strongly doubt that most Christian missionaries convert people by offering them riches. A true believer in Christ will not be influenced by these earthly items; a missionary that truly believes in Christ will not offer money to the chinese for convertion, and a true chinese believer will not accept the money and convert because of it.

I could go on and on answering your questions and statements, but rather I will suggest the amazing Christian website www.gotquestions.org. This site can and will answer all your questions on Christianity. But in the end it is up to you if you accept the religion or not.

You are right in an ideal situation when a believer is assured of the minimum accommodations he needs to maintain and sustain life in point of fact. But more often than not people are tempted and accept riches. In Nepal most Christian missionaries tempt poor communities into their faiths. I am not against Christianity or Jesus, but Christianity is not the only religion that is true and holy. Other religions are equally important too no matter how poor the people in those religions are. It is also true that Christian missionaries are richer and they have so much money to throw and that is helping them to spread their religions. On the strength of money this religion is spreading fast. With that said I do not want to criticize your faith. I am only stating it in relation to other faiths only

[Scheherazade]

The OP of the thread:


Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God.
I just hope that we do not go for one-another’s throat and keep our humor intact. :D
Just to reiterate:

This thread is not an opportunity for any kind of religious propaganda
and
it is definitely not an opportunity to push agendas on more controversial issues under the cloak of religious discussion.

Unless you would like to discuss the topic at hand, please refrain from posting in this thread.

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice and lead to thread closure.

[Dodo25]

There is a common opinion among most people today that every theory science produces is an absolute fact. And that everything they read on wikipedia or watch on Discovery Channel is true. Well, this is wrong. There is debate among scientists on whether we can trust the dating methods used to determine the age of ancient fossils and other items. There are also many non-scientific reasons for why dating methods may be flawed. Let me use a simple example: When God created Adam and Eve, they were already adults, and a doctor would tell just the same. Why not think that when God created the Earth, it will, similar to the case of Adam and Eve, appear much older than its actual age?


There is a common opion among some people today that every dogma a specific religion (mostly the one of their parents) produces is an absolute fact. And that everything they read in their holy book is true. Well, this is wrong.

It is highly obvious, yet I'll still point it out: If you argue that religious issues are true because the Bible says so, you're using circular 'logic'.

Additionally, your criticism on science is completely wrong. Science is evidence based, it changes when the evidence changes, that's a strenght and not a weakness. When has religious dogma ever changed? You yourself exemplify this stubbornness by rejecting evidence-based (statistical) proof that people are born gay.

And about scientific theories, they're the product of a systematic process called the scientific method. Based on observations, (several) intelligent guess(es) (hypotheses) are formed. Then, the hypotheses are used to predict the outcome of experiments. Experiments are performed, and if they contradict the hypothesis, it is discarded. Only if a hypothesis has succesfully predicted the outcomes of many experiments, never has been falsified, and papers on it have stood up to critical peer review, a body of explanations eventually becomes a scientific theory.



Christians do not hold beliefs without evidence, science, on the other hand, often does. What proof do you have for the Big Bang theory? None. What proof do you have for dinosaurs living hundreds of millions of years ago? None.


Science doesn't hold beliefs without evidence, your statement just shows how your faith corrupts your thinking. You can't even represent the position of your 'opponents' objectively. The emphasis here rests on 'beliefs'. Scientists might have personal beliefs, and hypotheses, that only rest on intuiton (or even religiously motivated ideas, since there are also religious scientists). Yet the product of science, tested theories and results, are evidence-based, this is how it works, down to the very core of science.

And who are you to tell me that there is no proof for the big bang theory or for dinosaurs having lived (hundreds of) millions of years ago? First of all, I already told you that dating methods using different isotopes each independently reach the same conclusions. There is no controversy among scientists about this, it's just undamentalist Christian propaganda.

And have you ever looked into the science behind the big bang? Are you familiar with microwave background radiation and the Doppler shift? Have you studied the criteria for indicator stars and how light waves travel? I'm not going to spell it out for you because as Scher has pointed out, it would be off topic. Yet I would like you to reflect and think about your own reasoning and ignorance about particular subjects.



Christianity on the other hand answers both these questions. The Earth was created by a creator (which is logical when one thinks about it) and that life did not come to life out of nothing. And dinosaurs are documented in the Bible which is actually the most trustworthy ancient document. I think you should re-think your hasty statements and study the Christian points of view before you are too judgemental.

I've stated before that the idea of a creator is not logical at all, because the creator is more complicated than what you're trying to explain. Where did that come from, super creator?

And even if the Bible is the most trustworthy ancient document, and even if it were divenly inspired, many Biblical scholars argue against the interpretation of 'behemoth' and other 'creatures' being clear references to dinosaurs. Again, believers are bending the facts the way it suits them. If fossils weren't made of solid rock that you can actually touch, I'm pretty sure believers would deny that there even were dinosaurs.

And finally, I have read the Bible and studied the Christian point of view. I'm familiar with the arguments and I haven't heard anything new for a long time of discussing these matters with believers.

This is quite a long post and I think I've made my point. I might comment again if you respond to this, yet I definitely won't go into details again because I really think I've said enough.

[sports24x]

i believe in god because it inspires me..

[Serena03]

Judgment day tends to be the most common latent answer.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No one are born homosexual. There are indeed some people that have tendencies to be homosexual, but this does not force them to be homosexual. These tendencies may have some genetic origin, but in the end it is a sin like every other sin that needs to be suppressed. I think it is more offensive to say that homosexuals are without choice than to say that they actually do have a choice.


My mouth literaly hung open as I read this. Just unbelievable.

[janeeyre88]

My belief in God started at a early age as my family have always been involved in the church. I was brought up in the Methodist faith and have continued to believe. Though these days I do not attend church, I still believe and always have a Bible in the house. I try to bring my daughter up with these beliefs. I admit as time has went on my relationship with God is not as strong as it once was, I guess due to life's problems. Though I do think there is evidence of God just by looking at nature.:angel:

[Alexander III]

Just wanted to state something general, but which I think should be stated.

Many on this thread have said things along the line of, probability wise there is barley a 0.01% chance og God existing, hence I define my self an atheist. And I agree, if your conception of god is a man in the clouds with a big beard, but lets face it, few people have that conception of god; and assuming that that is what people mean when they say god is rather ignorant and arrogant. On this forums almost all the members seem rather intelgint and cultured, so I doubt anyone here see's god as the big man in the clouds with the white beard.

The first problem in giving a probability which states the chance of god's existence is, what is god? unless you can answer that, you cant find a probability. Now if I said tell me what is the probability of gagblagoo, you would say what is gablagooo? It could be something as simple as a leaf or it could be something which does not exist. Only I know what Gagblagoo is. The same is the problem with god, except no one knows what god is, or can be or anything at all, so sating a probability for its existence is rather ridiculous and narrow-minded.

For example if we take a deist approach to god, as was common among the cultured men of the 18th and 19th century, how can you find a probability for it's existence....

[Armel P]

Just wanted to state something general, but which I think should be stated.

Many on this thread have said things along the line of, probability wise there is barley a 0.01% chance og God existing, hence I define my self an atheist. And I agree, if your conception of god is a man in the clouds with a big beard, but lets face it, few people have that conception of god; and assuming that that is what people mean when they say god is rather ignorant and arrogant. On this forums almost all the members seem rather intelgint and cultured, so I doubt anyone here see's god as the big man in the clouds with the white beard.

The first problem in giving a probability which states the chance of god's existence is, what is god? unless you can answer that, you cant find a probability. Now if I said tell me what is the probability of gagblagoo, you would say what is gablagooo? It could be something as simple as a leaf or it could be something which does not exist. Only I know what Gagblagoo is. The same is the problem with god, except no one knows what god is, or can be or anything at all, so sating a probability for its existence is rather ridiculous and narrow-minded.

For example if we take a deist approach to god, as was common among the cultured men of the 18th and 19th century, how can you find a probability for it's existence....

As one who uses a probablility-like argument, I can respond with the following. The chance that any specific manifestation of a god exists is actually infinitesimal because logically there are an infinite number of possible gods with equal chance of existing. So limiting the argument to whether or not a deistic god exists or no god at all exists would be presenting a false dichotomy. It's important to note that all these infinite numbers of possible gods would necessarily have conflicting dogma somewhere along the line making them mutually exclusive. So it is meaningless to choose a particular god because it is equally possible that the correct god -- for the sake of argument - would punish those who make that very choice.

[Alexander III]

As one who uses a probablility-like argument, I can respond with the following. The chance that any specific manifestation of a god exists is actually infinitesimal because logically there are an infinite number of possible gods with equal chance of existing. So limiting the argument to whether or not a deistic god exists or no god at all exists would be presenting a false dichotomy. It's important to note that all these infinite numbers of possible gods would necessarily have conflicting dogma somewhere along the line making them mutually exclusive. So it is meaningless to choose a particular god because it is equally possible that the correct god -- for the sake of argument - would punish those who make that very choice.

But you are to narrow in your approach to god - there are not an infinite amount of types of god, there cannot be - we still cannot define or know what god is, and yet religions seek to spew out dogma and radical atheists fight against the dogma with their arguments not the actually question of god.

[Armel P]

But you are to narrow in your approach to god - there are not an infinite amount of types of god, there cannot be - we still cannot define or know what god is, and yet religions seek to spew out dogma and radical atheists fight against the dogma with their arguments not the actually question of god.

I meant that there are an infinite number of possible gods. I didn't mean that they all exist simultaneously. I was making a point against a given act of defining a god. If anyone attempts to define a god in which to place belief they would be placing belief in an infinitely improbable entity.

If on the other hand someone says that there is a god but it's role in the universe is completely unknowable, then there ceases to be a point in having that sort of faith depriving the act of believing of any reason. This would be like seeing a closed container and deciding for certain that something is definitely in the container but not knowing what that something is. And this is without being given any clue as to whether it is or is not empty. It's the simple act of deciding, and not even deciding that the contents have any positive effect on the decision-maker. At that point, you may as well be like me and live placing your confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method (essentially agnosticism). You accept that there is no purpose in drawing conclusions regarding things that are not tested or are untestable.

[YesNo]

If on the other hand someone says that there is a god but it's role in the universe is completely unknowable, then there ceases to be a point in having that sort of faith depriving the act of believing of any reason. This would be like seeing a closed container and deciding for certain that something is definitely in the container but not knowing what that something is. And this is without being given any clue as to whether it is or is not empty. It's the simple act of deciding, and not even deciding that the contents have any positive effect on the decision-maker. At that point, you may as well be like me and live placing your confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method (essentially agnosticism). You accept that there is no purpose in drawing conclusions regarding things that are not tested or are untestable.
To stay on the higher ground of "logic, reason and the scientific method" (I made these bold in the quote), you need to restrict yourself to falsifiable statements. Statements that are outside this are part of your religion, your faith.

When you argue positions of your faith you are no longer on that higher ground, but you are right there on the same level with the theists making arguments for the existence or non-existence of this or that god.

Most theists are also atheists, by the way. There are gods they refuse to believe in.

[Armel P]

To stay on the higher ground of "logic, reason and the scientific method" (I made these bold in the quote), you need to restrict yourself to falsifiable statements. Statements that are outside this are part of your religion, your faith.

When you argue positions of your faith you are no longer on that higher ground, but you are right there on the same level with the theists making arguments for the existence or non-existence of this or that god.

Most theists are also atheists, by the way. There are gods they refuse to believe in.

I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to tell me because I'm not sure if when you say "you" it is meant to address me specifically or if it is the proverbial "you." At the risk of having misunderstood, you seem to be saying that I am denying the existence of a god and that such a denial is a position of faith. If that was your intention, my response would be that I never do that. I actually agree that such a denial is an act of faith. My position is that drawing conclusions on that which is not testable is an unreasonable act. I never say "there is/are no god/s"; I only say there is no reason to believe in one.

Re: most theists being atheists, yes, that is very much like something Richard Dawkins often quips. He says that religious people are all atheists about other peoples gods but that atheists just go one god further. It's a cute statement though I don't feel it illustrate my personal position.

[Ecurb]

I meant that there are an infinite number of possible gods. I didn't mean that they all exist simultaneously. I was making a point against a given act of defining a god. If anyone attempts to define a god in which to place belief they would be placing belief in an infinitely improbable entity.

.

As Hamlet told Horatio, “There are more strange things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy.” Many things are “infinitely improbable” (from one perspective), until they happen.

Armel’s argument against God sounds exactly like some creationist’s argument that life developing out of the primordial soup is “infinitely improbable”. So is almost everything else – if we go back far enough in time. From the standpoint of a billion years ago, it’s infinitely improbable that I am typing this – but I am typing it.

This vein of argument represents a misunderstanding of probability.

[Armel P]

As Hamlet told Horatio, “There are more strange things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy.” Many things are “infinitely improbable” (from one perspective), until they happen.

Armel’s argument against God sounds exactly like some creationist’s argument that life developing out of the primordial soup is “infinitely improbable”. So is almost everything else – if we go back far enough in time. From the standpoint of a billion years ago, it’s infinitely improbable that I am typing this – but I am typing it.

