regarding the Holy Spirit [Archive]

Jack

08-05-2006, 08:04 PM

No, it's quite interesting to see how other people think.
I was of the opinion that mainstream Christianity regarded the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three "faces" of one being. Was I wrong?

Yea it is interesting to see what people think about the bible. I'm a member of a few Christian forums and man I'll tell yea, I hear a lot of things.

But yea, mainstream Christianity believe that the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Godhead. Others have their own opinions of course but in short, most of them believe that the Holy Spirit is a third person - thus you get the false doctrine of the trinity.

1+1+1 = 1

I don't know who started this doctrine (Nor do I care to) but the bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, so whoever started the trinity doctrine must have misinterpreted the scriptures and came up with a third being.

There are scriptures that if taken out of context seam to suggest this but once you realize that the Holy Spirit is in fact God's Spirit they all fall into place. So you end up with a better understanding of what their actually saying.

It's all very interesting! But hey, even more so if you believe.

One of the things I like about the bible is that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand it.

Lol, unlike the scripts some of you guys come up with. Man, how you put those things together is beyond me.

Anyway, biblically speaking there are two beings. The Father and His Son. Seeing how the bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Father's Spirit should make it clear that He isn't a separate identity.

What I tell people is that God created us in His image and of course our spirit isn't a separate identity. My spirit is my spirit - not a separate identity.

Truth be told it would look more like this.

1+1 = 1

The reason I say that is that the bible tells us that the Son dwells in the Father and that the Father dwells in the Son - thus they are one. Two beings yet because they indwell each other there one.

Kinda like you and your wife. Two beings yet biblically one flesh.

Deep huh!

Jack

08-05-2006, 08:16 PM

i agree :cool: but i didnt get from the link mentioned above :D

does this man its ok to lie? :p

Obviously not... But what I was saying is that if they wanted to keep some of the money it would had been fine. But they got in trouble when they lied about it. So they should have told the truth and said that what they were giving was part of what they had received. But they lied about it and guess what happen to them?

You can read up on it online at: http://www.biblegateway.com

Don't ask me why this happen because I don't know, all I know is not to lie to God because He obviously doesn't take it lightly.

benslayton

08-05-2006, 11:34 PM

Bro,

Acts 2

4:All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

From what I understand here the Holy Spirit is what you recieve the Holy Spirit lives inside of you.

To get to the point, the Apostle says that they haven't lied to men but to God.

Yeah, I can see why you'd say that but, Still the holy Spirit is of God (from God) So he lied to God.

benslayton

08-05-2006, 11:41 PM

Well anyways I dont have anymore time to post until a week. Because after church in the morning i'm heading down to Florida for a website competion. Bro you know that we can argue for a mill. years but God is Still God, and Jesus still died on the cross for you, me, and everyone else:).
Oh yeah just to let you know you asked me to look at your site (which I already had about 3-4 months ago) respectfully. That's all cool bro. I did again. Bro I would never do bag on you or anything, now what I mean.

benslayton

08-05-2006, 11:52 PM

Ok also look at this:

When you search "Spirit" back to the Hebrew/Greek it means "pneuma" which means "spirit (of God)" see for yourself.Holy Spirit (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/lexiconc.cfm?ss=spirit&searchtype=any)

And then make sure you click on the 4151 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/4/1154822049-6069.html) beside it in the chart there.

Twey

08-06-2006, 12:06 AM

I'd disagree with that last point. The way "pneuma" is used only implies that; the word itself doesn't necessarily carry that meaning.

benslayton

08-06-2006, 12:14 AM

The bible was written in greek and hebrew. You know how there is 4 different meanings for love in greek, but in english there is 1. Well when stuff gets translated over into english, it sometimes gets a slightly different meaning. Well in this case "pneuma" means "spirit (of God)".

Twey

08-06-2006, 12:52 AM

And that's what I'm disagreeing with. The word "pneuma" only has that meaning because that's the way it's used in the Bible.

Jack

08-06-2006, 01:20 AM

Check this out, it's rich!

1 Corinthians 2:10-14 (New King James Version)
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Notice where it says that the Spirit of God searches the deep things (Thoughts) of God, and that no one knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him. He goes on to say, "Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." So yes, the Holy Spirit is of God since we have received His Spirit but from reading the above one would have to come to the conclusion that God's Spirit is more then just a force. One would have to conclude that like man, God's Spirit is alive and active within Himself. Also notice that His Spirit teaches us since "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Give that scripture some thought my friends... It has a lot to teach us. And hey, it's all Good! :)

jr_yeo

08-06-2006, 05:12 AM

I'd have to say that the Holy Spirit is God
could u clarify this with

Seeing how the bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Father's Spirit should make it clear that He isn't a separate identity

first ur saying that theres a Trinity but now ur saying that theres no Trinity :p which is which? what is ur belief? are u a mainstream Christian then?

