What if there was no god?

No, no, I was not referring to you and I am not saying that a belief in God is necessarily intellectually dishonest, I was referring particularly to the philosophers I mentioned and by extension those who could fall in the same category, of claiming that the belief is entirely rational, true by logical means, etc. Once this is clear, the problems fall on another level, mostly the dogma, and after this, on the practical level: fanaticism. This is my trinity of objections: claim of rationality, or even worse, empiricism - dogma - fanaticism.

But then I have to comment this statement:"It's pure garbage to say that belief is necessarily irrational."

Your statement in itself is true, my main objection is that after you put all beliefs in the same basket. Believing in one's senses, or believing that behind my door, there is no purple rhinoceros is different than the belief in God or to believing that behind my door, there IS a purple rhinoceros. So in that sense, I agree with your sentence, but ultimately I will disagree to admit that a belief in God is rational, for many different reasons which have been enumerated often although disparagingly which I propose to explain better in my next post, or when, perhaps the other points are concluded (agreed or disagreed upon). Also, in parallel, I might have some precisions to ask about your theology.

As for discussing different conceptions of God, I am not sure what I can discuss here, as I have no opinion of truth about the different conceptions, the best I could do would be to give an aesthetical opinion, but then, that's going off-topic.

No, not true, consider again. I meant to say, rather, precisely the opposite. What I am saying is that they, as a group, do not share the common element of irrationality by their nature as belief. Some are rational some are irrational, but they are not all the same-- irrational.

As to believing in one's senses, I'm not sure where I stand on that. It would appear that our eyes see images and light, and objects in the distance, like birds, trees, grass, lakes, all of that that is in the distance, or if we're walking, then trees and branches and bushes as they appear before us. If we stop and sit down and stare at one of these things, it will seem to us a permanent entity, but this is just based on our perception of time. We don't have the attention span to see it change. When we turn our attention on something like ants, however, it's the reverse, they are skittering around and we are the permanent entity. Both are simply results of our perspective. Our senses create reality for us. I am walking and I turn my head to see, and then something arises in my view-- it arises, and as I pass it it cedes. Now I am assuming, because I believe in my senses, because they're always consistent, that it's really there. But I only think it's there according to my perspective. And also, while I have no reason to believe that my mind would play the trick of creating something totally out of nothing, so that I would see a flock of birds that did not exist at all, I have to wonder. I guess none of this is important, nor does it really connect on any point, I guess I'm just mentioning it since you brought up believing the senses. The senses have no more or less authority no matter what we learn. I can never get an answer as to why I should believe in the senses. I see objects through my sense of sight, all my life I have, and so I think they're real, but I have no better reason to believe than just I always have. Now, I suppose we could go into the senses reinforcing each other as to the existence of the objects, or whatever. This would just be expanding it from the sight to the senses all of them, so we might just consider philosophically 'believing in the senses.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

No, not true, consider again. I meant to say, rather, precisely the opposite. What I am saying is that they, as a group, do not share the common element of irrationality by their nature as belief. Some are rational some are irrational, but they are not all the same-- irrational.

---

I'm sorry, could you precise to what exactly you are answering, as I'm slightly confused, but if I understand what I think you mean, then it is also what I meant in my post, thus my confusion about the "No, not true..."

Let's not get in a discussion about senses and keep more to the topic, but my point was not about saying that senses are necessarily right, but that a belief in sense is quite another level than a belief in God, but then again it was only an example, but what is important is the underlying point.

One could say

All giraffes that I have seen have not been green.
All giraffes that have been recorded as being seen have not been green.
So if I see something that is green, I believe it is not a giraffe.

That's not a water-tight proof, but it shows how that belief is reasonable. Similar things can be said about God. There are no proofs that are based on 100% accurate premises that completely prove the existence of God, but there are some that start with reasonable premises that make reasonable conclusions that lead to a belief in God. Saying that belief in God is unreasonable is not correct.

Of course, faith is still required, because there is no 100% proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

I'm sorry, could you precise to what exactly you are answering, as I'm slightly confused, but if I understand what I think you mean, then it is also what I meant in my post, thus my confusion about the "No, not true..."

Let's not get in a discussion about senses and keep more to the topic, but my point was not about saying that senses are necessarily right, but that a belief in sense is quite another level than a belief in God, but then again it was only an example, but what is important is the underlying point.

---

Okay, sorry.. and I didn't really mean to...just rambling I guess.

So, what I meant is just you said I put all beliefs into a basket, but I'm not doing this. I am saying that not all beliefs are irrational. I'll also come back to the God thing again tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

Of course, faith is still required, because there is no 100% proof.

---

I disagree with calling this faith, reason would be a more appropriate term, even though it can still be called a belief, everything can be called a belief or faith, but there is huge distinctions between different "beliefs" so let's not start calling faith everything to keep a semblance of clarity?

prophecy is, as directly following his definition of prophecy Maimonides explains: "the highest stage of man and the most extreme perfection that can be found in the human race." Even on this ground, the prophet is unconditionally superior to the philosopher, and all the more to other men. He is, however, also superior to the philosopher in his own realm, as a knower. He can know directly, without "premises and conclusions," what all other men can only know indirectly. Accordingly he has commands over insights that the man who only knows philosophically is not capable of reaching...In his philosophizing, the philosopher can orient himself according to the prophet because the prophet has command over insights that are not accessible to mere philosophical knowledge. (Strauss, quoted in Fox p. 288)

The prophet knows with absolute certainty and has faith in God because he trusts in God's providence.