This vein of argument represents a misunderstanding of probability.

There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part.

Rather the misunderstanding is very much on your part here. First of all, my argument is not "against God" but rather the belief in god. There is a difference. I'm not trying to disprove existence. Secondly, you are misrepresenting probability here. How much time has nothing to do with probability. Given a certain set of facts the probably of an occurence is always the same. The longer time you allow for something to occur, the more likely you are to see it given that fixed probability. Unless, the probability is 1/infinity. Which brings me to my third point: by making comments about your typing, you are obviously confusing the ideas of highly inmprobable and infinitely improbable.

[Jassy Melson]

All I can say is, there is something beyond me that is not human but that is intelligent and can and will communicate with me. I can't explain what that something is or describe it, but for me it exists.

[YesNo]

My position is that drawing conclusions on that which is not testable is an unreasonable act. I never say "there is/are no god/s"; I only say there is no reason to believe in one.

The point I am trying to make, Armel P, is that the statements you make are not falsifiable. This means that you are no longer on the higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method when you make them.

[BienvenuJDC]

It is amazing that a thread that is about "Why I believe in God?" has turned into a thread of...Why you shouldn't believe in God.

Why are some so diligent to ridicule another's belief in God?
And how is this NOT religious intolerance?

[Armel P]

The point I am trying to make, Armel P, is that the statements you make are not falsifiable. This means that you are no longer on the higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method when you make them.

What statements are you talking about exactly? I'm not proposing hypotheses that should be subject to falsifiability. I'm just relying on formal logic. That's not how you would apply the necessity for falsifiability. Otherwise you would use falsifiability to disprove axioms, logic to disprove logic...

[YesNo]

What statements are you talking about exactly? I'm not proposing hypotheses that should be subject to falsifiability. I'm using formal logic. That's not how you would apply the necessity for falsifiability. Otherwise you would use falsifiability to disprove axioms... logic to disprove logic.
Thanks for responding, Armel P. Although we might disagree, I'm exploring some ideas I've had recently. I don't mean to put you on the spot.

When you disagree with a theist, it sounds to me that you think you are speaking from a privileged position, from a higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method that the believers in this thread do not share with you. You use this to claim that they should agree with you and stop believing in whatever it is they believe in.

However, I don't think you are speaking from any higher ground and that is why I mention that you are presenting your religion, your faith, your belief.

Here is a statement you made about gods in general.


I only say there is no reason to believe in one.

Now this is either an axiom or some conclusion. If it is an axiom, then you are assuming everything, so why argue with someone who believes in some God. By assumption, you don't. They do. So what?

If this is a conclusion and you want to remain on the higher ground of the scientific method, this should be a falsifiable statement. But is it falsifiable?

[Armel P]

It is amazing that a thread that is about "Why I believe in God?" has turned into a thread of...Why you shouldn't believe in God.

Why are some so diligent to ridicule another's belief in God?
And how is this NOT religious intolerance?

This is taken from the OP:


Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God. [emphasis added]

I don't think there was an intention to only discuss with the choir, if I may extend a popular metaphor. And I didn't read the entire thread but it seems that things are relatively civil.

Regarding how this is not religious intolerance, it seems the answer lies in the difference between feeling that freedom of religion is a right and not having a religion. It's comparing apples and oranges. I still feel people have a right to religion regardless of what I feel about the reasonability of that act.

[Armel P]

Thanks for responding, Armel P. Although we might disagree, I'm exploring some ideas I've had recently. I don't mean to put you on the spot.

No problem.



When you disagree with a theist, it sounds to me that you think you are speaking from a privileged position, from a higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method that the believers in this thread do not share with you. You use this to claim that they should agree with you and stop believing in whatever it is they believe in.

This interpretation make me uncomfortable. First of all, I never intended to condescend. The "higher-ground" comment detracts from the conversation because it has less to do with content and more to do with perceived tone. Everybody who has confidence in something, even religious confidence, feels there is good reason for that confidence.


However, I don't think you are speaking from any higher ground and that is why I mention that you are presenting your religion, your faith, your belief.

I appologize but I'm not really interested in revisting the science is a type of religion or logic is a type of religion and everything is a matter of faith therefore all forms of faith are created equal argument.



Here is a statement you made about gods in general.

Now this is either an axiom or some conclusion. If it is an axiom, then you are assuming everything, so why argue with someone who believes in some God. By assumption, you don't. They do. So what?

If this is a conclusion and you want to remain on the higher ground of the scientific method, this should be a falsifiable statement. But is it falsifiable?

When you say, "this should be a falsifiable statement," I already disagree. From what I know, the necessity of falsifiability is related to the process of scientific discovery and proposing hypotheses or presenting theories. It does not apply to the use of formal logic to reach a conclusion. My statement is a conclusion after a logical process. You can revisit the process -- as a "test" -- to see if it produces a different result but it only would if it was never logical to begin with.

The problem with my statement is that it's open to misinterpretation. When I say "reason" I don't mean personal reason. What I mean is that one cannot find greater weight in a particular form of a god without making an assumption that is not logical. Basically, nothing about the act of pointing out a false dichotomy can be dismissed as being unfalsifiable.

[gUfo]

The Alpha and Omega is perhaps the only question without an answer. It's beauty lies in the simple fact that it can be asked. Since reading David Deutsche's Fabric of Reality, I have looked at this question from a slightly different angle. Deutsche (who may be an atheist) attempts to tackle the Omega Point (Fate/Time/God) from a quantum physics perspective. Though deep, the book doesn't get bogged down with mathematics. While on the fringe of pseudoscience, the implications born from the advent of computation are absolutely mind blowing!

The greatest physicists believe that we may one day be able to describe the How at Alpha Point, but they also resign to the fact that we may never be able to know the most important question.

Why?

~ il gufo

[lobanw]

I believe in God because there is no reason not to. With all of the things people are willing to put their faith in why not God be one of them? There have been so many good fortunes that have come from being a follower of Christ no matter what specific religion you may have. Even if your God isn't the same as my God, I bet they are at least friends :)

[Freudian Monkey]

I guess this thread wasn't originally intended to be a theism versus atheism debate, but it seems that's what it has turned into. There has been a lot of good arguments from both theistic and atheistic perspectives on this thread and I always enjoy reading well thought out arguments. However I feel like this thread, like so many other debates about faith and religion, is brilliantly showcasing how pointless this kind of debate actually is. As many before myself have already pointed out, agnostics base their belief on measurable and testable facts while most theists base their belief on philosophical/theological theories that are neither measurable or testable. So basically these two different views can never reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate. Therefore, the debate can never reach any kind of reasonable solution unless the other party flat out admits being wrong the whole time.

So the only real value of a theism versus atheism debate is in the fact that people, who aren't yet familiar with the arguments of both views, can learn about them and make up their mind about whether to rely purely on empirical facts or to base their belief on unscientific sources. That's all. There is nothing new to be discovered in this kind of debate.

[The Ol' Man]

I make this post merely for your idlest abstraction on the subject. I have not
read all of the posts, or even some of them. This is not because they're
uninteresting, I'm just too weary to be anything but indifferent to them
at the present time. Nor is this an invite for a rabble of militant Atheists
to ride roughshod over this post with shrieks for evidence and logic and
probabilities. With those disclosures out of the way, I will go on:

I've had my flings with Religion, and I've been an argumentative Atheist.
I think it's important to see that, even though a religion prescribes the
particular image of its deity, each person who subscribes to that religion has a
different conception of that deity. Not only are we dealing with an
incalculable number of religions as well as their branches, but also
with the fact that the prescribed deities perform their image differently
for each belonging to the religion. This makes a single deity both infinite
and impossible to come to grips with at the onset.
With this consideration, we can example Stephen Hawking. Hawking
(much in keeping with this line of thought) ascribes the term 'God' to the
natural and physical laws that govern the universe.
If the term is inseparably tied with the observable object,
then this is what that object is. In this instance, 'the mind of God' exists.
This is not the same as ascribing the term 'God' to a raisin scone,
devouring the scone, and proudly declaring - as Nietzsche did - 'God is dead.'

'God' itself is an indefinable something. I think most Atheists are afraid of
being false in attempting to explore the matter more deeply, instead
crying out indignantly for evidence to feed their notions of rationality.
Unfortunately, for all the poets and philosophers we should gladly
desire to imitate, Richard Dawkins is not very inimitable. You will see this
whenever you stumble onto a youtube video concerned with religion
or atheism, on which they thrive in warring against the perceived delusion
in other interlocutors.
Maintaining a constant disposition of doubt is not
the route to understanding. You've already misunderstood to begin with,
and now you're going to infect the subject with the flaws you have
understood to be teeming within it. Thomas Aquinas is the closest
approach to the right, I think. He proposed to simply embrace the subject,
master the evidence for ourselves, and then (and only then) decide whether
or not the evidence is adequate to our sensibilities. Not before.

As to the nature of a single God arching over the universe, that is a
profoundly unanswerable question. However, I do subscribe to the
existence of an underlying order to the universe, however difficult it
may be to articulate. This becomes clear in the (depth) study of Astrology.
To further remark on that and, admittedly, to try to preclude assailment by
the rabble, I recall Isaac Newton's response when he was ribbed, gibed and elbowed
by contemporaries for his studying of Astrology: 'I have studied it, sir, you
have not!'

I'm sure many of you also recall Carl Jung's towering "I know."


Anyhow, just something for consideration,

O.M.



P.S. I'm fairly agreeable with Freudian Monkey's post.

[chipper]

mine is simple...

the world is too perfect to happen by chance. human anatomy is too perfect to happen by chance. mountains, the corals, the sky.. too beautiful to happen by chance.

i believe in God. I don't know what kind of shape or form he/she/it is in but God exists.

[Freudian Monkey]

I make this post merely for your idlest abstraction on the subject.

Thank you for you opinion. You are most certainly correct that I overly simplified the debates about theism versus atheism. That was my intention to begin with since deep down this matter is actually a really simple one.

So, basically what you are arguing here is that religious debates are valuable because there are indefinite amount of religious views based on the knowledge each of us possess as individuals and because of the fact that our arguments can be built on different presumptions about, say, the nature of god? Well, this is definitely the case. However my whole point in my previous post was that the arguments that agnostics are willing to accept to be legitimate are completely different than those presented by theists. This is a fundamental difference, something that makes a rational debate impossible even if our individual interpretations of philosophical or conceptual questions would wary. For instance, you may think that god is not a concrete, coherent entity - "the order of the universe", if you will. What difference does that make in a debate with an empiricist? He is just going to ask you the same question he asks from theists who believe in a personified god: "Where is the evidence?"

And I don't think he is going to accept astrological evidence.

ps: there are only a few scientists I value more than Dr. Jung.

[The Ol' Man]

Thank you for your response (my first response in all my time here, actually) but mine was a more general response, not fixed upon any particular person on the thread. Hopefully you didn't think I was tearing into you!

Edit: Oh yes. I'm nearly convinced such argumentation on this matter is useless. No mutually satisfactory truth can be established, because neither are
willing to concede that their thought is wrong, nor should they be expected to. The arguments against a God are often meretricious,
more sleights of intellect than deeply persuasive. Arguments in favour of God cannot be proven, especially so to an Atheist.
Where does that leave us?

[Emmy Castrol]

Can't remember if I've ever contributed to this thread before or not...
But I believe in God because whenever I stop I get really scared of spirits and demons
:mad5:

[libernaut]

nice smiley face.

[YesNo]

He is just going to ask you the same question he asks from theists who believe in a personified god: "Where is the evidence?"

Generally, people, whether theist or atheist, whether scientifically minded or pseudo-scientifically minded, accept as "evidence" only what supports their pet theories. All the other evidence is discredited.

That might actually be a safe thing to do since we can't adequately check out all the "evidence" that is presented to us.

Because we are conscious there is reason to believe, just on that evidence alone, that we are not the highest consciousness around. It is the same sort of reason that a scientist uses to say there must be life on other planets: since it exists here, it should exist somewhere else as well.

In the 20th century physicists came to believe that the universe had a beginning. This was something only a religious person would have accepted in the 19th century.

Also in the 20th century physicists came to believe that the origin of the universe came out of nothing. People would have thought you were a religious nut in the 19th century if you believed such stuff.

So even atheists, with some scientific exposure, believe that the universe had a beginning and it came out of nothing. Just like the traditional theists.

If you add the evidence of near-death experiences and shared-death experiences, generally, out-of-body experiences, it seems almost certain that consciousness comes from a dimension outside of space-time, which means this whole space-time experience we are having did not happen by chance.

So the real question should be why don't you believe in God? The specifics of the God one believes in might be up for question. There seem to be too many conflicts between those who view Jesus as God, but no one else, and those who prefer Allah or Krishna or some unnamed "consciousness".

[hampusforev]

mine is simple...

the world is too perfect to happen by chance. human anatomy is too perfect to happen by chance. mountains, the corals, the sky.. too beautiful to happen by chance.

i believe in God. I don't know what kind of shape or form he/she/it is in but God exists.