...and of course our spirit isn't a separate identity. My spirit is my spirit
but who gave you your spirit? :p

if you dont mind, could u give me Bible verses to support ur claim and not just a link to a site (http://www.biblegateway.com).

jscheuer1

08-06-2006, 05:24 AM

Who knows What.

BLiZZaRD

08-06-2006, 07:10 AM

The bible was written in greek and hebrew.

The bible was also written by man. Time and again we forget that very simple fact. It was also translated, and rewritten, and anyone can guess what happens then.

Ever play that game when you were a kid where you had X amount of people in a line, and you told the first person a sentence and it got whispered all the way down the line. By the time it reached the end it was a completely new sentence?

Throw in a few centuries, several languages, and some things left out or added... you get the idea.

I don't like to talk about the bible itself. Too much stock in a book. But I do enjoy playing the "devils advocate" so to speak.

I do love to learn about others beliefs and ways though, it is very interesting stuff. :)

Jack

08-06-2006, 08:19 PM

http://www.beholdhecomes.net/dove2.gif

WHO IS THE HOLY SPIRIT

God - Acts 5:3-4 NIV
The Spirit of God - Matthew 3:16 NIV
Spirit of your Father - Matthew 10:20 NIV
The Spirit who is from God - 1 Corinthians 2:12 NIV
The Spirit of the living God - 2 Corinthians 3:3 NIV
The Helper - John 14:26 NKJV
The Comforter - John 14:26 KJV
Spirit of Truth - John 14:17 NIV
Living water - John 7:38-39 NIV
The Spirit of the Lord - Luke 4:18 NIV
The Counselor - John 14:16-17 NIV
The Guide - John 16:13 NIV
The Testifyer - John 15:26 NIV
The Compeller - Acts 20:22 NIV
Spirit of holiness - Romans 1:4 NIV
The Gift - Acts 1:4 NIV
Leader - Romans 8:14 NIV
Intercesser - Romans 8:27 NIV
Justifier - 1 Corinthians 6:11 NIV
Sanctifier - 2 Thessalonians 2 :13 NIV
Vindicater - 1 Timothy 3:16 NIV
Revealer - Ephesians 3:5 NIV
Teacher - 1 Corinthians 2:13 NIV
Friend - Philippians 2:1 NIV

There are scriptures when misinterpreted seam to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a third person, however, when you come to realize that the Holy Spirit is in fact our Father's Spirit (Not a third being) those scriptures fall into place. Why not look at them again - for the first time! :)

"Only dead fish go with the flow."
- Unknown

jscheuer1

08-06-2006, 08:49 PM

That dove looks like it must be getting mighty tired.

blm126

08-06-2006, 09:15 PM

maybe doves always fly like that? I've not gotten close enough to one in flight to say.

jscheuer1

08-06-2006, 09:26 PM

Well, it certainly isn't getting anywhere.

Twey

08-06-2006, 09:40 PM

What're you talking about? It's Burdened with the Weight of Peace. Obviously.

blm126

08-06-2006, 09:49 PM

Well, it certainly isn't getting anywhere.
Sure it is,just scroll up and down.:)

mburt

08-06-2006, 09:57 PM

Whoa.. This has gone from Christianity, to doves be able to fly forever, and ever... We are really off-topic people. :)

jscheuer1

08-06-2006, 09:59 PM

Sure it is,just scroll up and down.:)

Typical of religion. I have to contribute. "What is it with God? He's all seeing, all powerful, all knowing but . . . he needs money." - George Carlin

jscheuer1

08-06-2006, 10:02 PM

Whoa.. This has gone from Christianity, to doves be able to fly forever, and ever... We are really off-topic people. :)

Can you say "the lounge"? :p

Anyways, it's still on topic. After all, symbols play an important roll in all religiosity.

jscheuer1

08-06-2006, 10:04 PM

What're you talking about? It's Burdened with the Weight of Peace. Obviously.

Sounds like a dead weight. That type of Peace is supposed to be uplifting.

mburt

08-06-2006, 10:04 PM

No.. "the lounge" is not in my vocabulary...

Crap.. I just said it.. :)

mburt

08-06-2006, 10:04 PM

religiosity

.... I had no idea that was a word until today ....

jscheuer1

08-06-2006, 10:06 PM

.... I had no idea that was a word until today ....

