So... God

SomeGuyOverThere

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Posts
1,382
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
258
Location
Glasgow (Glasgow City, Scotland)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Saying there is no god implies that you have the FAITH to believe you have enough information, of all the information available in the universe let alone all that is had by mankind at the moment, to claim with CERTAINTY that there is no god. You are better off declaring yourself a non-believer as DC does.

(p.s. gonna catch your latest post in a bit)

No way! You totally and utterly missed the point of what I said, which is why I underlined, italicised and boldened the word "think".

Thinking is nothing to do with faith:
Faith is about ignoreing the evidence, sticking your hands over your ears and saying "I BELIEVE ANYWAY AND YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT!"
Thinking on the other hand is about asking "what is the evidence? What do we/don't we know? What conculsions can we draw?"

What we do know in this matter is that there is an awfull lot of evidence for us just happening to be here as a product of Evolution and enormous luck of being on one of the perhaps 1 in 1,000,000,000 planets which can sustain life.

But thats what it is - luck. Even if the odds are 1 in 1,000,000,000 conservative efforts put the number of planets in the universe as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 which still leaves us with a billion life supporting planets out there of which ours is simply one.

Now theres some perfectly good reasoning to believe that we just appeared here. Now, lets think about God:

If we say that the "first cause" is God (and Thomas Aquainus' 'proofs' are really pants by the way), then we immediatly have to ask, what made God? A being which is powerfull enouigh to create the universe and to read the thoughts of everyone is incredibly complicated in himself, certainly more complicated than the atoms of Hydrogen that science theorieses were the first "complex" things bumping around in the Universe. So, what designed the designer?

If you say "nothing" then you contradict yourself, because it seems to me that the entire point of proposing a designer is to explain how everything became so fascinatingly complicated, but the designer is evidently even more complicated than everything that is, and in itself even more implausable than the proposal that everything has come into existence through chance nd then Biological evolution.

Infact, hes so much more implausable that I can't subscribe to him.

Someguy clearly said that he believes science can eventually find answers, but doesn't even assert that as fact- that it the only rationally sane conclusion one can draw! The only thing we can say with certainty at this time is "I don't know". The other thing that I believe is "You don't either".

I don't believe in the Christian god, as described in the Bible, other than as a model. I don't believe in a personified god at all, just forces we don't as yet understand. I have to say, I echo the sentiment of SomeGuy that if faith is just the opiate of the masses, then I just can't subscribe. I don't want to be happy, if that happiness is based on half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

I couldn't agree with you more - paraphrasing Marx here: 'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the hope of a hopeless place; it is the opiate of the masses'

Personally, I'd prefer to stare life in the eyes, to stand my ground and say "I am not afraid of the truth". I'd prefer to live knowing an unhappy truth than to wallow in happy ignorance.

This is a true statement, but it does not prove that empiricism is sufficient for getting at all universal truth. Dawkins is a logical positivist, which ultimately can only be defended as an article of faith.

I don't fully follow Dawkins, I don't however think that you get "universal truths" outside science. As I said - it's politics and weather. Policitcs is opinion and there are no universal truths in that, weather is science, and seeking the truth is the name of the game.

Why do you say that I say that God in fact exists at this point? When what I say is that the possibility of a [g]od exists. SomeGuyOverThere asserts that there is NO possible way that he/she/it exists. He is in fact making a leap of faith that he has enough empirical information on hand to make that assertion. I at this point am merely taking the agnostic position in a gendaken (thought) experiment, where I'm starting with the idea that 'creation' might require a 'creator'.

He has jumped directly to the end of the experiment and says that God is DEAD.


Please remove your hand from my ass - I am not a hand puppet and you do not have permission to speak for me.

I never ever asserted that God "Does not exist" (except in short hand), God is a matter of possibility, and I think that he is very very unlikely indeed; unlikely enough for me to think that he does not exist.

Unfortunatly you seem to fail to understand the concept of the burden of proof.

The burden of proof does NOT lay with the person who denies an assertion. If person 'a' asserts belief B, and person 'b' disagrees, it is up to person 'a' to prove B to 'b'. In other words, if I say that it is raining outside, and you say that it isn't, it is up to me to walk us both outside and asertain whether or not it is or is not raining.

Similarly, if you say "There is God" and I say "I don't think that is the case" the burden of proof is with you to say "Look, here is God", it is not wih me to disprove it.