I often hear this and it's a pretty ridiculous contention, why is the world beautiful? I mean there are people starving and dying of horrible, agonizing illnesses every minute of every hour. And what is beautiful really? It's a pretty subjective notion... But I guess God is subjective.

Personally I don't know if I believe, one day I'm an atheist and the next I'm a believer. I'd never subscribe to any particular religion though, I just don't think that kind of collective thinking is healthy, at least not for me. The question wether God exist or not is not something I plan on deciding ever. I think the mystery is the whole beauty.

[Paulclem]

mine is simple...

the world is too perfect to happen by chance. human anatomy is too perfect to happen by chance. mountains, the corals, the sky.. too beautiful to happen by chance.

i believe in God. I don't know what kind of shape or form he/she/it is in but God exists.

To follow on from Hampusforever - I disagree that the world is perfect. As Hamp pointed out, if you look then you will see endless suffering and pain and imperfection that somehow exists alongside what we at first consider to be beauty.

It's not just the human world either.The slaughter of the seas, and nature red in tooth and claw come to mind. The waters might be calm on the surface, but beneath is a seething maelstrom of eat or be eaten. Some people are like that too.

[Freudian Monkey]

If you add the evidence of near-death experiences and shared-death experiences, generally, out-of-body experiences, it seems almost certain that consciousness comes from a dimension outside of space-time, which means this whole space-time experience we are having did not happen by chance.

Thank you for your opinion. However I strongly suggest that you take your time to read about Temporal lobe epilepsy from wikipedia - it is the current scientific explanation for most paranormal, religious and other "unexplained" experiences.

Also, the fact that we are conscious beings doesn't make it at all evident that there would be some divine being who has given us this consciousness. This has been made apparent for instance by Ferdinand de Saussure.

[YesNo]

Thank you for your opinion. However I strongly suggest that you take your time to read about Temporal lobe epilepsy from wikipedia - it is the current scientific explanation for most paranormal, religious and other "unexplained" experiences.
The problem is I accept the various forms of out-of-body experiences as evidence.

That means any scientific theory or religious viewpoint that doesn't, or tries to trivialize it, is living in fantasy land.

That's my perspective. I am postmodern enough to allow you to have your own perspective.

[Paulclem]

Thank you for your opinion. However I strongly suggest that you take your time to read about Temporal lobe epilepsy from wikipedia - it is the current scientific explanation for most paranormal, religious and other "unexplained" experiences.



This is mere supposition. That epileptics suffer such symptoms as described in the article does not mean that this is the explanation for religious and unexplained experiences. Making such a connection suggests that everyone who has a religious experience is epileptic, which they are clearly not.

[Freudian Monkey]

The problem is I accept the various forms of out-of-body experiences as evidence.

That means any scientific theory or religious viewpoint that doesn't, or tries to trivialize it, is living in fantasy land.


So this leads us to the conclusion that we cannot have a reasonable debate about this matter. This is precisely what I wrote in my first post to this topic: there is no way to have a reasonable debate if the opposing sides cannot reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate.

[Freudian Monkey]

This is mere supposition. That epileptics suffer such symptoms as described in the article does not mean that this is the explanation for religious and unexplained experiences. Making such a connection suggests that everyone who has a religious experience is epileptic, which they are clearly not.

Have you ever experienced déjà vu? I think most of us have. It is also categorized as temporal lobe epilepsy. So it is not only the people diagnosed with epilepsy that can experience hallucinations and other unexplained phenomena as a cause of temporal lobe epilepsy. You can read more about this theory from Michael A. Persinger.

[Paulclem]

Have you ever experienced déjà vu? I think most of us have. It is also categorized as temporal lobe epilepsy. So it is not only the people diagnosed with epilepsy that can experience hallucinations and other unexplained phenomena as a cause of temporal lobe epilepsy. You can read more about this theory from Michael A. Persinger.

What do you mean categorised as temporal lobe epilepsy? Do you mean it is a symptom, because it's only one of many.

I've got an aching knee like my arthritic neighbour, but it would be wrong to assume that I too have arthritis.

[Freudian Monkey]

What do you mean categorised as temporal lobe epilepsy? Do you mean it is a symptom, because it's only one of many.

I've got an aching knee like my arthritic neighbour, but it would be wrong to assume that I too have arthritis.

What I meant was that as a result of this theory, religious and other unexplained experiences can all be perceived as causes of neurological processes. The fact that déjà vu is one of the symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy is just an example of how our brain can easily create supernatural phenomena. The research done by Persinger is only one example of this - there's a ton of researches about transcendental experiences and their neurological and sociopsychological nature - for instance about the obvious connection between transcendental experiences and stress.

[Paulclem]

What I meant was that as a result of this theory, religious and other unexplained experiences can all be perceived as causes of neurological processes. The fact that déjà vu is one of the symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy is just an example of how our brain can easily create supernatural phenomena. The research done by Persinger is only one example of this - there's a ton of researches about transcendental experiences and their neurological and sociopsychological nature - for instance about the obvious connection between transcendental experiences and stress.

I think it's still an assumption about such a connection. We know that illness and drugs can induce *edit* similar experiences, but it does not explain the accounts of experiences by mystics for example, who do not use stimulants or suffer from illness. To say it is - without experiemntal corroboration, remains an assumption.

[blazeofglory]

A spiritual experience is something misconstrued. Spirituality is the only thing that gives a meaning to our meaninglessness in a world that is so void and empty and so creepy. I do not know, in fact no body knows whether or not God exists but I see great amounts of placating stuffs in spirituality and that is why I hanker after it.

[Freudian Monkey]

I think it's still an assumption about such a connection. We know that illness and drugs can induce such experiences, but it does not explain the accounts of experiences by mystics for example, who do not use stimulants or suffer from illness. To say it is - without experiemntal corroboration, remains an assumption.

I take it that you didn't bother reading through the whole article? Or at least you didn't check out the work done by Persinger. His theory has all to do with experimental corroboration.

I might not have been specific enough in my previous messages so let my try to put my point in a more simple manner. The basic concept of Persinger's study was to stimulate his subjects temporal lobes electromagnetically and see which kind of effects this electromagnetic exposure of temporal lobe has on a patients cognition. He studied some 400 individuals and roughly 80% of the subjects were recorded to have had various transcendental experiences. The subjects of the study were all, to my recollection, normal and healthy people.

To me, this study doesn't prove anything other than that the human brain is capable of producing transcendental experiences artificially and that it only takes a tiny amount of electromagnetic exposure (1 microTesla) for this to happen. However as I mentioned earlier, there has also been numerous studies about how people have had transcendental experiences in high stress situations, not to even mention studies concerning group psychology or semiotic studies about the concept of meaning-making in religious rhetoric.

One of the interesting results of Persinger's study was that some people are more receptive to temporal lobe stimulation than others. In other words, some people are more likely to have religious experiences than others. So, according to this research, one might imply that God is a determinist who has prematurely chosen those who have the ability to experience his presence and are therefore more likely to receive salvation (in a Christian sense). Some people have "a talent for religion", as Bishop Stephen Sykes put it.

So wait... does this mean that God is a darwinian?

As a sidenote, I'm not an atheist - just an individual in search of truth. And this is just my opinion on this. I completely accept that other people have their own views based on their own arguments.

[MarkBastable]

Spirituality is the only thing that gives a meaning to our meaninglessness.

Okay - what meaning does it give?

[YesNo]

So this leads us to the conclusion that we cannot have a reasonable debate about this matter. This is precisely what I wrote in my first post to this topic: there is no way to have a reasonable debate if the opposing sides cannot reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate.
What for some people is a "reasonable debate" is for others a power play.

I want to avoid the power play approach up-front. The dismissal of out-of-body experiences by assigning them a pseudo-scientific label is a power play. I am responding to it by saying up-front that I don't accept such explanations, that is, I will respond to a power play with an outright dismissal. Out-of-body experiences remain as evidence.

Why is consciousness important to discuss?

During the second half of the last century, physicists validated two fundamental religious views of the universe that would have seemed absurd from a scientific perspective 100 years ago. (1) They said that space-time had a beginning. (2) They said it came from nothing. All that is left is to determine how this could have happened. Did space-time (as well as matter and energy) pop out of nothing by chance or were there choices involved.

If you claim it was done by chance, you must assume that there are countably infinite alternate space-time universes since chance would have to operate randomly over its domain of possibilities. For this theoretic approach to work, consciousness must be down-played as an insignificant accident.

If you claim it was done by a single or multiple acts of choice, you introduce dimensions of consciousness outside of space-time where those choices were made. For this theoretical approach, our own consciousness becomes a valuable source of information. If this approach wins out, the religious views that we were "made in the image of God" or that we have a "God within" become validated.

Personally, I'm on the choice side.

[Freudian Monkey]

What for some people is a "reasonable debate" is for others a power play.

I want to avoid the power play approach up-front. The dismissal of out-of-body experiences by assigning them a pseudo-scientific label is a power play. I am responding to it by saying up-front that I don't accept such explanations, that is, I will respond to a power play with an outright dismissal. Out-of-body experiences remain as evidence.

Why is consciousness important to discuss?

During the second half of the last century, physicists validated two fundamental religious views of the universe that would have seemed absurd from a scientific perspective 100 years ago. (1) They said that space-time had a beginning. (2) They said it came from nothing. All that is left is to determine how this could have happened. Did space-time (as well as matter and energy) pop out of nothing by chance or were there choices involved.

If you claim it was done by chance, you must assume that there are countably infinite alternate space-time universes since chance would have to operate randomly over its domain of possibilities. For this theoretic approach to work, consciousness must be down-played as an insignificant accident.

If you claim it was done by a single or multiple acts of choice, you introduce dimensions of consciousness outside of space-time where those choices were made. For this theoretical approach, our own consciousness becomes a valuable source of information. If this approach wins out, the religious views that we were "made in the image of God" or that we have a "God within" become validated.

Personally, I'm on the choice side.

Thank you for your very interesting post. What I intended by saying that "we" cannot have a reasonable debate was mainly to stress my opinion about the meaningless nature of theism versus atheism debate. Now I find that we are suddenly dealing with quantum physics and metaphysics, which I don't consider to be an area where a reasonable debate wouldn't be possible, at least if we can find fundamental principles that can both agree.

If you feel that I was making a power play in pointing out that out-of-body experiences are pseudo-science, then you are kind of proving my point about theism versus atheism debate, since out-of-body experiences are generally perceived as pseudo-science. I don't say this as my own opinion, I say this as an individual who has followed this ongoing debate for years. And I only pointed out temporal lobe epilepsy and Persinger because I thought you might be interested to learn more about them, if you hadn't already done so.

But again, even though we might have a debate about our consciousness, free will or reason behind the existence of universe, all these fundamental religious questions ultimately boils down to questions of faith. Like you said, you believe that the world wasn't created by chance. OK, can you present any evidence to support this view? Since faith is not a factor in scientific mode of thinking, there is really no point in religious debate where scientific arguments are against any other forms of arguments. This is all that I have argued here, nothing else.

It's true however that science is nowadays used as a tool of power play, I can genuinely agree on that. It's the empiricists who won't accept any other than empirical evidence. So is there anything we can do about this? Not really. If they have chosen this mode of thinking, there is nothing that can affect their opinion other than empirical evidence.

I'd very much like to continue this debate on a philosophical level, without any allusions to science vs pseudo-science or theism vs atheism debate. I'm very interested to hear your opinion on the founding principles of human consciousness, since you seem to place a lot of your arguments on this cartesian mode of thinking. Personally I tend to lean toward a more Saussurean/Lacanian mode of thinking, and therefore I don't necessarily approve to cogito ergo sum, because individuals can never have an individual language with which they could produce individual thoughts; the very terms, that you use to make sense of the world, have been given to you. In other words, "my thoughts are not my own". This common semiotic view tends to point to a more deterministic worldview: if our consciousness is ultimately based on an artificial system of signs, we can't really rely on our cognition anymore as a source of authentic information - or at least not the consciousness, rather the uncouncious. It also points to a pretty sceptical view towards the existence of god. From this prespective, if there is something that we could call a god, it is most likely something similar to the structure of language.

So how do you defend your statement that consciousness is important in understanding the nature of our existence?

[YesNo]

Thank you for your very interesting post. What I intended by saying that "we" cannot have a reasonable debate was mainly to stress my opinion about the meaningless nature of theism versus atheism debate. Now I find that we are suddenly dealing with quantum physics and metaphysics, which I don't consider to be an area where a reasonable debate wouldn't be possible, at least if we can find fundamental principles that can both agree.

If you feel that I was making a power play in pointing out that out-of-body experiences are pseudo-science, then you are kind of proving my point about theism versus atheism debate, since out-of-body experiences are generally perceived as pseudo-science. I don't say this as my own opinion, I say this as an individual who has followed this ongoing debate for years. And I only pointed out temporal lobe epilepsy and Persinger because I thought you might be interested to learn more about them, if you hadn't already done so.