Knowledge itself, can be uplifting.

mburt

08-06-2006, 10:10 PM

:D Agreed.

jr_yeo

08-07-2006, 12:44 PM

So what would be the logical conclusion? I'd have to say that the Holy Spirit is God.
where did u get this conclusion then? :p

jscheuer1

08-07-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jack
So what would be the logical conclusion? I'd have to say that the Holy Spirit is God.where did u get this conclusion then? :p

Really! I must have missed that one. The only possible logical conclusion as regards matters of the spirit is agnosticism. Anything else requires a leap of a faith and is therefore not logical. This includes atheism as well as all religions, none of these pass the logic test.

However, before anyone gets too excited about this fact, should they be so inclined, thinking adults may choose to suspend logic for whatever reason(s). There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. It is though, by definition, not logical.

blm126

08-07-2006, 09:44 PM

It is though, by definition, not logical.

Ok, Spock

Twey

08-07-2006, 09:57 PM

jscheuer1

08-08-2006, 03:12 AM

The argument for agnosticism is simple. God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved scientifically. I'm agnostic means; "I don't know." To say that one could then go forward from that solid basis in logic to determine logically, say - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, is utter nonsense. To say logically the Holy Spirit is one thing or another is likewise folly. There is nothing wrong in speculating about how things might be but, it is wise to keep one's perspective on how things are. There are other ways of knowing in the universe besides logic but, as I said, they are not logical. I have no problem with someone holding a personal truth, as long as it isn't paraded as the Truth for all people. It is that kind of mental error that gives rise to the majority of evils committed in the name of religion.

"Good people tend to do good and bad people tend to do evil but, it takes religion to make a good person do evil." I'm not sure who said that and I don't regard it as exactly universal unless you consider 'religion' in its broadest sense, as in the phrase - "He was going to go away with his buddies for the weekend until he talked to his girlfriend and 'got religion'.", where it can be a system of worship that has nothing to do with God, as well as the kind that does.

When I first chimed in on this thread I did so with the one universal truth I am certain of:

"Who knows What."

If you go back to that post or simply look at it above, you will notice that it is not a question but, a statement.

jscheuer1

08-08-2006, 06:40 AM

I would disagree. Since there are huge gaps in humanity's knowledge of the world, it is perfectly logical to theorise about what might be filling those gaps. That's how science works -- people present a set of theories, from which the mainstream chooses one (generally by dint of Occam's Razor) and sticks with it until a simpler explanation is found, or the old one is disproved (or both, quite often). Gods aren't such an outlandish concept as all that. In fact, they're probably the most plausible we have right now.

Emphasis added. I would say that it is perfectly logical that people might theorize. I wouldn't say that any of those theories would necessarily have any basis in logic.

That is not how science works. That is how popular science works. Real science proceeds from a theory or direct observation. In the first case, if the theory cannot be proven through direct observation, it remains just that, a theory and not a logical conclusion. In the second case, directly observable phenomena are facts that science may proceed logically from to a logical conclusion.

Twey

08-08-2006, 08:41 AM

In the first case, if the theory cannot be proven through direct observation, it remains just that, a theory and not a logical conclusion.That is so, but until that theory is disproved it is relied upon as if it were the truth (e.g. collision theory). Also, there is a "line of belief" that must be applied to all science. Since we have no reliable input on which to found our knowledge (the senses are known to be unreliable in cases), everything think we know is really nothing more than a theory.

jscheuer1

08-08-2006, 02:46 PM

Since we have no reliable input on which to found our knowledge (the senses are known to be unreliable in cases), everything think we know is really nothing more than a theory.

That is why, in science, if an experiment cannot be reliably duplicated by all others using the same or similar equipment, its results are not relied upon as the factual basis for anything.

There are theories and there are theories. Some, like evolution, continue to be theories only because, although not definitively proven, are still supported by the preponderance of evidence while all competing theories that purport to explain the same phenomena, do not fit observable behavior in nature or the fossil record, etc.

String theory is not relied upon for much of anything other than for devising experiments that may or may not prove string theory. I am not at all familiar with collision theory (by that name). However, theory is sometimes used to refer to the body of knowledge surrounding a particular set of phenomena. In that case, it can continue to be referred to as a theory even when all its laws have been proven. In that case, it is based upon and can be relied upon as the basis for logic.

A theory about the Holy Spirit has no basis in fact and is therefore not based on logic.

The truth of this is self evident. Some people are uncomfortable with this fact, even going so far as imposing laws that provide penalties for individuals who merely state what is true. That is the lunacy of seeing religion as based upon logic.