Then if you (like many beleivers) say "I just know internally that there is a God" then, I'm sorry, but who gives a fuck? Thats like me saying "I just know that black is the best colour". Woopdy-fucking-doo.

Also, I'm never arguing that there is empirical evidence for God. These guys always bring me back to their empirical game and so I say hey maybe you don't have all the empirical information to out of hand dismiss the possibility of a creator and that if you think you do maybe thats an article of faith on your part.

I'm sorry, but the only things worth asserting the existence of are things which there is empirical evidence for. Empicism is not a "game" it is the best method we as a species have for ascertaining facts about the world. The existence of God is definatly within the empirical areana, it is not something that you can just say "I know it to be the case and I'm not playing your game", that isn't the way science works and if it was we'd still be in the bleeding dark ages.

If God shouldn't have empirical means applied to him, then he is obviously not an object which exists in reality, as only objects which can't be found, analysed and measured are excluded from such treatment; and if you'll admit that then we can stop argueing!

I've understood DC-Deep's position from before ever hitting LPSG. It's not a recent personal epiphany or learned nuanced. I just find non-believer = atheist is functionally the same, I used to humor that distintion but not so much anymore. At least atheist is more intellectually honest. Non-believer is an escapist formulation.

Funny enough I'm arguing about an incomplete experiment (which I really don't even care about). My thought experiment is that the Universe itself is the trail in the oil that indicates there is a God or sub atomic particle creating that trail in the oil for us to 'see' (we just also happen to be part of that oil trail). That's my thought experiment which is probably not much different than E's riding on a beam of light (until experimentalist caught up to the theoretician). You can call him Thor, Aphrodite, FSM, Yaweh, I don't care. You want to call him Thor? Okay, I'm arguing for Thor.

You are more of a believer than I. Isn't Jesus a physical, empirical representation of God? If not, why not? (Be careful Peter).

My faith as I've gotten to defining it does not really care if God will ever present himself in a empirical fashion. I seems irrelevant to me, but very relevant to you and to Dawkins.

Non-believer cannot be said to be the same as Atheist. VBeing a non-believer is a necissary condition for being Atheist, but not all non-beleivers are Atheists. A non believer may simply fail to think that any Gods we have are worth beleiveing in and be reserveing judgement on whether or not there is any form of divine creator. An Atheist is an -theist, the opposite of somebody who subscribes to thoughts of divine creatures, the Atheist thinks that there are no forms of divine beings.

Now you claim to not hold any real position on this arguement? Well why are you still posting then?

I think that God is evident, our existance proves he exists, to me at least if no one else.

It's the details that have to be worked out and that will never happen empirically.

I find Dawkins and company to be people who could empirically rationalize any morality that is convenient at the moment. They have no ability to assert "inalienable rights" because they don't want to. They are above such constraints.

But our existence doesn't prove in any way that he exists, there are far more plausable scientific arguements for us being the product of good luck and evolution than there are for a designer, who immediatly requires a designer, and sparks off an infinite regress of divine beings which create the lesser being.

You sound like you are just enguageing in "wishfull thinking" to me.


--This post is apparently too long, so more to follow --
 

SomeGuyOverThere

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Posts
1,382
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
258
Location
Glasgow (Glasgow City, Scotland)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
-- Part 2 --

There is no need to make a choice between science and religion. They are two different disciplines, and they seek different goals. You cannot use scientific facts to disprove the existence of God because theology is not a quest for facts. You cannot use spiritual truth to discredit science because science is not about intangible concepts like truth. Science and religion can peacefully co-exist; they did for centuries. Keep in mind that atheism is a fairly recent phenomenon. Some of the most brilliant scientists of the Renaissance were clerics and theologians. They knew that science and religion were two different fields, and one should not intrude into research of the other. There is no need for a battle of Logos versus Mythos: they both have value. One can be a devout Christian and still wholly accept Evolution as being valid, for example. Science is not a religion, nor should religious tales be taught as science.

No, that is a widely held fallicy.

The areana of science is all that exists in reality, all that can be measured, analysed and experimented on. All that can be excluded fromn science is that which is not part of reality, things such as "Justice" "Ontology" "Metaphysics"; these are subjects of the mind and Philosophy. These are things which are interesting, but ultimately don't have any direct consequences for reality.