But again, even though we might have a debate about our consciousness, free will or reason behind the existence of universe, all these fundamental religious questions ultimately boils down to questions of faith. Like you said, you believe that the world wasn't created by chance. OK, can you present any evidence to support this view? Since faith is not a factor in scientific mode of thinking, there is really no point in religious debate where scientific arguments are against any other forms of arguments. This is all that I have argued here, nothing else.

It's true however that science is nowadays used as a tool of power play, I can genuinely agree on that. It's the empiricists who won't accept any other than empirical evidence. So is there anything we can do about this? Not really. If they have chosen this mode of thinking, there is nothing that can affect their opinion other than empirical evidence.

I'd very much like to continue this debate on a philosophical level, without any allusions to science vs pseudo-science or theism vs atheism debate. I'm very interested to hear your opinion on the founding principles of human consciousness, since you seem to place a lot of your arguments on this cartesian mode of thinking. Personally I tend to lean toward a more Saussurean/Lacanian mode of thinking, and therefore I don't necessarily approve to cogito ergo sum, because individuals can never have an individual language with which they could produce individual thoughts; the very terms, that you use to make sense of the world, have been given to you. In other words, "my thoughts are not my own". This common semiotic view tends to point to a more deterministic worldview: if our consciousness is ultimately based on an artificial system of signs, we can't really rely on our cognition anymore as a source of authentic information - or at least not the consciousness, rather the uncouncious. It also points to a pretty sceptical view towards the existence of god. From this prespective, if there is something that we could call a god, it is most likely something similar to the structure of language.

So how do you defend your statement that consciousness is important in understanding the nature of our existence?

I think I agree with you about language although I don't know enough about Saussure or Lacan to have much to say about it.

If a scientist is able to stimulate the temporal lobe and simulate a transcendental experience, that does not prove that the transcendental experience was a delusion. All it shows is that we now have another way to get that experience. A new technique has been discovered.

That transcendental experience is itself evidence--empirical evidence, that needs to be explored further, not dismissed.

Consider the universe popping out of nothing 14 billion years ago. What triggered that event? Was it chance or was a choice involved? If chance caused this event then there are infinitely many space-time universes. I don't have a problem with that, but I do think an infinity of universes is a high price to pay for a theory that refuses to acknowledge consciousness as an obvious place where that choice could have occurred. And our own consciousness would be a door through which we could make further explorations.

[laidbackperson]

The problem is I accept the various forms of out-of-body experiences as evidence.

That means any scientific theory or religious viewpoint that doesn't, or tries to trivialize it, is living in fantasy land.

That's my perspective. I am postmodern enough to allow you to have your own perspective.



So this leads us to the conclusion that we cannot have a reasonable debate about this matter. This is precisely what I wrote in my first post to this topic: there is no way to have a reasonable debate if the opposing sides cannot reach any kind of agreement on even the most basic principles of the debate.



What for some people is a "reasonable debate" is for others a power play.

I want to avoid the power play approach up-front. The dismissal of out-of-body experiences by assigning them a pseudo-scientific label is a power play. I am responding to it by saying up-front that I don't accept such explanations, that is, I will respond to a power play with an outright dismissal. Out-of-body experiences remain as evidence.

Why is consciousness important to discuss?

During the second half of the last century, physicists validated two fundamental religious views of the universe that would have seemed absurd from a scientific perspective 100 years ago. (1) They said that space-time had a beginning. (2) They said it came from nothing. All that is left is to determine how this could have happened. Did space-time (as well as matter and energy) pop out of nothing by chance or were there choices involved.

If you claim it was done by chance, you must assume that there are countably infinite alternate space-time universes since chance would have to operate randomly over its domain of possibilities. For this theoretic approach to work, consciousness must be down-played as an insignificant accident.

If you claim it was done by a single or multiple acts of choice, you introduce dimensions of consciousness outside of space-time where those choices were made. For this theoretical approach, our own consciousness becomes a valuable source of information. If this approach wins out, the religious views that we were "made in the image of God" or that we have a "God within" become validated.

Personally, I'm on the choice side.


I think it is a very good reply.

[sethyirak_7]

I once stood on the side of "If you leave the genesis of our universe in the hands of chance, there must invariably be an infinite number of universes due to the nature of that chance" philosophy, and yet I found myself looking in the face of a similar problem when I brought the supernatural into the equation. It is hard to narrow down the amount of supernaturality that is allowed in the equation. When you start discussing limits, you are undeniably discussing theology.

With that said, I am not forsaking my fragile belief in supernatural occurences, but I cannot use that belief as a means of reasoning. As Wilde's Lord Henry might have said, leave theology to those who need it. And theology is always where I end up when discussing this matter.

I believe it was Freudian Monkey who stated that a theist and an atheist cannot have a reasonable debate. I must agree with this statement. The debate ends as soon as it begins, with the introductory statement of, "What I believe is..." It turns into a game of "change the other person's mind", rather than "demonstrate why the other person is wrong." Changing someone's mind isn't empirically valuable. I'm not sure if empirical value is the goal of this thread; it may just be a "quality of life" debate (which is almost always just as fun), but I think I remember someone challenging a non-believer to "give sound reasoning" for their disbelief, and that sounds awfully empirical.

I may be completely off the mark from the discussion at hand, but in reality, I am simply trying to raise my post count. :brow:

[iankropp]

I agree with the stalemate statement. It will never truly be solved or answer, and it upsets me when people take these stubborn positions and entrench themselves in simplistic "right or wrong," and "black and white" opinions.

[G L Wilson]

All the evidence lines up with an atheist, his or her Being, falsehoods line the pockets of the faithful like cheap coin.

[YesNo]

I may be completely off the mark from the discussion at hand, but in reality, I am simply trying to raise my post count. :brow:

:) That's as good a reason as any to post something.

[G L Wilson]

:) That's as good a reason as any to post something.

It is no reason at all, however it is funny.

[lieasleep]

A spiritual experience is something misconstrued. Spirituality is the only thing that gives a meaning to our meaninglessness in a world that is so void and empty and so creepy. I do not know, in fact no body knows whether or not God exists but I see great amounts of placating stuffs in spirituality and that is why I hanker after it.

I would rather accept the meaningless, void, empty, creepy world for what it is rather than try and deny it with notions of the supernatural. Why should we desire to see the world through placated eyes. Our anger is allayed but still present. I would rather be present with it because suspending my own presence to avoid something too painfully present is only self-detrimental; the world still remains as it is.

[G L Wilson]

I would rather accept the meaningless, void, empty, creepy world for what it is rather than try and deny it with notions of the supernatural. Why should we desire to see the world through placated eyes. Our anger is allayed but still present. I would rather be present with it because suspending my own presence to avoid something too painfully present is only self-detrimental; the world still remains as it is.

Is not nihilism a persona too, lieasleep? Is not authenticity for when you are dead? What is reality, and what is truth? Is not beauty truth, and ugliness true too? Are we not alienate from the world, and in our loneliness seek comfort? Is not the light blinding as the darkness is cool? Is not black a shade of white? Am I not asking a lot of questions? Is it not all illusion? How does one become certain? Where are we, and what are we here for? Can you not answer my questions?

[lieasleep]

Is not nihilism a persona too, lieasleep? Is not authenticity for when you are dead? What is reality, and what is truth? Is not beauty truth, and ugliness true too? Are we not alienate from the world, and in our loneliness seek comfort? Is not the light blinding as the darkness is cool? Is not black a shade of white? Am I not asking a lot of questions? Is it not all illusion? How does one become certain? Where are we, and what are we here for? Can you not answer my questions?

Haha I can try to answer a few. Please accept some suspended humility. I only attempt answering some of this because it is fun. Disregard the answers themselves completely.

It is a persona that is attempting to not be a persona; although it is not whether or not it is a persona, it is.

No, Hamlet, authenticity too is a self-qualified, relative non-existent and, when related back to to nihilism and persona, actually destroys any idea of existent value in culture, tradition, and/ or authenticity beyond our actions which reflect our own reflections.

No truth in relativity beyond a self-qualified one, even a self-qualified one hidden behind a highly affected self-qualification. We only make choices based on experience and desire but being informed by experience leads to affect. I am extremely affected but I am still making the choice to be affected. I am still taking the action of effect.

We are not alienate from the world because we are a part of it. We are arrangement of atoms, very physical existent atoms that are constantly entering and becoming a part of us (in the corporeal sense) and then again, in this same sense, moving out of us; what you consider the world, the physical universe, may very well be a part of you soon and may very well have been you; you once considered the dust on your floor you.

I don't really feel like answering anymore. Real fun trying to answer though.

[G L Wilson]

Haha I can try to answer a few. Please accept some suspended humility. I only attempt answering some of this because it is fun. Disregard the answers themselves completely.

It is a persona that is attempting to not be a persona; although it is not whether or not it is a persona, it is.

No, Hamlet, authenticity too is a self-qualified, relative non-existent and, when related back to to nihilism and persona, actually destroys any idea of existent value in culture, tradition, and/ or authenticity beyond our actions which reflect our own reflections.

No truth in relativity beyond a self-qualified one, even a self-qualified one hidden behind a highly affected self-qualification. We only make choices based on experience and desire but being informed by experience leads to affect. I am extremely affected but I am still making the choice to be affected. I am still taking the action of effect.

We are not alienate from the world because we are a part of it. We are arrangement of atoms, very physical existent atoms that are constantly entering and becoming a part of us (in the corporeal sense) and then again, in this same sense, moving out of us; what you consider the world, the physical universe, may very well be a part of you soon and may very well have been you; you once considered the dust on your floor you.

I don't really feel like answering anymore. Real fun trying to answer though.

"Man simply is." Sartre

Is he nothing else? Am I not my brother's keeper?

[lieasleep]

"Man simply is." Sartre

Is he nothing else? Am I not my brother's keeper?

Nope. Responsibility is is another one of those self-qualified relative blah blah blahs. Choke by Pahalniuk is all about that, despite my hating that book, it made some good points.

[G L Wilson]

Nope. Responsibility is is another one of those self-qualified relative blah blah blahs. Choke by Pahalniuk is all about that, despite my hating that book, it made some good points.

Since you seem to think all is relative, why don't you try suicide and see if there is any certainty in that?

The nihilist thinks that nothing's more important than any other. Kurt Vonnegut is an example. (I knew that there was something which annoyed me about that guy.)

[caddy_caddy]

I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me.
I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!

[G L Wilson]

I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me.
I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!

"The Lord is a man of war." Exodus

[BienvenuJDC]

I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me.
I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!

Well said...

[G L Wilson]

I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me.
I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!

How can God fail you, caddy_caddy, when he doesn't exist?

[lieasleep]

Since you seem to think all is relative, why don't you try suicide and see if there is any certainty in that?

The nihilist thinks that nothing's more important than any other. Kurt Vonnegut is an example. (I knew that there was something which annoyed me about that guy.)

I like living. One day it will be over. Why now? Not everything is relative, a bunch of things that don't actually exist are relative. "Isn't existence relative?" No. Not a huge fan of solipsism.

And Vonnegut is a self-described humanist. Can someone be a humanist and a nihilist at the same time? Seems like humanism still takes a certain amount of faith that is really contradictory to nihilism.

[G L Wilson]

I like living. One day it will be over. Why now? Not everything is relative, a bunch of things that don't actually exist are relative. "Isn't existence relative?" No. Not a huge fan of solipsism.

And Vonnegut is a self-described humanist. Can someone be a humanist and a nihilist at the same time? Seems like humanism still takes a certain amount of faith that is really contradictory to nihilism.

I am that I am, and who is to dispute me?

I cannot be God, for I exist because a baby has smiled at me. Proof of existence is in laughter. The Sufis say that the world began with a smile, why should I not die laughing?

[caddy_caddy]

How can God fail you, caddy_caddy, when he doesn't exist?
He exists within me.
You know, outside my house there is a lot of trees full of birds; they keep singing but for years I've never noticed their existence; I've never remember that I heard them once; it's only when I began to love the birds' songs that they exist to me.

[blazeofglory]

He exists within me.
You know, outside my house there is a lot of trees full of birds; they keep singing but for years I've never noticed their existence; I've never remember that I heard them once; it's only when I began to love the birds' songs that they exist to me.

So marvelously written. All we see is the reflection of what we have inside and our strong faith enables us to see the beauty of everything.

You are right Caddy in saying you can see the awe-inspiring beauty of nature since there is beauty inside you since you feel the message of the creator of the universe.

[MarkBastable]

I believe in God because He's the only one who never failed me.
I believe in God because when I need Him,I find Him next to me.
I believe in God because when I knock on his door , He always opens his door to me.
I believe in God because when I call Him , He always answers back and listens to me.
I believe in God because I'm so mean to Him , but still He is so kind to me!

If those are reasons to believe in God, you can hardly be surprised when those of us who haven't had those experiences don't. In fact, I'd be interested to know whether you believed in God before you had those experiences, or whether you had them and then came to believe in God.