Twey

08-08-2006, 10:33 PM

A theory about the Holy Spirit has no basis in fact and is therefore not based on logic.Religion itself is not based upon logic, but the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit, to take an example, is part of a logical conclusion made with very little data. It is logical in that it ties up all the loose ends of science (at least in the mind of a believer).
Some, like evolution, continue to be theories only because, although not definitively proven, are still supported by the preponderance of evidence while all competing theories that purport to explain the same phenomena, do not fit observable behavior in nature or the fossil record, etc.A Christian would simply move the "line of belief" back a little further to explain this away. They would undoubtedly say that Christianity belongs to the same group of theories as evolution (assuming they're not a literalist against evolution, of course).

Unfortunately, as I already mentioned, there are really too few loose ends (and those too vague) to come up with an accurate theory, so wild guesswork is definitely in progress. Therefore, you are right in saying that any given religion is illogical, but not in saying that all religion is illogical.

jscheuer1

08-09-2006, 04:21 AM

Twey, I'm not sure that your last post makes any sense to me. Don't confuse theories based on fact and theories based on fantasy. To say that some people do so, doesn't make those theories based upon fantasy logical.

One can in good scholarship investigate the belief systems apparently in evidence in a particular religious tradition. These investigation can be based upon logic but, as with any cultural phenomena, the sands will tend to shift beneath one's feet. This is not to say such investigations cannot be rewarding.

Something else that I think is being missed here - Many people believe in God. To them, God is real. The fact that they cannot prove this doesn't matter to them. These sorts of individuals are usually relatively harmless but, they often help to foster an environment where those who not only think that they know that God exists but also think that they know God's plan, can flourish. It is this second group that can be very dangerous to society and the world at large.

Twey

08-09-2006, 06:56 AM

The theories based on fantasy aren't logical. But they fill a gap left by logic. Therefore, while any given theory may not be logical, the creation of such a theory is a perfectly logical action.
Something else that I think is being missed here - Many people believe in God. To them, God is real. The fact that they cannot prove this doesn't matter to them. These sorts of individuals are usually relatively harmless but, they often help to foster an environment where those who not only think that they know that God exists but also think that they know God's plan, can flourish. It is this second group that can be very dangerous to society and the world at large.This is, of course, true, as is your earlier quote (darn it, I can't remember who said that either). Christianity, if you gentlemen will forgive me, rather aggravates the problem by advertising itself rather aggressively (to the point of brainwashing in some cases: children are indoctrinated from a very early age, before they have the reasoning abilities and cynicism to question what they're being told). However, a psychopath is a psychopath. If s/he lacked a motive, s/he would find another, or create one out of whole cloth. There are exceptions, of course; the Crusades and the current Israel situation illustrate cases where religion has caused "good" people to harm others. It has done some rather unpleasant things in its time, but it has also helped a lot of people. Really, in terms of humans, religion is just an energy, a motivating force. It's up to the leaders of the religion what they use it for.

jscheuer1

08-09-2006, 07:11 AM

. . . while any given theory may not be logical, the creation of such a theory is a perfectly logical action.

Huh? It may be logically expected to happen, but I don't see how it is a logical action. The difference being that we can logically expect there to be fan crazes over the latest movie or rock star. That doesn't make such crazes logical actions.

"All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates was a cat."

It's a faulty syllogism.

Twey

08-09-2006, 10:23 PM

Not at all.

"There are things for which we know no reason or cause. [insert religion here] explains these things, and hasn't been disproved. Therefore, [insert religion here] can be assumed to be true."

jscheuer1

08-10-2006, 04:03 AM

"There are things for which we know no reason or cause. [insert religion here] explains these things, and hasn't been disproved. Therefore, [insert religion here] can be assumed to be true."

Are you trying to be funny? Just in case you aren't:

"There are things for which we know no reason or cause. [insert religion here] explains these things, and hasn't been proved. Therefore, [insert religion here] can be assumed to be false."

Until the bottom version isn't as valid as the top version, neither is the basis for logical conclusions other than those followed by:

"But we don't know for sure."

In other words, agnosticism.

mburt

08-11-2006, 10:21 PM

Okay, we're allowed to believe in what we want to. Arguing over whether it's true, or valid, or more believable, blah blah blah.. Your point of view determines what's right and wrong, you can't force that on to someone else. He's allowed to be funny if he wants to be about religion (I don't think twey was), I don't understand what the racket is about. You can think what you want is right. And I'm not trying to be offensive here, but no one is really right or wrong here, it's based on your point of view (already mentioned).