Don't you think that it does have rather direct consequences for reality whether it was all designed or not? And if this is the case, then God is in Science's ballpark, and theologins can piss off (Like Dawkins I really fail to see how it's even a subject - it's the bastard child of Philosophy and History).

And I'd say that the entire point of science is about getting to the bottom, to the truth of things and finding them out one way or another.

God is imaginary. There is no reason to believe in any form of god. The people who say "oh well you can't prove he ISN'T there!" Uhh, so? If I believed in leprechauns, you'd still think I was retarded. Plus, now when we look back on history, we KNOW Egyptians were flawed in their rituals and beliefs. In the future, we'll look back and KNOW Christians are wrong.

I have to agree with you here really. As I said, the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the assertion, not with the denier. If you assert that you are Napoleon Bonaparte reborn, then I will call the men in white coats and then ask you to prove it. If you assert that God exists, it's your job to prove it, not mine to prove the contrary.
 

SomeGuyOverThere

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Posts
1,382
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
258
Location
Glasgow (Glasgow City, Scotland)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
-- Part 3 --

And, by request:

My point of disagreement with you is that being an atheist (or a non-believer, who is distilled down to an “I don’t care” position) is as much a leap of faith as is being a believer/deist/theist. I think that the only empirically rational person is the agnostic who says, “I don’t know.” He is in the process of completing the empirical experiment.

We are discussing two gods here. You and Dawkins compare White Haired Man God with Flying Spaghetti Monster God. I’m here talking about Creator God. Creator God has no myth book story

I sit on this planet and look around and say that creation is evidence of a creator (I will for further purpose refer to him as Thor if it helps). It is an extraordinary statement requiring extraordinary proof, granted. “Someguy” sits next to me looks around and says creation does not require a Thor. This too is an extraordinary statement requiring extraordinary proof. I have empirical results in the form of the Universe (or entire creation) that has to be, for the sake of scientific curiosity, thought about its origins.

This is an ongoing experiment from which abstract mathematical concepts such as String Theory may very well have valid venues (dimensions) to explore the possibility of a God who has this whole time been waiting for us to find him empirically, as well as by faith.

Non-believer, atheist, deist, theist, believer all are working on faith. Some atheist actually have a religion. The only person working empirically is the agnostic.

Here we go with 'faith' again.

Statement of the obvious - you look at the unvierse and say that this is obviously the work of a creator, I do not.

You cannot then point to the Unvierse and call it "empirical proof" for your point of view, as I do not come to the same conclusion as you based on my own knowledge and belief systems - I form a different opinion.

On the face of it, this makes our views compatably arbritrary, however, mine has the advantage:

Evolution gives us a powerfull and fully functioning tool with which to confidently say how life has come about and how we are where we are now and the Anthropic Principle tellls us how this is possible in the first place.

The begining of this universe is unknown to us, but we have plausable theories of multiverses and big-bang/big-crunch cycles and even a Darwinian theory of how the Universe came to be how it is.

So, we don't need God to explain how we are how we are, we don't need God to explain how we got the chance to be how we are, and we don't even need God to be the thing that fired the starting gun. What is there left for God to do?

Fuck all really.

Further, I'm sorry but the concept of an intelligent being that kick started everything is even more implausable than the Dawinian theory of evolution of Universes in the greater multiverse.

Where did God come from hmm?

I think God is what people call it when we don't know yet. It's an arbritrary name (you swap a few in yourself) for our own (usually)anthropermorphic personification of how things came to be. But it is not a satisfying position!

I doubt you can explain to me how God works, and where he came from and what forces he possibly used to create everything, where as I can explain and account for the theories we have.

This is the difference between Theism and Atheism(with scientific backing) - we have usefull "Cranes" with which we can build up concepts, and these cranes can be examined and we can see how they work. God is a "skyhook" it doesn't have substance to it, it's a vacacious theory where you say "God did it" I ask "how?" and you say "gee, I don't know!".

And finally, you are the only one relying on faith here. I don't need faith to bring science to bear on you - even if I don't know much about the theory, I can go and read up on it, turning my demi-faith into knowledge and rational thought. With God, you have no such luxury, unless you think that the Bible can tell you such things.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
-- Part 3 --

And, by request:

Also, by request:

The hammer you used to make that bookshelf has a ‘creator’. That car you drove to school has a ‘creator’. You have a creator. Your parents have a creator. Your parents’ parents have a creator. The moon was created from the earth. To this day we can see solar systems being created from gas nebulae some billion years in the past. Everything in you life experiences indicates a creator creates things.