[caddy_caddy]

I know it's highly subjective Haribol , not the objective reality most of us are looking for ; but why don't we look within not without?


If those are reasons to believe in God, you can hardly be surprised when those of us who haven't had those experiences don't. In fact, I'd be interested to know whether you believed in God before you had those experiences, or whether you had them and then came to believe in God.
Before that I'm taught that there is God but only through my own experiences that I "believed" in God.

[MarkBastable]

Before that I'm taught that there is God but only through my own experiences that I "believed" in God.

Two different uses of 'believe' here.

a) I believe in an afterlife. (I consider such a thing exists)

b) I believe in my wife. (I consider that I can depend on her.)


So, did you believe in God in sense (a) before you had those experiences?

[YesNo]

He exists within me.
You know, outside my house there is a lot of trees full of birds; they keep singing but for years I've never noticed their existence; I've never remember that I heard them once; it's only when I began to love the birds' songs that they exist to me.
That's a very nice way of describing love as being necessary before something can really exist for someone. I hadn't thought of it like that before.

Most of the time we are unaware, except vaguely, of what is around us. Only when we are patient enough to pay attention do we really start seeing. And that patience is a kind of love if I am following what you are saying.

I also agree with your first sentence.

[caddy_caddy]

You cannot depend on something that doesn't exist Mark. It's both meaning .


That's a very nice way of describing love as being necessary before something can really exist for someone. I hadn't thought of it like that before.

Most of the time we are unaware, except vaguely, of what is around us. Only when we are patient enough to pay attention do we really start seeing. And that patience is a kind of love if I am following what you are saying.

I also agree with your first sentence.

What does matter if something exists or not if it has no value to me? To me it makes no difference.
Shall I consider those whom I love and are out of the reach of my senses a non-existent beings and those who are around me but don't have any value to me existent beings? Why is it so?

[Atehequa]

Sometimes I hear people speak of a loving god
Sometime I hear people say they have the fear of god within them
I have to ask myself - Why would anyone have fear of a loving god ?

[caddy_caddy]

We should fear the most those whom we love the most; That's because we are defenseless face of them.

[Atehequa]

We should fear the most those whom we love the most; That's because we are defenseless face of them.

Seems like an unnecessary, uneasy, steepsided path.

[MarkBastable]

You cannot depend on something that doesn't exist Mark.

I'm not asking a question about belief. I'm asking a question about the sequence of events.

Did you believe God existed before you had the experiences you described in your list?

[caddy_caddy]

I answered you in the previous post but u didn't notice it.
At first it was not a belief in God , no . I can't call it a belief. It was an idea of a God, that there is a God but later on I believed in Him.

Are u satisfied?



Seems like an unnecessary, uneasy, steepsided path.

There is an Arabic verse that says : Who fears to climb the high mountains , spends all his life among holes.
__________________

[MarkBastable]

I'm not looking for satisfaction. I'm hoping to understand.

So - you didn't believe in God when you first had these experiences of him. It was the build-up of these experiences that caused you to believe in him.

The first time though, when you didn't entirely believe he existed, and one of those things you listed took place, what happened?

[caddy_caddy]

The first time though, when you didn't entirely believe he existed, what happened?

I was lost and feel that I'm so lonely and weak.When I believed in Him and that he really exists ,when I feel lonely and very weak , there is avoice within me that tells me ,you are not alone there is God ,and if you are weak and lost God could support you .

[MarkBastable]

Fair enough. He's never done that to me. When he does, I'll give it some thought.

[caddy_caddy]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
then allow me to ask u , it's my turn now ; is it because he didn't do such a thing to u that you don't love him ?

[MarkBastable]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
then allow me to ask u , it's my turn now ; is it because he didn't do such a thing to u that you don't love him ?

No - he might do something like that and I might still not love him. But I might at least believe in him. As it is, I have no experience of him so there's nothing to think about, any more than I think about, for instance, cold fire or time travel.

[caddy_caddy]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so whatever he does you won't love him , ok . But tell me if a female tells you I love you Mark , how could you prove that she really loves you and to believe her and /in her if you refuse to have any experience with her? Isn't experience the essential form of any knowledge?

[MarkBastable]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so whatever he does you won't love him , ok . But tell me if a female tells you I love you Mark , how could you prove that she really loves you and to believe her and /in her if you refuse to have any experience with her? Isn't experience the essential form of any knowledge?

The question is not whether I love him, but whether I believe he exists. When he does something for me as personal as what he's done for you, then I'll think about how I feel about him.

So yeah - I agree with you that experience is important. When God and I share one, I guess we'll start paying attention to each other.

[caddy_caddy]

I swear I'm really depressed these days but u made me laugh from the bottom of my heart . Thx Mark.

And why u won't him to do sth for you if you don't love Him . don't believe in him , and don't trust Him?

[MarkBastable]

And why u won't him to do sth for you if you don't love Him . don't believe in him , and don't trust Him?


For a start, it's not the case that I don't love him or do love him or do trust him or don't trust him. As I don't believe he exists, none of those things are possible.


But more importantly, I don't want him to "do something" for me. All I'm saying is that apparently he's done something for you, and if he did that for me, I'd have to revise my beliefs. If, on the other hand, he doesn't want to - that's okay. I'm fine and he's fine and I'm sure he'll get on fine without me.

[caddy_caddy]

Why are u interested in my experience then ?

[MarkBastable]

Two reasons.

Firstly, because I'm interested in how it stacks up as an argument, intellectually.

Second, because if you're right, God's playing favourites, which I don't think is fair of him.

[lieasleep]

The first time though, when you didn't entirely believe he existed, what happened?

I was lost and feel that I'm so lonely and weak.When I believed in Him and that he really exists ,when I feel lonely and very weak , there is avoice within me that tells me ,you are not alone there is God ,and if you are weak and lost God could support you .

I accept my human condition as lonely and weak and, most of all, small. You felt lonely and weak without god because you are lonely and weak. It is only once we accept the conditions of our lives that we can transcend them in some way. Denial of these conditions on the back of something that does not exist is a denial and rejection of all that does exist and, thus, the only non-relative truth that we could ever know.

[Atehequa]

There is an Arabic verse that says : Who fears to climb the high mountains , spends all his life among holes.
__________________


Thus for the Arabs.
It is we of the mountains who sometimes fear coming down, especially at a long drop.


Once I heard - all good paths lead to better places

[G L Wilson]

True faith is a strength, strong reason is a weakness.

[BienvenuJDC]

True faith is a strength, strong reason is a weakness.

True faith AND strong reason can reside within the same.

[lieasleep]

True faith is a strength, strong reason is a weakness.

By what standards?

[G L Wilson]

True faith AND strong reason can reside within the same.

"The faith that stands on authority is not faith."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

[G L Wilson]

By what standards?

By the highest.

[caddy_caddy]

Two reasons.

Firstly, because I'm interested in how it stacks up as an argument, intellectually.

Second, because if you're right, God's playing favorites, which I don't think is fair of him.
I call him when I need Him. I love Him, trust Him, and believe in Him . You don't try, you don't want even to try , and you say he 's playing favorites!

If love, trust, and belief does not matter to you, it does matter to Him.

[BienvenuJDC]

"The faith that stands on authority is not faith."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Just because Ralph Waldo Emerson said it, it doesn't make it so. I don't agree with him.

[caddy_caddy]

I accept my human condition as lonely and weak and, most of all, small. You felt lonely and weak without god because you are lonely and weak. It is only once we accept the conditions of our lives that we can transcend them in some way. Denial of these conditions on the back of something that does not exist is a denial and rejection of all that does exist and, thus, the only non-relative truth that we could ever know.

Allow me to differ with you. If people would think in this way and accept their human condition they won't be able to make revolutions and change their condition.We should rebel over this condition not to surrender to it. I allowed others to step over me and destroy me once because I used to believe in what you've said. But then I discovered I was wrong. We are not weak and alone; with the help of God you would discover that there is in every one of us a hero, but it needs only to be awakened. My life was a series of battles on every field; everyone was against me and I was completely alone but I was willing to go till the end in my endeavor because I used to think of God and that although I have no one to support me , I have God and that's enough. I did win by the end. I'm not the same person who was years ago. I was able to change my condition not by accepting it but by revolting against it. This in not a denial of what that does exist on the back of what does not exist. The person who I'm now did not exist years ago even in my imagination, even as a possibility; but now it exists.

[G L Wilson]

Allow me to differ with you. If people would think in this way and accept their human condition they won't be able to make revolutions and change their condition.We should rebel over this condition not to surrender to it. I allowed others to step over me and destroy me once because I used to believe in what you've said. But then I discovered I was wrong. We are not weak and alone; with the help of God you would discover that there is in every one of us a hero, but it needs only to be awakened. My life was a series of battles on every field; everyone was against me and I was completely alone but I was willing to go till the end in my endeavor because I used to think of God and that although I have no one to support me , I have God and that's enough. I did win by the end. I'm not the same person who was years ago. I was able to change my condition not by accepting it but by revolting against it. This in not a denial of what that does exist on the back of what does not exist. The person who I'm now did not exist years ago even in my imagination, even as a possibility; but now it exists.

Very well said.

[lieasleep]

Allow me to differ with you. If people would think in this way and accept their human condition they won't be able to make revolutions and change their condition.We should rebel over this condition not to surrender to it. I allowed others to step over me and destroy me once because I used to believe in what you've said. But then I discovered I was wrong. We are not weak and alone; with the help of God you would discover that there is in every one of us a hero, but it needs only to be awakened. My life was a series of battles on every field; everyone was against me and I was completely alone but I was willing to go till the end in my endeavor because I used to think of God and that although I have no one to support me , I have God and that's enough. I did win by the end. I'm not the same person who was years ago. I was able to change my condition not by accepting it but by revolting against it. This in not a denial of what that does exist on the back of what does not exist. The person who I'm now did not exist years ago even in my imagination, even as a possibility; but now it exists.

You completely misunderstood me. What you are talking about is yourself within the context of a society. I am talking about myself in the context of the universe. You revolted against your circumstances but not your condition.

The only revolt against our condition is acceptance of it. The only transcendence lies in the acceptance that we can not transcend. I am talking about condition in its basest form, the physical.

I am glad that you found happiness, but it was not God that brought you it, it was your action towards happiness. This action may have been based on a belief in God but no one needs God to want and make actions toward a happier life. I commend you for your actions, not god.

[G L Wilson]

Revolt is resistance. lieasleep, you are closer to God than you think.

caddy_caddy, the soul at peace is God's.

[blithe spirit]

I would rather believe in faith than believe in doubt.

[G L Wilson]

I would rather believe in faith than believe in doubt.

I would rather cross the road like the chicken but I don't.

[blithe spirit]

I would rather believe in faith than believe in doubt.

I would rather cross the road like the chicken but I don't.
It takes courage to take that step of faith.

[G L Wilson]

It takes courage to take that step of faith.

It takes courage to step in the other direction as well.

[lieasleep]

It takes courage to take that step of faith.

it is fear to turn away from truth. faith, by its definition, is devoid of truth

[G L Wilson]

it is fear to turn away from truth. faith, by its definition, is devoid of truth

1) What is truth? and
2) What is known?

[BienvenuJDC]

it is fear to turn away from truth. faith, by its definition, is devoid of truth

Where did you get that definition?

It seems that some just want to belittle a faith in God, but they wholeheartedly accept a faith in one man's conclusions of another's observations.

[lieasleep]

Where did you get that definition?

It seems that some just want to belittle a faith in God, but they wholeheartedly accept a faith in one man's conclusions of another's observations.

I am not trying to belittle anything, I am trying to look at it within the dimensions of truth. Is God a truth? No. It is a speculation. Most things that we consider as truths are really only speculations, rife with relativity and taken only upon faith. Consider love, language, honor, cowardice, morality, ethics, spirituality, empathy, emotion. These things are taken to be universal but do not actually exist. Does that make them untrue? No, they still live within the physical through the mechanism of thought and our interpretations of such mechanics. Their being thought can, obviously, not be denied but our faith in those interpretations, our insistence that such interpretations bear truth is like being handed a picture of the loch ness monster by a man saying "Can't you see?!" and screaming in reply "Proof!" without second thought that you are simply holding a picture. The picture has truth. You can say "I am holding a picture" because you are, but you can't say "I am looking at the loch ness monster," because you are not. Similarly, one can more truthfully say "I am having thoughts that God exists," than "God exists." They are descriptions of the exact process only the former is moving towards truth (not there yet, the speaker could be lying which means the only real truth that he could say is "I am speaking" but this is a silly point which should be disregarded) and the latter is moving towards faith. And yet, faith is not belittled. It is made equal.