Twey

08-11-2006, 10:50 PM

He's allowed to be funny if he wants to be about religion (I don't think twey was)I wasn't, no.
I don't understand what the racket is about.It was a discussion, not a racket :)
You can think what you want is right. And I'm not trying to be offensive here, but no one is really right or wrong here, it's based on your point of view (already mentioned).But a point of view is bettered by comparing relative merits and failings of other people's points of view. These merits and failings will be different in other people's eyes, of course, otherwise any two participants in a discussion would come away with exactly the same opinion on the thing being discussed.
Your point of view determines what's right and wrong, you can't force that on to someone else.Neither myself nor John is trying to say "this is the truth and nothing else;" quite the opposite, in fact. We're really just bashing ideas together to see which bits stay attached. :)
"There are things for which we know no reason or cause. [insert religion here] explains these things, and hasn't been proved. Therefore, [insert religion here] can be assumed to be false."That is where the "line of belief" comes in. There is nothing in existence that can be proved totally and absolutely, since the means by which we perceive that existence can be flawed. Therefore, that statement, without the "line of belief," renders all of science and everything humanity thinks it knows, nonsense. This is a very logical conclusion; unfortunately, it benefits no-one, and there is no way to draw any conclusions from it, so most people choose to make leaps of faith, if you will, that seem to fit the circumstances. For example, as I type this, my eyes can watch my fingers hit the keyboard, my ears hear the sounds of the keys being hit home, and my fingers feel the impact. However, it's entirely possible that all my senses are lying to me, and the muscle movements I think are moving my fingers are, in fact, working my jaw, or even that I don't have a body at all and all my senses are just illusions fed to my brain. This is a complex and unworkable example, however, and if I make the leap of faith of accepting that my senses are telling me the truth, I can follow it to the logical conclusion that I am in fact typing a message to you, which in itself furthers my theory that my senses are reporting things that are actually happening.
Until the bottom version isn't as valid as the top version, neither is the basis for logical conclusions other than those followed by:

"But we don't know for sure."

In other words, agnosticism.Which is exactly what I'm saying. We don't know anything for sure. Any fact we think we know is, in fact, only a workable hypothesis. Therefore, religion is as logical a conclusion as anything else. "For sure" is a point on a scale, not an end of that scale.

mburt

08-11-2006, 10:53 PM

Eh... What do I know :)

jscheuer1

08-12-2006, 05:02 AM

Religion is based on myth and superstition. At least your 'typing hypothesis' is based upon observable phenomena.

I think we get a little off target when we assume that just because, at the sub-atomic (quantum) level of reality that the act of observing can change the properties of the thing being observed. And just because we share a common reality construct based upon the number and type of senses we possess (at least for the most part), that doesn't mean that experiments that can be faithfully replicated by others are illusions.

When the rent money is due, try telling the landlord that it's all just an illusion.

Snorkle?

08-12-2006, 05:05 AM

LoL isnt this programming stuff

jscheuer1

08-12-2006, 05:39 AM

LoL isnt this programming stuff

Religion is a type of social programming. Anyways, this is the lounge.

Twey

08-12-2006, 09:37 AM

I think we get a little off target when we assume that just because, at the sub-atomic (quantum) level of reality that the act of observing can change the properties of the thing being observed.Ah -- yes, that's the example I was looking for, thank you :)
Quantum theory is a fine example of a theory that's not based on observable evidence, but inserted to fill a gap. It explains things, and hasn't so far been disproved, so it's taken as fact.

jscheuer1

08-12-2006, 10:14 AM

Quantum theory includes verifiable information, facts. Those may be taken as such. The parts that haven't been proved aren't relied upon as facts, they are the subject of future experiments. The trouble with it is that many of the experiments that physicists would like to perform aren't too easy to do, even with the most advanced particle accelerators available today. Those experiments that have been able to be carried out have confirmed or proved false parts of the theory which then was updated. That's how science is done. That's what a scientific theory is. It is based on the observable phenomena. Don't confuse the fact that the phenomena are difficult to observe, as in quantum physics with phenomena that are impossible to observe, as in religion.

Twey

08-12-2006, 11:03 AM

Not so (as far as I'm aware; quantum mechanics isn't exactly a topic where I feel at home). The scientists observe the effects of the particles, not the particles themselves, and thus:
Those experiments that have been able to be carried out have confirmed or proved false parts of the theory which then was updated.is not necessarily true. Since several leaps of faith are involved between the observable phenomena (the effects of the particles) and the cause of those phenomena (the particles themselves), the confirmation is far from absolute.

jscheuer1

08-12-2006, 11:27 AM

It all can be replicated independently. There is no study of that kind involving - say, prayer. That would be impossible as, you have no way of knowing who all is praying what at any given moment. With religion, everything is unknowable by definition, supernatural. Science deals with the natural world.