Man has enveloped all of creation into the concept of the Universe. Now at this point you decide arbitrarily that the Universe does not require a creator. It is arbitrary because nothing in your life experience indicates that things do not have a creator. That seems to be a leap of Faith based on no empirical evidence. I say that the Universe has an intelligent creator and I accept that assertion as a matter of faith. Then you may equivocate and say there is be a creator of the universe but it is not intelligent. Again a leap of faith you have no empirical evidence it is not intelligent. Your atheism or non-belief requires a leap of FAITH. That is the only real point I’m trying to make.

You have no superior intellectual ownership here. Only the agnostic has superior intellectual ownership not requiring faith.

Go measure your bed with a ruler. Your perception of reality requires you to give that measurement a confidence interval. My bed is 6.411 feet long +/- .001 and I have a confidence that it is in that range of 95%. It can never be 100%. We can’t predict where a hurricane will hit land and you can assert with 100% confidence that you can figure it all out or will. Do you see that as kind of funny? I do.

You really should have read the first thread much more carefully as to what I believe cause I wasted a lot of time reading about what you think I believe. :)

Note: We can't even prove for a fact that the physical constants are the same throughout this Universe. How could you possibly tell me with certainty what the speed of light is or the gravitational constant or any other physical constant may be 7 Billion light years in any direction from Earth. Been there lately. Maybe you and Dawkins should be a little more humble in your certainties. Even your Anthropic Principle isn't a certainty. You personally terra form anything lately?
 

Spoogesicle

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Posts
199
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
161
Location
Under a bridge...The Bridge of Sighs (or Size?)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
No, that is a widely held fallicy.

Which part? I made several statements in the quote you cited.

That there is no reason to choose between science and religion? I have room in my life for both. They serve separate needs and are both important to me. A balance of Mythos and Logos suits me.

That the two seek different goals? That's obvious. Religion cares little about the nuts and bolts of a situation, and science doesn't apply morality or spiritual purpose to nature. Take the difference between the Mythic and Logical approach to, let's say, history. Logos, the scientific approach, is concerned with dates and a factual account of physical events. Mythos puts more emphasis on the reason for those events, and their outcome. Certainly the impetus and consequences are important realities in a historical analysis. Religion is Mythos, and Science is Logos. They seek to answer different questions about the same reality.

That science and religion can peacefully coexist? Sure, there have been some clashes between the two, but both have played important parts in history. They still do, and will continue to. Only in confusing one for the other, or in misunderstanding their separate purposes, does a conflict between the two arise.

That atheism is a fairly recent phenomenon? Prior to a few hundred years ago, it was positively dangerous to dare suggest that God didn't exist; no one can dispute that. Certainly, no alliance of atheists could've have convened. Theism was pervasive in the cultures of most of the world. Religion wasn't viewed as optional. The reasons for theistic cultures can be debated, but the fact is that the huge majority of people were believers. Atheist and agnostic were not words that existed; they are modern coinages to fit a modern situation.

That some of the most brilliant scientific minds of the Renaissance belonged to clerics? Obviously, because few outside of the clergy were literate. But we don't really have to go back that far. The Big Bang Theory which you mentioned was proposed by Monsignor Georges Lemaître.

That one can be a devout Christian and still accept Evolution? The late Pope John Paul II endorsed evolution. He didn't hesitate in the least to embrace it and state that it is more than just a theory. He did all but come out and say that it is fact. Why didn't he say that it's fact? He was a theologian, not a scientist, and he knew the difference.

So what is the fallacy to which you aluded?


The areana of science is all that exists in reality, all that can be measured, analysed and experimented on.

Not at all. There are other "real" things that science cannot measure, analyse, or explain. That does not make them any less real. Sometimes inner space is less tangible than outer space, and that is the realm of Mythos. Intuition, talent, aspirations, revelation. . .these are all realities, but they exist outside of the boundaries of science and Logos.

Don't you think that it does have rather direct consequences for reality whether it was all designed or not?

Not really. We're here whether by design or by chance. Science may tell us, or at least hypothesize, how we came to be here, but it cannot tell us the purpose or what, if anything, comes after. Those are not questions for science. I'd like to think that there is a greater Truth, a reason for being, but I know not to look to Science for that answer. Mythos can't answer the question either, but Mythos and religion are more concerned with the quest than with empiricism.