[G L Wilson]

I am not trying to belittle anything, I am trying to look at it within the dimensions of truth. Is God a truth? No. It is a speculation. Most things that we consider as truths are really only speculations, rife with relativity and taken only upon faith. Consider love, language, honor, cowardice, morality, ethics, spirituality, empathy, emotion. These things are taken to be universal but do not actually exist. Does that make them untrue? No, they still live within the physical through the mechanism of thought and our interpretations of such mechanics. Their being thought can, obviously, not be denied but our faith in those interpretations, our insistence that such interpretations bear truth is like being handed a picture of the loch ness monster by a man saying "Can't you see?!" and screaming in reply "Proof!" without second thought that you are simply holding a picture. The picture has truth. You can say "I am holding a picture" because you are, but you can't say "I am looking at the loch ness monster," because you are not. Similarly, one can more truthfully say "I am having thoughts that God exists," than "God exists." They are descriptions of the exact process only the former is moving towards truth (not there yet, the speaker could be lying which means the only real truth that he could say is "I am speaking" but this is a silly point which should be disregarded) and the latter is moving towards faith. And yet, faith is not belittled. It is made equal.

In a way, the search for truth is more important than the discovery of truth. We must imagine Sisyphus happy as Camus said.

[lieasleep]

In a way, the search for truth is more important than the discovery of truth. We must imagine Sisyphus happy as Camus said.

GL are you a bot? I will be pissed if you are because you do say some descent stuff.

[G L Wilson]

GL are you a bot? I will be pissed if you are because you do say some descent stuff.

I am human, lieasleep, as are you.

[Rores28]

G L.... I don't know what to think of you. If you are a bot than congrats to your programmers. If not I find you weird and pithy. :)

[G L Wilson]

Rores28, I don't mind being weird and pithy.

[lieasleep]

Rores28, I don't mind being weird and pithy.

I know that this is getting away entirely from the point of this thread (maybe not) but I have been thinking of asking you, G L, to prove your humanity but I have realized that I no longer care whether or not you are a human or a bot or maybe some mix of the two, you say some good stuff so bot or not, I accept you.

[G L Wilson]

Thank you, lieasleep. Now I have lost the thread of our argument, where were we? Yes, must we imagine Sisyphus happy?

[lieasleep]

Thank you, lieasleep. Now I have lost the thread of our argument, where were we? Yes, must we imagine Sisyphus happy?

haha I think that we are getting somewhat off topic but I don't care and think Camus had some very pointed intentions when writing those words (and to put it in the context of this thread, we are discussing the possibility of happiness when considering the universe without god and without meaning). I think Camus was showing us how happiness is possible through acceptance of life's base condition. But, as much as I buy that, I think true acceptance of the universe (including life) on its base terms (which again, is being used within this lexicon as a description of godlessness, nihilism, and acceptance of our lack of freedom), "refusing to hope," as Camus put it, nearly requires sadness as well.

I read a book called They Shoot Horses, Don't They? by Horace McCoy (a book that led many French to call him the true founder of existentialism) and, to not rant on for too long, basically asserted a character's unhappiness in the face of a crushingly realistic disillusionment (like those that we are talking about) against the backdrop of the Great Depression. The character chooses death. I think the conditions of our life (all of the things we can't change about living but are desperately trying to) are crushing and to not treat them, even while remaining happy, as crushing (obviously not to the extent of suicide) takes some hope. So yes, is the answer to your question, but not completely happy.

[G L Wilson]

Martin Luther King Jnr said that he had been to the mountain top and had seen the promised land. I think that I will push my rock in his direction if you don't mind, lieasleep.

[lieasleep]

Martin Luther King Jnr said that he had been to the mountain top and had seen the promised land. I think that I will push my rock in his direction if you don't mind, lieasleep.

Of course you will, that is the point. :yesnod:

And as I am thinking about it, so does everyone else (who doesn't, yet die). Gods, meanings, universalities are all attempts at this happiness only with a much larger amount of faith than yours, G L. But is it still not an attempt at happiness while being crushed? (I do not mean to give it a negative spin, I am treating it as if it just was, trying to expose it perhaps, but not-- at least intentionally--as negative)

[G L Wilson]

My lot is a poor one, lieasleep, but I still have hope that one day man will achieve paradise.

[silvermist]

Originally stated in OP:
As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my late twenties, I also looked at nature and told myself that there had to have been a God to create such a perfect world. I wasn't sure if He was still around until later.

A few years after this, I experienced a heartache that left me devastated. Even in my despair, the love I felt for the person who caused this allowed me to forgive. When I did that, a new understanding of myself came to light and I was filled with a positive energy that I knew was totally different from anything I had felt before.

At the time, I didn't connect it with God, but a couple of years after that when I found myself in the same situation again, (a sinful relationship that I shouldn't have been in) I read a book that told of Jesus and who He is and why He is the acceptable sacrifice for sin and that if I believed in Him, I would be redeemed and reconciled to God.

In other words, no matter what I had done God wasn't mad at me anymore. I chose to believe it and that same positive energy returned only this time I knew who it was coming from. I also could see that I had put myself in harm's way. It wasn't only the other person involved who was at fault.

It was a tremendous experience with much insight gained and guilt lifted. There was a new-found freedom that I was so grateful for. I will never forget it.

[usman.khawar]

let me tell a little bit(here little bit coz he did a tremendous job and answer every question of the this modern era of science) from my teacher sayings and you will also come to know about the reason of my beleiving in God.

Everyone has different opinion, but what is worst of all is intellect itself as Sheikh Ibn-e-Arabi had said ¡ “Knowledge is the greatest veil” similarly the intellect of any intellectual is the main problem; this is a big dilemma, more psychological and scientific attitudes. When I perceive my approach is right and get the results out of my hard work, worldly and universal problems are being solved according to my deliberations. Meanwhile someone ask me to accept religion, whereas there is no empirical evidence/data for me to accept God. Same case is being faced by every scientist when he accepts God or tried to accept God. As they (scientists) had researched to solve scientific problems, similarly I have researched on the concept of God.
I still remember when a western professor enquired me, how I found God? I told him that I did nothing extraordinary I just tried like a common student who had an urge to discover truth and mostly I wished to get rid from God and main cause of this fear was due to the image of God in my mind of a cruel person who will beat me if did any wrong. These images are instilled in our minds from generations. To overcome this fear I decided to search Him if he exist then its all right if not then I will be free.
I searched on the concept of God for eight years. I did not start my research on lower level. I had in my mind objections of world’s greatest intellectuals, philosophers and atheist so I started my research on their standards. I have observed a common weakness in all the scientists that when they talk about God (mostly in the cosmologist). As everyone knew Alexander Fleming, who had to examine a culture plate for twelve years, after twelve years he suddenly discovered penicillin. Mostly things are discovered like this. Suddenness is very important but behind this suddenness great efforts are involved. After so much hard work when scientists discover something they give such comment .Excellent¡¦.! Very good¡¦! Exceptional hard work! This is a meticulous work! Dedicated, great people work with. But when they talk about God they talk like quacks. And it would be unjust to give opinion about it without reading it on its own level, as Lord Russell did and said about Quran,
“All gospel truths is alike”
But all gospel truths is not alike, Quran is not like Bible. It is entirely a different book of which if any information is proved wrong then Allah becomes also wrong. There is a major difference between Quran and other gospels. Man remains a man despite of doing hundred of mistakes but Allah is not Allah if he does a single mistake. And Allah has declared Quran as his data on earth.
They did not even study the whole Quran, neither Hadith (explaining documentary of quran, the life of Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H) nor Islamic History. They talk in a funniest way whether he is Altaf bhai or Hoodbhoy.
.it is the same case if I would be delivering lecture on atomic physics instead of thesis of Islam and hall is full of scientist who are waiting earnestly for my departure. You cannot even imagine how stupid these people look when they talk about God. I would rather suggest them to stop giving their opinion in these matters. I experienced a practical incident when I said with reference to Quran that God has set the mountains up as kingpins to keep the earth in balance The head of physics department of Quaid-e-Azam University wrote me a letter asking My dear professor If you came at university I will teach you about that, you should not talk on these realities. We have not such evidence. This is not right I replied him only that sorry professor, you are not a professor of Geology, You are a professor of Physics, do not involve yourself into other people job The professor of physics is criticizing me on giving geological statements. Obviously I have not studied it because I have not to become a scientist but the knowledge I get from God or Quran can never be denied, either it is proved through sciences or arts. God gives a statement in the Quran, just tell me from where I get its proof .it was a queer statement that a bird .hoopoe. came to king Solomon (A.S) and said O. Grand king I have founded a strange and splendid state where a woman ruled and they worshipped the Sun. ladies and gentlemen! Who was hoopoe? I don’t know! there are many who even denied this bird and say how birds could talk to Prophets and vice versa. One person said that king Solomon (A.S) had not addressed to the ants, he should wait a little before giving a final statement as he said ants can not hear, it was true since three years back, now modern research has proved that ants are able to hear, speech and give signals at 1 mega hertz. They ask for evidence which is known by every one now but it is not still known which quality in Prophet make him able to hear their voices, obviously he was an extraordinary man. When I studied this incident I was worried to get its evidence. Ladies and gentlemen! You will surely get the evidences from the archaeological findings of Sebains civilization where it was ruined. Do you know archaeologists have founded some places in Sebains civilization where people worshipped .Apollo. the Sun. The very first pillar founded by them was of Apollo. Now sayings of God don’t surprise me any more but what surprised me is the fact that what Quran says in the first place of these people that they worshipped Sun is being discovered by the archaeologist too. So ladies and gentlemen! It is necessary to take help from everywhere. My respected teacher Ali Usman Hajveri had said, If you want to know God then get every kind of knowledge which is required for explaining Quran. And now a day it is not possible to be skilled in every kind of knowledge. But you can achieve that intellectual level where one can understand the ultimate results. Once you get a level of maturity then naturally anything can be understood. As it is not necessary to learn whole mathematics but there are chances that you would be able to understand the end results. It is not known how many years Newton took in the discovery of laws of motion but now they are even understood by children easily. So research is a different thing and the result of that research becomes a simple one, means scientist does not work as hard on religion as we do. But I am still not satisfied with the work done on Quran. Sorry to say! Let me give you an example from Qura.n where God says: Mankind was one community (Al-Baqra 213)
I was looking for its evidence so I had to go back to the history where I found only idolatry and before idolatry there exist mythologies so I studied hard all the mythologies of the world. I was in a mood to find some mistake done by God to deny Him so I tried very hard and studied all the mythologies and when came to Greek mythology I noticed one thing that mostly you never read it from the beginning and remained stuck to only contemporaneous mythology. It tells us that there were several gods of Olympia .Zeus, Afrodite, Hephaestus were few of them but if we go back to history of Olympians, its very strange to know that all the gods of Olympians were born out of one god named Coronus who used to devour all his offspring when they were born, so his son Zeus was fled with his siblings to an island Crete. In the beginning they worshipped one God but they could not bear the oneness for long. They had to shift their place to build other temple at some other place and this gave rise to Idol ship. If we look at Indian history there are several idols and their respective generations. Whereas the origin of Indian mythology starts from Aryans. When they entered India they believed on one god .Indra.. He had two distinct qualities being .God of thunder. and .God of swarg. means .Zuljalal-Wal-Ikram. who is able to give reward and punishment. When he entered in India they wed locked him with two goddesses .Mitra. and .Warona. which built trinity and there was no more oneness of God. The oneness of God came to surface again with another God Brahma. In the same time period came Vishnou and Shiva and another trinity came in to being. When the son of Mano asked his father to describe omnipotence of God, he replied:There is only one God who has got two qualities of being destroyer and constructive. Ladies and gentlemen! You cannot imagine how much hard work is required for the interpretation of Quran, I want to clear that some data of quran has been discovered by sciences from Quran, and there are possibilities of some improvement as Quran says:
“We made every living thing of water” (Al-Anbiya 30)
And biology has further confirmed that all life is created by water. Now it has become a law.
There are many Quranic laws which are not confirmed yet by sciences or they are in mid way in the form of hypothesis. There is no need to be feared, with the advancement of sciences nature will confirm it and I swear by God if there would be anything proved against Quranic data, I will be the first man to leave God. He has given me the liberty to refuse or believe unless I understand it fully. I have searched God and now from thirty years I am with him. First of all you need some logic to believe and then come closeness with God. If you are willing to be closed to God then sciences are not enough. You will have to get knowledge of everything. Let me tell you about a science which has not yet been discovered by sciences and I learn it from Quran. It is science of feelings and sentiments; it is a pity that sciences labeled feelings as unscientific. As time will pass you will come to know its actions, reactions and reciprocal reactions. After ten years you will learn that every feeling is a science, all the syndromes are science. But it will take time Keep learning and be Patient.

Laidback person! this is the main fault that we try to see God from our angle only. too limited mind which is not able to capture or imagine the time n space only besides all the creations. than with this mind how can we come to see or imagine God?
about God and moralities its only religions(prophets) which told us something.

if u have read above the main external scienticfic argument is "Man remains a man despite of doing hundred of mistakes but Allah is not Allah if he does a single mistake. And Allah has declared Quran as his data on earth. "

i have many scientific inventions same as mentioned in quran 1400 years before, "everything is moving in its orbits for a specific time" " We are expanding the universe" do u beleive that these are quran's statements and now sceinces are proving it!! ?