Twey

08-12-2006, 11:51 AM

With religion, everything is unknowable by definitionThis is true. I'm not trying to prove that religion is a certain fact, but that nothing else is either.
supernaturalCareful with that word -- "supernatural" is very commonly misused. Religion deals with the natural: things that were created without interference by sentient beings.

jscheuer1

08-12-2006, 08:00 PM

This is true. I'm not trying to prove that religion is a certain fact, but that nothing else is either.

That is a philosophical point. The physical reality of a brick is indisputably greater than that of God.

Merriam Webster has supernatural as (emphasis added):

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
- supernatural noun
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ly /-'na-ch&r-&-lE, -'nach-r&-, -'na-ch&r-lE/ adverb
- su·per·nat·u·ral·ness noun

And, before you go off saying sub-atomic particles are invisible, they aren't. They're just hard to see.

jscheuer1

08-12-2006, 10:03 PM

I was just musing on some of the concepts we have been bandying about and came up with this, which I hope will clarify my point of view or at least add food for thought:

A Mad Professor's Hierarchies of Logical Thought (in no particular order :) ):

Science is based upon and limited by observable data, a good basis for logical thought.

Philosophy is based upon and limited by the imagination - not too logical, logic may be used within it but, since it is based upon imagination, often so are the conclusions.

Religion is based upon many things and limited by the titular or defacto head of a particular brand. Science could be your religion but, as such, would be subject to some of the same vagaries as other religions based on myth, superstition, fear, etc. - because of that titular/defacto head part. You can use logic within it but, the basis is suspect.

________________

For those of you enthralled with the use of logic without scientific basis, it can be applied but its conclusions are unverifiable, ultimately illogical. Science does allow for a philosophical outlook not bounded by the senses, it simply cannot verify in a reliable manner anything that depends upon same as its basis. Consider the Big Bang Theory. Much of it has now been confirmed but, the one area not likely to be confirmed anytime soon is; "What exactly was the situation just prior to it?" Here lies all the basis for unseen influences over physical reality that anyone could ever need and I am sure there are others. The only problem is, just like the question of what happened before the Big Bang, none of these can be logically verified.

Philosophies come in different flavors - nihilist, material, spiritual, etc. Science is a material philosophy. If you are a nihilist or spiritualist, it probably is not for you.

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

Twey

08-12-2006, 11:10 PM

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English:
Supernatural \Su`per*nat"u*ral\, a. [Pref. super- + natural: cf.
OF. supernaturel, F. surnaturel.]
Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature;
miraculous.
[1913 Webster]

Syn: Preternatural.

Usage: Supernatural, Preternatural. Preternatural
signifies beside nature, and supernatural, above or
beyond nature. What is very greatly aside from the
ordinary course of things is preternatural; what is
above or beyond the established laws of the universe
is supernatural. The dark day which terrified all
Europe nearly a century ago was preternatural; the
resurrection of the dead is supernatural. "That form
which the earth is under at present is preternatural,
like a statue made and broken again." --T. Burnet.
"Cures wrought by medicines are natural operations;
but the miraculous ones wrought by Christ and his
apostles were supernatural." --Boyle.
[1913 Webster]

That is supernatural, whether it be, that is
either not in the chain of natural cause and
effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and
effect in nature, from without the chain.
--Bushnell.
[1913 Webster]

We must not view creation as supernatural, but
we do look upon it as miraculous. --McCosh.
[1913 Webster]

The supernatural, whatever is above and beyond the scope,
or the established course, of the laws of nature. "Nature
and the supernatural." --H. Bushnell.
[1913 Webster]This is, of course, difficult, since the "natural laws" change on a daily basis :)
Science is based upon and limited by observable data, a good basis for logical thought.Agreed.
Philosophy is based upon and limited by the imagination - not too logical, logic may be used within it but, since it is based upon imagination, often so are the conclusions.Also true. Note that there is no great leap between science and philosophy; they are simply points on the same scale.
Religion is based upon many things and limited by the titular or defacto head of a particular brand. Science could be your religion but, as such, would be subject to some of the same vagaries as other religions based on myth, superstition, fear, etc. - because of that titular/defacto head part. You can use logic within it but, the basis is suspect.Not so. A head of a religion need not exist. I myself am a fairly religious person, but disassociate myself quite strongly from organised religion, in which people are told what to believe by a head of that religion. Other than the head, you make no specific differentiation between philosophy and religion. Was this your intention, or are there other points involved?
The only problem is, just like the question of what happened before the Big Bang, none of these can be logically verified.At the risk of reiterating a point, the Big Bang hasn't been verified either, even to the point in the scale at which science normally begins, and although it is taught as fact in academic institutions, there are several other theories floating about, and the Big Bang (I am lead to believe) rules only by a bare majority amongst the scientists who specialise in such things.