And if this is the case, then God is in Science's ballpark, and theologins can piss off (Like Dawkins I really fail to see how it's even a subject - it's the bastard child of Philosophy and History).

True to form, words spoken by one who has never studied theology. I have. I don't mean catechism or fundamentalist exegesis: I mean the nitty-gritty, murky realm of deep theology. It is not the bastard child of Philosophy: it is pure Philosophy, plain and simple. Theoretical rather than practical Philosophy, but Philosophy is more concerned with theory than practice anyway. If God is in Science's ballpark, it does not follow that religion is as well: God and religion are not one and the same.

And I'd say that the entire point of science is about getting to the bottom, to the truth of things and finding them out one way or another.

That is the point of science, but it depends on your definition of "truth" as to whether or not it can succeed to that end. Scientists admit there are questions that science can't answer, and those are the questions that Mythos explores. If you have no interest in those truths, then the mythic realm is of no value to you. If you want to look into that world and expect science to have all the answers, get used to disappointment. Religion, theology and Mythos may not provide the answers, but I put more value in learning and drawing my own conclusions than being handed the answers anyway.

If you assert that God exists, it's your job to prove it, not mine to prove the contrary.

I never asserted such a thing. I'm not on trial and don't have to provide evidence to back my opinions. They are my beliefs based on my perceptions, and I don't force my views on anyone. You have your own beliefs. So be it. We have to follow where our own gifts of reason lead. You may draw a different conclusion based on your own experiences and circumstances, but I respect your right to do so. I would hope that you respect my right to be a theistic fucktard as well. If not, well, life goes on.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
It's interesting that spiker has chosen to use me as an example, and I'm flattered... but you have it all wrong, amigo. Please refrain from making non sequitur conclusions about what I do or do not believe, and why. My lack of belief in god is anything but "escapist". It is the result of many years of study, and reading religious texts from jewish, christian, hindu, and assorted other sources, in various translations and with various concordances. I actually RESEARCHED. For what it is worth, I was attempting to be a christian believer, and strengthen what little faith I had, but my research had the opposite effect.

JA, I'm glad you mentioned Job in one of your posts. During approximately my fourth cover-to-cover, novel-style reading of the holy bible, it was the story of Job, I think, that brought about my epiphany of disbelief.

OP, you ask why. I guess I just read too many things that, in my mind, were mutually exclusive. Through that process, a few at a time, the stories in all the religious texts I read became irrelevant. The fact that most leaders and most practitioners (not all, just most) of most religions so consistently misinterpret and misuse those texts does not help their cause, in my humble opinion.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
It's interesting that spiker has chosen to use me as an example, and I'm flattered... but you have it all wrong, amigo. Please refrain from making non sequitur conclusions about what I do or do not believe, and why.

If you were "use[d]" it was merely as means by which to understand one another. Since this medium is subject to misunderstanding and requires much more effort to communicate that an oral conversation does, it seemed a fair use clause was applicable here. Sorry you need not and probably will not come up in conversation again if it displeases you.

Interesting you didn't tell us what you do in fact believe or disbelieve. You only told us the process at which arrived at your conclusion not really why. How come?

peace,
spiker
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
...JA, I'm glad you mentioned Job in one of your posts. During approximately my fourth cover-to-cover, novel-style reading of the holy bible, it was the story of Job, I think, that brought about my epiphany of disbelief...

You mean where God finally comes and answers the beleaguered Job with basically, "Shit Happens." Yes, that is the oldest book in the Bible and the most disturbing one when it comes to figuring out Theodicy. By itself without Jesus, it is enough to make you want to "take the pipe."

Also, Spoogesickle seems to be making heaping piles of sense. Thanks contributing to this thread.
 

vindicari

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Posts
216
Media
3
Likes
12
Points
163
Location
belfast
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
religion(which we created) is mans albatross, , and are damned to carry until we destroy ourselves or nature does which eventually one or the other will. I suspect the former. God needs to take his wayward children in hand, and give them a damn good smacking.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
JustAsking,

I thought the argument below would have warranted some comment. Aside from a few late night mistakes it has an angle. Why not disabuse me of this notion. I'd like to hear it. I would go as far to say that Spooge, you, and I think of it in the same way (i.e. seperation of the two disciplines and their inherent values being for different needs).