Quote : Quran is the book of creations while science is the book of research.

O' Allah give us the knoweldge of reality of the things and give us the straight path towards you. Amen

"With power We constructed the universes(skies, heaven) Verily, We are extanding the vastness of space thereof." 51, 46 Quran

To beleive in God and to beleive that quran is the data of God on earth, this only verse is enough. In quran God says that previous books are corrupted with human mixing. But for His last book He said that He will protect it word to word.
We all know in previous centuries , earth was considered to be static. after sometime scietist said that sun is static and earth is revolving around sun. but now latest and final theories says that every thing is moving and this universe is expanding. i wrote this science's statement final as it reaches the statement of God. there are many others verses which tells most scientific inventions. In islam 1400 hundred years back there is clue of cloning as well in Hadith books which was possible only in Dajjal era" the single eyed".

Quranic language is arabic which is very wide and have a variety of words. when it is translated in other languages , it was not possible to translate exactly the same. unfortunately translators when couldnt understand any word ( which is for future time) they translated it by their own mind. only few of them translated same as it was given. like for above verse Quran uses "mosi on" which mean expand. but earlier translator due to their lower level of faith was afraid to do exact translate. some of them did like power, some wrote it that God expand the food. one of the biggest misunderstanding that islam is known and recogonize by the muslims actions. if some one want to understand islam He/she should read only quran and sunnah( hadith which is life of Muhammad peace be upon Him, my teacher says its the expaining documentary of quran).

[laidbackperson]

Originally stated in OP:
As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my late twenties, I also looked at nature and told myself that there had to have been a God to create such a perfect world. I wasn't sure if He was still around until later.

A few years after this, I experienced a heartache that left me devastated. Even in my despair, the love I felt for the person who caused this allowed me to forgive. When I did that, a new understanding of myself came to light and I was filled with a positive energy that I knew was totally different from anything I had felt before.

At the time, I didn't connect it with God, but a couple of years after that when I found myself in the same situation again, (a sinful relationship that I shouldn't have been in) I read a book that told of Jesus and who He is and why He is the acceptable sacrifice for sin and that if I believed in Him, I would be redeemed and reconciled to God.

In other words, no matter what I had done God wasn't mad at me anymore. I chose to believe it and that same positive energy returned only this time I knew who it was coming from. I also could see that I had put myself in harm's way. It wasn't only the other person involved who was at fault.

It was a tremendous experience with much insight gained and guilt lifted. There was a new-found freedom that I was so grateful for. I will never forget it.
I liked your post and can understand your reason for believing in God.

You quoted partially from one of my earlier post to which I have added the later lines, so that the idea looks more complete:

"As for my believing in God, I said I believe in God primarily because I find nature so beautifully planned that I think a God has to be involved somewhere. Sitting outside in a harsh sunlight troubled by world and personal affairs, the faith about a benevolent God is shaken at times. But I tell myself I can not comprehend the ways of God and if I take everything as a will of God and just do the work as I can do best, that is probably the right way of living."



Laidback person! this is the main fault that we try to see God from our angle only. too limited mind which is not able to capture or imagine the time n space only besides all the creations. than with this mind how can we come to see or imagine God?
about God and moralities its only religions(prophets) which told us something.


I agree fully with you here.
Yours is an interesting post and it seems you have worked hard in your endeavor towards validating concept of God.
Although I am from science background and respect its logic, I too believe that God is beyond all scientific logic and theories about material world and beyond the grasp of hardcore scientists.



if u have read above the main external scienticfic argument is "Man remains a man despite of doing hundred of mistakes but Allah is not Allah if he does a single mistake. And Allah has declared Quran as his data on earth. "


I am ready to agree to this also. But I believe that there has to be only one God for entire mankind, for entire universe.
We all, being His children I just can not imagine a benevolent God to forsake his other children who are not Muslims.
Also what about all those people who were born and died before the birth of Prophet Muhammad.
I just like to take God to be beyond all religions of the world.

[usman.khawar]

But I believe that there has to be only one God for entire mankind, for entire universe.
We all, being His children I just can not imagine a benevolent God to forsake his other children who are not Muslims.
Also what about all those people who were born and died before the birth of Prophet Muhammad.
I just like to take God to be beyond all religions of the world.

you are absolutely right to beleive that there is only one God for entire mankind and for entire universe. and also for all 7 universes. as it is also mentioned in quran that there is 7 earths He created so that human come to know that God is so great and powerful. He doesnt get tired. Nor sleep. dizziness is away from Him. His knowledge is surrounding n capturing each n everything.

i beleive we all are the creations of God not children. He is one and only. nothing which we can even imagine is like Him, we cant give example of anything present in the universes. coz Creator is bigger than the creations.

the breif expalanation about your concern "Also what about all those people who were born and died before the birth of Prophet Muhammad."

i have mentioned in the thread " enemy within". i like you to read and comments over there as i observe your way of thinking is apreciatable.

i also like to request other respected members to read once and comments in above mentioned thread as there are answers of so many questions i have read in religious text of so many people. people are always ready to accept truth but with argument first. by this way i'll get the chance to improve my knowledge as well. i read so many thread and i felt lucky that here in this network there are so many good mind gather under a same umbrella. i also congrats to admin for making such a good plateform for literary minds. in the end i again yes request to read my threads with critical mind and raise questions. Also i like to see point of views of ur guys about mystic (saint). kindly comments about mystic in my other thread names Mystic : a Truth, a reality , a path
Thank you very much

[libernaut]

Because I cannot prove the existence of God, and I cannot disprove the existence of God.

Though I have seen much to make me believe there might very well be a God, I couldn't prove it. And though I have seen much that would leave me to believe there isn't a God, I couldn't prove that either. There for Agnosticism seems to make sense.

:beatdeadhorse5:

[G L Wilson]

Because I cannot prove the existence of God, and I cannot disprove the existence of God.

Though I have seen much to make me believe there might very well be a God, I couldn't prove it. And though I have seen much that would leave me to believe there isn't a God, I couldn't prove that either. There for Agnosticism seems to make sense.

:beatdeadhorse5:

One thing is certain, libernaut, God is a dead un because he hasn't won any races lately and isn't likely to.

[libernaut]

Nietzsche tried to save that horse yaknow... tragic

[G L Wilson]

Nietzsche tried to save that horse yaknow... tragic

He did because he was a man and nothing more. And it was his last act as a man.

[usman.khawar]

where is laidback person? its nice to talk with him.

[G L Wilson]

where is laidback person? its nice to talk with him.

He is long gone to rest.

[YesNo]

I finished reading William Lane Craig's and Quentin Smith's Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology where Craig took the theist side and Smith the atheist side in a debate on whether the Big Bang could be used as evidence for the existence of a God.

I think Craig won the debate, but you'll have to read it for yourself.

What Craig shows, as I see it, is that the empirical evidence from science for the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, etc) 13+ billion years ago is empirical evidence for the existence of something else, outside the universe, that made a choice and that is why the universe is here today. You can call that something else God.

So my answer to the original question in this post is that no one really needs to believe in a God on a basic level. God's basic existence is made necessary by the empirical results of modern science. Belief is more appropriately applied to the various accounts of how God relates to us that individual religions provide.

[G L Wilson]

I finished reading William Lane Craig's and Quentin Smith's Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology where Craig took the theist side and Smith the atheist side in a debate on whether the Big Bang could be used as evidence for the existence of a God.

I think Craig won the debate, but you'll have to read it for yourself.

What Craig shows, as I see it, is that the empirical evidence from science for the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, etc) 13+ billion years ago is empirical evidence for the existence of something else, outside the universe, that made a choice and that is why the universe is here today. You can call that something else God.

So my answer to the original question in this post is that no one really needs to believe in a God on a basic level. God's basic existence is made necessary by the empirical results of modern science. Belief is more appropriately applied to the various accounts of how God relates to us that individual religions provide.

A choice made outside reality? Nope, I can't think of anything.

[Darcy88]

I finished reading William Lane Craig's and Quentin Smith's Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology where Craig took the theist side and Smith the atheist side in a debate on whether the Big Bang could be used as evidence for the existence of a God.

I think Craig won the debate, but you'll have to read it for yourself.

What Craig shows, as I see it, is that the empirical evidence from science for the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, etc) 13+ billion years ago is empirical evidence for the existence of something else, outside the universe, that made a choice and that is why the universe is here today. You can call that something else God.

So my answer to the original question in this post is that no one really needs to believe in a God on a basic level. God's basic existence is made necessary by the empirical results of modern science. Belief is more appropriately applied to the various accounts of how God relates to us that individual religions provide.

I've heard Craig's arguments. I would grant Stephen Hawking's opinion a tad more weight when he states in his most recent book that God is not needed in order to explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps him and Craig should have a debate on cosmology.

Its hard to take Craig seriously when he asserts Christ's resurrection as objective historical fact and then uses that for one of his 5 main arguments for God's existence. I'm referring to his debate with Hitchens.

And in that debate he makes this grand leap from the universe being created to it being created by a personal God. He said it could only have been created from beyond time and space and that the only thing from beyond time and space which could have done it is a mind. Mind is beyond time and space now?

Most of his arguments rely on science and yet he is not a scientist. The world's most renowned cosmologist disagrees with him and yet he does not humbly defer. Something wrong there.

[G L Wilson]

I've heard Craig's arguments. I would grant Stephen Hawking's opinion a tad more weight when he states in his most recent book that God is not needed in order to explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps him and Craig should have a debate on cosmology.

Its hard to take Craig seriously when he asserts Christ's resurrection as objective historical fact and then uses that for one of his 5 main arguments for God's existence. I'm referring to his debate with Hitchens.

And in that debate he makes this grand leap from the universe being created to it being created by a personal God. He said it could only have been created from beyond time and space and that the only thing from beyond time and space which could have done it is a mind. Mind is beyond time and space now?

Most of his arguments rely on science and yet he is not a scientist. The world's most renowned cosmologist disagrees with him and yet he does not humbly defer. Something wrong there.

By the sounds of it, Craig is perhaps having an argument with himself more to the point.

[BienvenuJDC]

Seems to me that there are some folks that need to start a "Why I don't believe in God" thread.

[G L Wilson]

Seems to me that there are some folks that need to start a "Why I don't believe in God" thread.

Perhaps some folks should have more faith in their fellow man.

[YesNo]

I've heard Craig's arguments. I would grant Stephen Hawking's opinion a tad more weight when he states in his most recent book that God is not needed in order to explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps him and Craig should have a debate on cosmology.

Its hard to take Craig seriously when he asserts Christ's resurrection as objective historical fact and then uses that for one of his 5 main arguments for God's existence. I'm referring to his debate with Hitchens.

And in that debate he makes this grand leap from the universe being created to it being created by a personal God. He said it could only have been created from beyond time and space and that the only thing from beyond time and space which could have done it is a mind. Mind is beyond time and space now?

Most of his arguments rely on science and yet he is not a scientist. The world's most renowned cosmologist disagrees with him and yet he does not humbly defer. Something wrong there.
Within the debate with Smith, Christianity does not arise. The results don't need it. All they need is that the universe had a beginning. And the results only show that something made a choice. That a choice was made is what makes it personal for Craig. As far as I'm concerned, I just need the idea of choice.

Although this was not directly discussed in the debate, I have no problem seeing consciousness as something generally beyond time and space. It would actually help explain near-death and shared-death experiences. If by mind you mean the brain, that would certainly be within space, but the brain is not consciousness.

It doesn't matter that Craig is not a scientist. When Hawking makes pronouncements on God's existence or not he is not acting as a scientist but as a metaphysician, which is more in Craig's field than his own. It is Hawking who should humbly defer. Hawking does come up in the debate. Smith tries to base his atheism on various pronouncements Hawking has made. I think Smith failed to make his point.

I don't have any religious affiliation that I am trying to justify with this, although I find a watered down, generic Hinduism attractive.

[Darcy88]

Within the debate with Smith, Christianity does not arise. The results don't need it. All they need is that the universe had a beginning. And the results only show that something made a choice. That a choice was made is what makes it personal for Craig. As far as I'm concerned, I just need the idea of choice.

Although this was not directly discussed in the debate, I have no problem seeing consciousness as something generally beyond time and space. It would actually help explain near-death and shared-death experiences. If by mind you mean the brain, that would certainly be within space, but the brain is not consciousness.

It doesn't matter that Craig is not a scientist. When Hawking makes pronouncements on God's existence or not he is not acting as a scientist but as a metaphysician, which is more in Craig's field than his own. It is Hawking who should humbly defer. Hawking does come up in the debate. Smith tries to base his atheism on various pronouncements Hawking has made. I think Smith failed to make his point.

I don't have any religious affiliation that I am trying to justify with this, although I find a watered down, generic Hinduism attractive.

Hawking says in his book that the coming into being of the universe was an inevitability due to the working of physical laws.