I put my faith in what has been revealed to the prophets and the revelations.

If a person sets his mind on God and seeks Him then invariably God will reveal Himself to that person and guide him to the straight path.

And verily, every time I called unto them that You might forgive them, they thrust their fingers into their ears, covered themselves up with their garments, and persisted (in their refusal), and magnified themselves in pride.

I deleted this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iorix

prophecy is, as directly following his definition of prophecy Maimonides explains: "the highest stage of man and the most extreme perfection that can be found in the human race." Even on this ground, the prophet is unconditionally superior to the philosopher, and all the more to other men. He is, however, also superior to the philosopher in his own realm, as a knower. He can know directly, without "premises and conclusions," what all other men can only know indirectly. Accordingly he has commands over insights that the man who only knows philosophically is not capable of reaching...In his philosophizing, the philosopher can orient himself according to the prophet because the prophet has command over insights that are not accessible to mere philosophical knowledge. (Strauss, quoted in Fox p. 288)

The prophet knows with absolute certainty and has faith in God because he trusts in God's providence.

I put my faith in what has been revealed to the prophets and the revelations.

If a person sets his mind on God and seeks Him then invariably God will reveal Himself to that person and guide him to the straight path.

---

I agree.

If you agree, how do you justify religious fanatics, religious nuts, religious terrorists, religious intolerance, etc.? Following your reasoning, believing very strong should be enough to lead to the straight path, however experience shows that religious people are not "better" than not religious people. You can say their ways are twisted, but would you be ready to say that they don't honestly believe in God and do not "set their minds on God" and "seek Him"?

All very poetic and mystical, and might work in a theologico-theoritical conceptual world, but what does this tell me when applied to the real world? A pretty self-illusion.

I think that if we do violence to others, it affects us negatively as well, be this because of karma or interdependence. Interdependence is why I think we are on Earth at all, and not in a collective paradise.

I was thinking of what God is, and I thought of a bit more to say about it. God is an infinte, as I have already said. Let's talk about quantum theory for a moment. This has proved to us shatteringly that everything we thought was true was not true. This might indicate that whatever we discover as science, that whatever we discover about the natural laws, we will be dwarfed by something relating to it like quantum theory relates to the cut-and-dried, accepted by all, air-tight theory like the mathematically rate of change for gravity, etc. Einstein said he would not accept that God played dice with reality. However, God as an infinite makes order out of the chaos, and even the random and near infinite activity of subatomic particles, our understanding of which quantum theory radically revolutionalized, this random and near infinite complexity of what we understand to be reality--- understand that quantum theory has completely shattered our illusions, and as best we understand it all, there is no reality, you go lower and lower and it descends into complete randomness and uncomprehensiveness. God is an infinite is this-- "there is no deep reality." Scientists have not made progress after this, simply because they are not able to make the leap of understanding I have just presented for you.

A few more words about God. As an infinite, it is in everything and connects it all. Time doesn't exist but doesn't need infinity to link together moments in apparent different times-- this is done even just by writing. What is God? the infinite, the hidden, the mysterious, the unknowable more real than the deepest level of non reality.

To say there is no God may be true. But do you realize what it means? Hardly. God, as infnite, already is this "no deep reality" which quantum says we do not know, nor perhaps will we ever know. The cosmos is there in what is random, and what is infinte, connecting everything, it is what we view with science as quantum reality, and in its existence it shows us our lack of understanding?

What material have you read on quantum mechanics?

If there is an almighty, all loving, and omnipotent god, would he not forgive me for refusing to spend my life trying to find the "correct" path? or do i just go to hell?

God means that everything will be alright. There is no hell. All we can know is our own lives, and God is the good infinite that is connecting all the good things in our life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

What material have you read on quantum mechanics?

---

What material should I have read? I've presented my view. Will you present yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

What material should I have read? I've presented my view. Will you present yours?

---

Preferably something by a physicist on the topic (NOT 'Dr. Quantum'). To be frank, your views on QM make me think you learned about it from "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" or some new age author which is why I asked the question.

I'm tired right now so any 'view' I try to give will be rather clumsily worded. I'll get back to this thread soon and explain the problems I saw there and maybe see if I can dig up some books to recommend on the topic.

"Other Worlds: Space, Superspace, and the Quantum Universe" by Paul Davies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happyeverafter

Blazeofglory: i'm curious...why do you believe there is no heaven and no hell?

---

Because it is a mythologically created idea, not the truth.

It would make things much less interesting.

There will not be fundamentalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

There will not be fundamentalists.

---

Nor fundamentals.

Really we would have lived in a world less violent, with less atrocious people and all to be cooperative and coordinating with one another.

In fact what we call God is a projection of our imaginative faculty and nothing else. Think for a while and you will realize it.

Then the atheists would be right.

Ha ha ha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Really we would have lived in a world less violent, with less atrocious people and all to be cooperative and coordinating with one another.

In fact what we call God is a projection of our imaginative faculty and nothing else. Think for a while and you will realize it.

---

I find it very hard to believe that without religion, the world would be less violent, and everybody would get along. I think that's a little bit of a fairytale, to be honest.

I just realized that if there wasn't any God, then I wouldn't have had anything to write my term paper about that interested me. (Hm!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cipherdecoy

Then the atheists would be right.

Ha ha ha

---

:D Indeed. By the way, nice sig. ;)

In fact god is something we gave a name to a source of energy. Is not the energy itself the very source of everything we have. Is there any other sources than this?

Is God something different than this universe, this wholeness with which we often feel at one with?