Spiker.

Please note that what I'm trying to get at is that belief and disbelief require a faith. Disbelief is not immune from the challenge of proving a lack of creator when every experience we have in our personal lives has a creator and a creation to sort of speak of.

*****************

Also, by request:

The hammer you used to make that bookshelf has a ‘creator’. That car you drove to school has a ‘creator’. You have a creator. Your parents have a creator. Your parents’ parents have a creator. The moon was created from the earth. To this day we can see solar systems being created from gas nebulae some billion years in the past. Everything in you life experiences indicates a creator creates things.

Man has enveloped all of creation into the concept of the Universe. Now at this point you decide arbitrarily that the Universe does not require a creator. It is arbitrary because nothing in your life experience indicates that things do not have a creator. That seems to be a leap of Faith based on no empirical evidence. I say that the Universe has an intelligent creator and I accept that assertion as a matter of faith. Then you may equivocate and say there is be a creator of the universe but it is not intelligent. Again a leap of faith you have no empirical evidence it is not intelligent. Your atheism or non-belief requires a leap of FAITH. That is the only real point I’m trying to make.

You have no superior intellectual ownership here. Only the agnostic has superior intellectual ownership not requiring faith.

Go measure your bed with a ruler. Your perception of reality requires you to give that measurement a confidence interval. My bed is 6.411 feet long +/- .001 and I have a confidence that it is in that range of 95%. It can never be 100%. We can’t predict where a hurricane will hit land and you can assert with 100% confidence that you can figure it all out or will. Do you see that as kind of funny? I do.

You really should have read the first thread much more carefully as to what I believe cause I wasted a lot of time reading about what you think I believe. :)

Note: We can't even prove for a fact that the physical constants are the same throughout this Universe. How could you possibly tell me with certainty what the speed of light is or the gravitational constant or any other physical constant may be 7 Billion light years in any direction from Earth. Been there lately. Maybe you and Dawkins should be a little more humble in your certainties. Even your Anthropic Principle isn't a certainty. You personally terra form anything lately?
 

RoyalT

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Posts
293
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Just believe what you want, y'all.

I just find it a little suspicious that God is real. When Imhotep, Ra, Horus, or Zeus, Asclepius, Mars, Emu-man, Tree-man etc are not to anyone with a high school education.

Why didn't this Creator send his son down sooner to avoid all that false idol worshipping through those ages prior to JC? And I forget when/why the bible is supposedly against [gay] sex but lots of Greeks were into man/boy lovin'. It's all very silly IMO. Every 'holy book' is basically a child's view of the world, and from a time when people knew so little. I know very little myself but I know enough to see there's a basic human need for answers. The bible and its compatriots are just that. And in many cases they are wrong.

Why have I not been smote for spilling my seed anyway? Etc etc. I see no smiting.

Sorry to stick to Christianity but its the only one I'm vaugely familiar with.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
JustAsking,

I thought the argument below would have warranted some comment. Aside from a few late night mistakes it has an angle. Why not disabuse me of this notion. I'd like to hear it. I would go as far to say that Spooge, you, and I think of it in the same way (i.e. seperation of the two disciplines and their inherent values being for different needs).

Spike, the separation you are talking about was given the interesting name of "non-overlapping magesterium", by the evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould. I disagree with the extreme degree of "non-overlapping" that he and you might be proposing. In my point of view, the Bible vigorously supports the notion of science and encourages the pursuit of the study of the natural processes of the universe. So rather than sending the Bible and Science to their respective corners, I find that they are symbiotic.

My reasons for this might be too long for a single post, but let me start with Genesis and if it seems too long, I will put the rest in subsequent posts.

Genesis
For the purposes of the science/religion argument, it is important to get from Genesis the fact that God has to empty himself out of the area where he creates the universe. The universe is created by God as something distinct from God and it is "not God". This is already a clear indication to us that this creation is sophisticated enough to operate by natural processes of its own. There is a term for this emptying out called Kenosis (this is a link, by the way).

During the "days" of creation, at different times, God asks the earth and the water to bring forth living creatures. The wording suggests that the creation of the diversity of life is mediated by natural processes. In other words, God isn't "poofing" one species into existence after another. He "arranges" for the Garden of Eden to flower, suggesting that this too is a result of God's will mediated through natural processes.