I just don't like Craig. C.S. Lewis's apologetic works came off as much more persuasive to me. Craig acts like he has water-tight, bullet-proof, absolutely irrefutable arguments for God's existence. He's cocky about it and then frankly disingenuous when he claims that science supports his views when it quite simply does not. In the two hour of the debate I watched he acted more like a scientist than a philosopher, throwing around facts and figures and conclusions like he was a cosmologist and biologist rather than a theologian and philosopher.

He is lucid though. And one heck of a speaker/debater. It could be said that he "beat" Hitchens.

[Darcy88]

one point Hitchens made in the debate is that, as far as we've come scientifically, we still do not know everything. In that mystery there is room for faith, if one is so inclined.

[G L Wilson]

The only room for faith is in a dunny to flush it when needs be.

[Darcy88]

If there's a God then he is a bowler of ill aim: He let loose the ball and Kerplunk! - straight into the gutter.

Foundation for a new deism?

[Darcy88]

That sounded much cleverer in my head.

[billl]

Hawking says in his book that the coming into being of the universe was an inevitability due to the working of physical laws.

I just don't like Craig. C.S. Lewis's apologetic works came off as much more persuasive to me. Craig acts like he has water-tight, bullet-proof, absolutely irrefutable arguments for God's existence. He's cocky about it and then frankly disingenuous when he claims that science supports his views when it quite simply does not. In the two hour of the debate I watched he acted more like a scientist than a philosopher, throwing around facts and figures and conclusions like he was a cosmologist and biologist rather than a theologian and philosopher.

He is lucid though. And one heck of a speaker/debater. It could be said that he "beat" Hitchens.

I watched only the beginning of Craig's introductory comments to the Craig v. Hitchens thing on youtube (the top result of a search for that). My internet connection was acting up that night and it was already late, and so I didn't go any further. Still, after the hype about Craig, I had decided was anxious to get a dose of the debate, and ended up with just the slightest sample. It's certainly my cup of tea, though, and I'll be checking the whole thing out sometime.

Craig poo-poos infinity
I have to say though, that Craig opened the debate rather weakly. He began with some unconvincing verdicts on what "infinity" and infinite time would mean to cosmology, implying it would lead to contradictions (and so there must be a creation). His arguments amount to "Hey, what is infinity minus infinity" and an appeal to conclusions reached by the famous mathematician David Hilbert, whose work is regarded as very important, but is not without criticism/rejection (even by his closest proteges). But it's enough for Craig (and I don't blame him for that), and it's handed to the audience along with assurances that (rather than being a preacher waving a Bible), he is a "professional philosopher".

The Multiverse, maybe?
Next, he (wisely) mentions the Multi-Verse theories about the origins of our universe. He is interested in pointing to the Anthropic Principle as evidence strongly suggesting a creation and creator, or at least some sort of design/plan behind existence. Looking at certain aspects of our universe, it seems "fortunate" that certain constants and laws came together so precisely--the slightest changes here or there would've made the formation of life impossible. The Multi-Verse is a popular theory among professional cosmolgists these days, and it makes the Anthropic view irrelevant. According to Multi-verse theories, conditions for life occured in our universe, as unlikely as it might seem, because it is just one of many other universes in which unfavorable conditions much more typically occur, and it's all just a matter of chance.

Craig gathers an ally
Craig attacks this notion. Rather, he latches on to some work by Roger Penrose that casts doubt on the Multiverse theory, and deploys it himself (while giving credit, of course), stating that the Multi-verse settling on the fine-tuned version of reality that we are familiar with is a lot less likely than the prospect of encountering many crazy things in this particular portion of the multi-verse. Basically, the idea that a table might suddenly appear out of nowhere is more likely than the Multiverse idea itself producing our reality, and so why aren't we seeing chairs pop up out of nowhere, or other crazy things. I might be mis-stating Penrose's position, but I'm probably as close as Craig gets, anyhow.

Multiverse proponents have their own objections to this sort of argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Occam.27s_Razor), if I might be so bold as to reduce Penrose's idea to the Occam's Razor objection.

Roger Penrose and cosmology
But perhaps more importantly, Roger Penrose is an atheist. (Maybe Hitchens points this out... Jeez, I might really regret posting without having watched the whole thing yet...) And, while Craig is of course free to choose what to do with whichever portion of Penrose's work he chooses, I am inclined to believe that it is at least as important to hear Penrose out on these matters, and what he thinks his work might likely imply.

Penrose believes that the universe is indeed infinite in time, with no beginning, nor an end. It isn't an ironclad conviction of his, I assume (since he is a scientist) but rather a theory that makes most sense to him. It's what he thinks is happening, but he isn't asking anyone to have "faith" in it, and he doesn't expect scripture to pile on further "reason" to believe anything. I'd have to have more explaining from him to be fully convinced of his idea (or at least more time to research it), but it is rather elegant (to begin with, certainly) if a few questions (re: knowing the fate of this universe, "bits of things to argue about") are sufficiently addressed. Frankly, I think the biggest job for him would maybe be to address them in such a way that I could understand it, but anyhow...

I'll post an excerpt from a recent interview of his. Basically, he's looking at the fact that photons have no mass, and that that means that physical dimension (I mean specifically mean "scale") means nothing in a world of photons. When we go back to the energy levels at the time of the Big Bang, the energy was greater than the equivalent mass for all of the matter, and so everything was just energy. How "big" was the "universe" at that time? Well, he's saying there wasn't a way to judge size:


Now, the strange idea here is that if you have nothing which has rest mass, present in the universe. If you have things like photons then they cant make a clock. And if you can't make a clock you can't measure distances either. And so you don't know how big the scale of the universe is. So the point that I am trying to make is that the universe reaches a state where all black holes evaporate away by Hawking evaporation and there is nothing left - there are bits of things to argue about here - but let's say there's nothing but photons with zero mass. They don't measure scales. Equations of Maxwell for instance are completely independent of scale - if you make them small or big it makes no difference. So I am saying that physics of that stage is insensitive to scale. And this also applies to the Big Bang because if you go back and back and back in time you will find that temperatures get greater and greater, and that means that the energy of individual particles gets greater and greater until you reach the scale at which they get even greater than the mass energy of the particle. That means the particle is effectively without mass. And everything near the Big Bang, in fact probably before the Higg's time (which the LHC is trying to explore), much earlier than that, particles are effectively without mass. If they are without mass they become insensitive to scale again. So what I am saying is that the remote future of the previous aeon will be almost indistinguishable from our Big Bang and it is simply a scale change. I will have to talk about equations in detail but the idea is that the remote future of the previous aeon will be almost indistinguishable from our big bang and then our remote future will become the big bang of the next one. There is never any collapse it just keeps going but then it loses track of how big it is - it's a funny idea but that's the idea I am trying to promote.



http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-15/interviews/28368470_1_roger-penrose-einstein-quantum/13

Here's the link, and on the next page or so of the interview he goes on to sketch out some reasons he believes this is the case (gravity is the key), but good luck understanding it precisely right away!

Anyhow, this is the guy who provides Craig with his argument against the Multi-verse (thus providing Craig with the chance to present Creation as the best option...), and we just have to decide if Penrose's thinking is the sort of thing that has merit or not, on this matter or that or both. It should be noted, I guess, that Penrose is an Atheist, but not a "positivist", and he's also in dispute over certain matters with other prominent atheists (e.g. Hawking).

Anyhow, I'm anxious to watch the rest, but I've gotten a poor initial impression of Craig just from his opening statement. (And a poor Wi-Fi connection, recently :( )

[G L Wilson]

The absurdity of creationists knows no bounds.

[YesNo]

I haven't seen the Craig v Hitchens debate, but I'll look for it.

In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, the part about Cantor's transfinite arithmetic was relevant for two reasons: (1) Craig showed that an actual infinite cannot exist in the universe, but only a potential one, in spite of Cantor's set theory; and, (2) He argued that formally logical mathematical structures need not actually exist--logical consistency does not imply actual existence. I take that to mean that Craig is not a Platonist. This is then used to show that past time cannot be actually infinite so the universe had to have a beginning regardless of what science comes up with.

With the universe actually having a beginning based on empirical scientific evidence, one can go beyond these philosophic arguments against infinite time. The actual birth of the universe can now be dated. However, both Craig and Smith have to be careful that they describe the science justifying this correctly otherwise their opponent will jump on it. That is why they go to great pains to explain what they mean by the Big Bang and in particular the mathematical singularity using scientific evidence. If they get this evidence wrong, the other one could use that against them.

All of this science could change in the future, but based on what it is now I think it shows that the Big Bang beginning implies the existence of some other dimension where a choice was made, hence the existence of some sort of God. This forces scientists and philosophers who don't want this conclusion to scramble for an explanation that does not involve choice.

I was reading Paul Frampton's Did Time Begin? Will Time End?. He tries to argue that the Big Bang didn't happen at all. Other people will provide theories like the Multiverse which I find even more improbable than positing a God dimension, but it at least removes the all important choice which is what brings God into the picture. All of these speculations are useful because they help solidify the current theory by forcing it to provide counter-arguments and look for better empirical data.

[stuntpickle]

It could be said that he "beat" Hitchens.

Could be? Craig gutted Hitchens while Hitchens sweated like a pig. It really has nothing to do with who is actually right. Craig is probably the fiercest debater around right now. He could probably beat Hitchens in a debate over the contents of Hitchens's sock drawer.

For all the people who seem to be analyzing Craig's arguments presented in the debate, you need to realize those aren't Craig's complete arguments you're seeing, but rather his dumbed-down, public-friendly versions with lots of intermediate premises omitted.

[Darcy88]

There seems to me to be a leap in going from the universe having a beginning to the universe having been brought about through a choice. A big leap.

[Darcy88]

I still think the Hawking pronouncement that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws squelches Craig's cosmological argument, but, looking past that, it seems that his assault on infinity itself undermines his own argument. If there is no infinity and the universe therefore had to have had a beginning, then, by the same logic, God Himself is not infinite and must also have had a beginning. So he is self-created? That would seem outrageously absurd.

[G L Wilson]

Apply occam's razor to God and he simply disappears.

[BienvenuJDC]

Apply occam's razor to God and he simply disappears.

Let's see....a universe created with a purpose by an Intelligent, Powerful Creator versus something coming from nothing through billions of failed options with nothing of no intelligence driving the process. Occam's Razor seems to be pointing to the former than the latter.

[G L Wilson]

Let's see....a universe created with a purpose by an Intelligent, Powerful Creator versus something coming from nothing through billions of failed options with nothing of no intelligence driving the process. Occam's Razor seems to be pointing to the former than the latter.

As has been said before, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

[BienvenuJDC]

As has been said before, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

Yes, you've said it....it just doesn't make any sense.

[G L Wilson]

Yes, you've said it....it just doesn't make any sense.

God is just sheer nonsense that gives rise to infinite regress which a beginning in nothingness doesn't.

Gravity is a necessary hypothesis.

[YesNo]

Let's see....a universe created with a purpose by an Intelligent, Powerful Creator versus something coming from nothing through billions of failed options with nothing of no intelligence driving the process. Occam's Razor seems to be pointing to the former than the latter.

I agree.

Besides, I don't see how chance could do anything. If it were up to chance and we started with nothing--literally nothing: no physical laws, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no vacuum where quantum particles can pop in or out of existence--then nothing would happen. There would be no Multiverse at all, if it were up to chance. There would be nothing.


I still think the Hawking pronouncement that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws squelches Craig's cosmological argument, but, looking past that, it seems that his assault on infinity itself undermines his own argument. If there is no infinity and the universe therefore had to have had a beginning, then, by the same logic, God Himself is not infinite and must also have had a beginning. So he is self-created? That would seem outrageously absurd.

I think one would say that God is uncreated and eternal, outside any potential infinity that space or time would provide. But all one gets from this cosmology argument for the existence of God is the existence of some ground that can make a choice to say yes to the universe. For most people that is enough and they would happily label it God and let their religion fill in the details.

No one can squelch an argument by making a pronouncement against it. An argument is squelched by showing that it doesn't make sense. So how did Hawking justify his atheism given the fact that he acknowledges that the universe had a beginning?

[G L Wilson]

The ancient Greeks believed that beauty played a part in the winning of an argument. To put it simply, science has the more beautiful argument for being not a literal statement.

[Darcy88]

I agree.

Besides, I don't see how chance could do anything. If it were up to chance and we started with nothing--literally nothing: no physical laws, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no vacuum where quantum particles can pop in or out of existence--then nothing would happen. There would be no Multiverse at all, if it were up to chance. There would be nothing.



I think one would say that God is uncreated and eternal, outside any potential infinity that space or time would provide. But all one gets from this cosmology argument for the existence of God is the existence of some ground that can make a choice to say yes to the universe. For most people that is enough and they would happily label it God and let their religion fill in the details.

No one can squelch an argument by making a pronouncement against it. An argument is squelched by showing that it doesn't make sense. So how did Hawking justify his atheism given the fact that he acknowledges that the universe had a beginning?

He said that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.

And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.

We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.

[G L Wilson]

He said that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.

And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.

We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.

In the infinite and the finite is the possibility of God.