mwinter

08-12-2006, 11:31 PM

Science does allow for a philosophical outlook not bounded by the senses, it simply cannot verify in a reliable manner anything that depends upon same as its basis. Consider the Big Bang Theory. Much of it has now been confirmed but, the one area not likely to be confirmed anytime soon is; "What exactly was the situation just prior to it?"

That's perhaps because you're quite likely to be told that the question is nonsensical. Time is a dimension; a property of the universe. If you argue that there is a point at which there is no universe, then you must accept that there is also no time; "prior" becomes meaningless.

Of course, there are theories that consider "before", but yes, it's not likely something that can be commented upon definitively.

Mike

I fully intend to stay out of the religion aspects of this conversation, by the way.

jscheuer1

08-13-2006, 03:40 AM

Not so. A head of a religion need not exist. I myself am a fairly religious person, but disassociate myself quite strongly from organised religion, in which people are told what to believe by a head of that religion. Other than the head, you make no specific differentiation between philosophy and religion. Was this your intention, or are there other points involved?

In that case, you are the head of your religion/philosophy. I find this preferable to organized religion which can cause so many problems.

To answer your question though, no. I can't think of any other major differences between religion and philosophy. However, a personally held religion of one isn't really a religion, so much as a philosophy. Does your religion have any saints or holy people who were also adherents of it? Does it have a book like the Bible or the Koran that lays out its traditions and allegories that isn't the holy book of a more widely recognised religion? Is there a collection plate?

Much has been verified about Big Bang, I was only referring to those parts that have when I said as much, I never said it had been proven.

This is, of course, difficult, since the "natural laws" change on a daily basis

Not the really basic ones. Do not mistake the exciting (to many) frontiers of science to mean that we can honestly be uncertain about things like gravity, oxidation, inertia, atomic physics, etc. These may one day be explained at a more basic and unified level. However, they will at that point all still follow the laws we know for them today.

jscheuer1

08-13-2006, 03:51 AM

I fully intend to stay out of the religion aspects of this conversation, by the way.

Probably a wise choice. I have tried to do as much as well. I am not advocating for or against any particular religion. I'm just maintaining that none are scientifically sound bases for logical thought.

As for what was happening/not happening at the time before time or no-time of the when or not when there was and wasn't anything. I like that, very Zen. Or, as I stated at the beginning of my foray into this thread, now for the third time:

"Who knows What."

Twey

08-13-2006, 12:35 PM

To answer your question though, no. I can't think of any other major differences between religion and philosophy. However, a personally held religion of one isn't really a religion, so much as a philosophy.I think I'd disagree. Although I hate to do it, it's time to quote CIDE again:
Religion \Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L.
religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein
to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.]
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their
recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having
power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and
honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love,
fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power,
whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites
and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of
faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical
religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion;
revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion
of idol worshipers.Compared with "philosophy:"
Philosophy \Phi*los"o*phy\ (f[i^]*l[o^]s"[-o]*f[y^]), n.; pl.
Philosophies (f[i^]*l[o^]s"[-o]*f[i^]z). [OE. philosophie,
F. philosophie, L. philosophia, from Gr. filosofi`a. See
Philosopher.]
1. Literally, the love of, inducing the search after, wisdom;
in actual usage, the knowledge of phenomena as explained
by, and resolved into, causes and reasons, powers and
laws.
[1913 Webster]

Note: When applied to any particular department of knowledge,
philosophy denotes the general laws or principles under
which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating
to that subject are comprehended. Thus philosophy, when
applied to God and the divine government, is called
theology; when applied to material objects, it is
called physics; when it treats of man, it is called
anthropology and psychology, with which are connected
logic and ethics; when it treats of the necessary
conceptions and relations by which philosophy is
possible, it is called metaphysics.
[1913 Webster]