There is more in Genesis that strongly suggests that the natural processes that goven the universe and that lead to life and all its diversity are to be taken seriously as something separate from God and something that mediates God's will. In other words, natural processes are divine in the sense that all of creation is divine.

Job
Job is the oldest book in the Bible probably coming from 10,000 years of oral tradition before it. The Book of Job is an important lesson in Theodicy. In the story, Job spends most of his time rejecting all the advice from his friends on why fate has reduced him from the hugely successful, rich, family man to a sniveling miserable creature alone, destitute, and writhing in the mud with his skin falling off. He asks the ultimate scientific/religious question, which is, "God, why me?". He asks God because he naturally suspects that God has something to do with his condition. Job's insistence that God is at fault is a scientific hypothesis that has as a basic premise that God is the immediate cause of events in the universe.

God finally comes to Job, Job asks, "Why is this happening to me?" and God answers in two parts. In the first part he gives Job the proper perspective on how impossible it is for Job to understand the chains of causality that happen in the universe's natural processes. Then God goes on to list all kinds of huge and amazing natural processes in general. And that is all God gives as an answer. He is basically telling Job, that when it comes to the amazingly complex universe that "shit happens." And it doesn't need God pulling the strings to make it happen. God's answer places him as a mediate cause, rather than an immediate cause.

Astute Bible students might argue that it was Satan who God gave permission to to beleaguer Job, but it must be understood that Satan is also a worldly force. Whether you ascribe it to Satan or the natural processes of the universe, it is essentially the same thing.

The point of this, again, is to show how God regards natural processes as an essential and divine part of his creation.

Christians have understood this for almost 2000 years, so it is no surprise that until science became a strong enough force to have a life of its own, it was the Catholic Church that was the strongest defender, promoter and practitioner of science. Mainstream Christians regard science as an almost sacred pursuit. In other words, Christian Theology not only enables, but compels the faithful to study the universe's natural processes with scientific rigor.

Since this is getting too long, I will leave the most powerful message regarding the divinity of natural processes until another posting. It comes from the birth, life, and death of Jesus.

Please note that what I'm trying to get at is that belief and disbelief require a faith. Disbelief is not immune from the challenge of proving a lack of creator when every experience we have in our personal lives has a creator and a creation to sort of speak of.

*****************

Yes, you have said this before, and I am happy for you. But its not really an argument. It is just a feeling you have that since houses have to be built by someone, then the universe must have been built by someone or something. At the moment, all you have is a hypothesis that you have arrived at through an unsupported generalization. Until you have some emprical evidence or logical proof of it, anyone is free to dismiss your imaginary creator friend just as easily as my ravings about the orbiting teacup, with no faith required.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
religion(which we created) is mans albatross, , and are damned to carry until we destroy ourselves or nature does which eventually one or the other will. I suspect the former. God needs to take his wayward children in hand, and give them a damn good smacking.
Vindi,
That last line sounds like a great refrain for a Gospel tune. "All God's chillun needs smackin', yes, the wayward chillun need smackin'."
 

GoneA

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Posts
5,020
Media
0
Likes
37
Points
268
Job
He asks the ultimate scientific/religious question, which is, "God, why me?". He asks God because he naturally suspects that God has something to do with his condition. [...]

God finally comes to Job, Job asks, "Why is this happening to me?" and God answers in two parts. In the first part he gives Job the proper perspective on how impossible it is for Job to understand the chains of causality that happen in the universe's natural processes. Then God goes on to list all kinds of huge and amazing natural processes in general. And that is all God gives as an answer. He is basically telling Job, that when it comes to the amazingly complex universe that "shit happens."

Ultimately, however, Job is able to provide himself with the answer to his own question. Introspectively, he reveals that all his problems would have been solved if there existed a "Daysman" (read: Intercessor) who could help him in his time of travail.

To modern Christians, that should encourage them to help one another ... or at the very least pray.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Spike, the separation you are talking about was given the interesting name of "non-overlapping magesterium", by the evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould. I disagree with the extreme degree of "non-overlapping" that he and you might be proposing.
If you remember on the religion thread, I said I believed God used evolution in the making of this world. I also believe the world is 14-15 B years old not 5,000 years. How much seperations is that. Mine has not been as thoughtfull a consideration as yours, probably more intuitive.

My reasons for this might be too long for a single post, but let me start with Genesis and if it seems too long, I will put the rest in subsequent posts.
A quick question on Genesis. The serpent gets Adam and Eve to eat from "the tree of knowledge" in one translation in another they eat from "tree of knowledge of good and evil". What "knowlege" are we talking about here?
Genesis
For the purposes of the science/religion argument, it is important to get from Genesis the fact that God has to empty himself out of the area where he creates the universe. The universe is created by God as something distinct from God and it is "not God". This is already a clear indication to us that this creation is sophisticated enough to operate by natural processes of its own. There is a term for this emptying out called Kenosis (this is a link, by the way).
Kenosis - Why does God have to empty himself out from this universe exactly?

There is more in Genesis that strongly suggests that the natural processes that goven the universe and that lead to life and all its diversity are to be taken seriously as something separate from God and something that mediates God's will. In other words, natural processes are divine in the sense that all of creation is divine.
So we are divine too? Is this what is meant by created in his image?


The point of this, again, is to show how God regards natural processes as an essential and divine part of his creation.
Is this necessary to allow for free will?

Christians have understood this for almost 2000 years, so it is no surprise that until science became a strong enough force to have a life of its own, it was the Catholic Church that was the strongest defender, promoter and practitioner of science.
Could you show counter examples to Galileo where the Catholic Church defends and promotes science?

Since this is getting too long, I will leave the most powerful message regarding the divinity of natural processes until another posting. It comes from the birth, life, and death of Jesus.
I'm looking forward to it.

Yes, you have said this before, and I am happy for you. But its not really an argument. It is just a feeling you have that since houses have to be built by someone, then the universe must have been built by someone or something. At the moment, all you have is a hypothesis that you have arrived at through an unsupported generalization. Until you have some emprical evidence or logical proof of it, anyone is free to dismiss your imaginary creator friend just as easily as my ravings about the orbiting teacup, with no faith required.
Okay. I've long gotten this point. I've just had a hard time getting you to say why it isn't an equal leap of faith to say "the universe requires no creator" or "there is no creator"

faith - "belief that is not based on proof"

Is there no equal burden for the non-believer? If I walked up to you in the street and out of the blue said, "There is no creator of the universe!", wouldn't I have to prove that. Equally if I said, "The universe requires no creator". Please explain why not. :)

You are being too easily dismissive here of the idea of equal burden of proof.

Got a recommended reading list? :)
 

Male Bonding etc

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
920
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Southwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I believe...

I believe that guys like Siddartha and Jesus did indeed walk this earth and did indeed share with their fellow humans thoughtful observations and advice regarding how one can happily and meaningfully live on this earth. When these guys became things like The Buddha and The Christ, some of who they were and what they said got lost. With the establishment of formalized religions like Buddhism and Christianity, the message was further codified and distorted.

One of my favorite Shakespearean quotes is, "There are stranger things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy." Human history is full of things that were once considered miracles and mysteries being eventually explained by science. It would be an extreme conceit and the height of ignorance to maintain that we now know all there is to know. Thus, we should see that religion and science are forever intertwined because it will forever be the job of religion to explain the unknown and forever the job of science to uncover what can be known. So much that was once only explained by religion is now known through science, and that process can only continue.

The greater part of what is in John in the Bible is of little use to me, but one quote I love (even if taken out of context): "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." That freedom should allow us to get back to the original messages of the wise men and women through the ages who have sought to help their fellow humans live happy, thoughtful, intelligent, and meaningful lives.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Is there no equal burden for the non-believer? If I walked up to you in the street and out of the blue said, "There is no creator of the universe!", wouldn't I have to prove that. Equally if I said, "The universe requires no creator". Please explain why not. :)
No, the non believer can just say that until someone comes up with convincing empirical evidence either way, the subject is not interesting. Reserving judgement until there is evidence is not the same thing as faith.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
No, the non believer can just say that until someone comes up with convincing empirical evidence either way, the subject is not interesting. Reserving judgement until there is evidence is not the same thing as faith.

But it is interesting. People wonder what it all means (i.e. 42, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) all the time. Name something that doesn't have a creation process, or that isn't derived from something else?

Empirical evidence? Just what is the planet earth?

Despite Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we take 'pictures' of electrons (not finding image to link to) we trust that representation to be accurate. We never actually 'see' the electrons or other subatomic particles in other experiments. We see indirect evidence of them. What is the logical difference (I got an idea about it).

Isn't reserving judgement what an agnostic is doing?