Note: "Philosophy has been defined: -- the science of things
divine and human, and the causes in which they are
contained; -- the science of effects by their causes;
-- the science of sufficient reasons; -- the science of
things possible, inasmuch as they are possible; -- the
science of things evidently deduced from first
principles; -- the science of truths sensible and
abstract; -- the application of reason to its
legitimate objects; -- the science of the relations of
all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason; --
the science of the original form of the ego, or mental
self; -- the science of science; -- the science of the
absolute; -- the science of the absolute indifference
of the ideal and real." --Sir W. Hamilton.
Does your religion have any saints or holy people who were also adherents of it?Unlikely. :) That's rather an odd point, though, since the religion decides whether someone was holy or not, and occasionally even decides the religion to which that person "really" belonged ("anonymous Christians" spring to mind).
Does it have a book like the Bible or the Koran that lays out its traditions and allegories that isn't the holy book of a more widely recognised religion?Certainly not. That would rather defeat the point, since individuality is key.
Is there a collection plate?Well, I have a Good Causes piggy bank. :rolleyes:

jscheuer1

08-13-2006, 07:01 PM

Wait a minute, how can you possibly disagree with, emphasis added:

To answer your question though, no. I can't think of any other major differences between religion and philosophy. However, a personally held religion of one isn't really a religion, so much as a philosophy.

The use of "I can't think of" and "major" means that I personally cannot contain the idea (implied: at this moment) of there being other major differences. Also note that I didn't say it wasn't a religion. The phrase "so much as" indicates relativity. My other questions as regards saints and plates and such (though not singled out in your quote from my post) were meant to be rhetorical, not defining.

Skimming through the definitions you offer from CIDE (which is not necessarily the definitive authority on these matters), I still don't see how there is a major (major and minor being relative terms appropriate to any individual's subjective opinion) difference in a religion of one from a philosophy (theology) of one. They are perhaps, different aspects of the same greater whole.

I think the CIDE definition of philosophy as a science is too broad. The problem with it is that the bases for many of these 'sciences' are shrouded in unfounded assertions that must be taken on faith.

As I said, logic and the scientific method may be applied to virtually anything but, the conclusions are unscientific and illogical if the basis is.

I too, accept donations. :) But, I generally prefer to work for a living.

Twey

08-13-2006, 07:41 PM

The use of "I can't think of" and "major" means that I personally cannot contain the idea (implied: at this moment) of there being other major differences.Sorry. Nevertheless, I provided some. :)
Skimming through the definitions you offer from CIDE (which is not necessarily the definitive authority on these matters)If there's a definitive English dictionary without regional bias, that's probably it.
I still don't see how there is a major (major and minor being relative terms appropriate to any individual's subjective opinion) difference in a religion of one from a philosophy (theology) of one.You may be right if you're saying that religion is composed of moral philosophy and theology. Of course, both disciplines rely on epistemology.
I think the CIDE definition of philosophy as a science is too broad. The problem with it is that the bases for many of these 'sciences' are shrouded in unfounded assertions that must be taken on faith.The CIDE apparently agrees with me that all of those sciences are shrouded in unfounded assertions that must be taken on faith. :)
As I said, logic and the scientific method may be applied to virtually anything but, the conclusions are unscientific and illogical if the basis is.But that still includes everything. Above, you differentiated the "sciences" (physics, chemistry, biology, et al) from the other philosophies as being based on observable evidence. This makes the leap of faith required smaller, but does not and never can remove it completely.
I too, accept donations. But, I generally prefer to work for a living.I don't consider my own welfare a Good Cause. :) I donate the money to a few different charities. I believe I have also raised around USD$10 for the Cats' Protection League on these forums. :p

P.S. sorry for cutting an emoticon from that last quote. There's now a limit to 4 per post.

jscheuer1

08-13-2006, 08:08 PM

P.S. sorry for cutting an emoticon from that last quote. There's now a limit to 4 per post.

Best news I've had all day!

Well, what we seem to boil down to is - Are the physical sciences to be relied upon or not?

I admit that philosophically one may choose to ignore them but, there has never been a demonstrable exception, the beauty of the physical sciences in this regard is their very nature of including and understanding the exceptions and proceeding from there. This is definitely different than religion (generally) where there has yet to be a demonstrable example and exceptions are labeled as heresy or some such thing and disregarded, prosecuted or worse.

Twey

08-13-2006, 08:11 PM

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. :) If there has never been a demonstrable exception, it's taken as fact -- in other words, until it is disproved. I also agree with you about the frequent self-blinkering of religions to things that do not fit in with their theories -- another reason I prefer to distance myself from mainstream religions.

jscheuer1

08-13-2006, 08:38 PM

If there has never been a demonstrable exception, it's taken as fact

What more proof could possibly be required?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Shakespeare (Hamlet)

And when we find them, we will endeavor to understand them.

Twey

08-13-2006, 09:18 PM

My point exactly.
Tsk, you could've saved us a lot of time by saying that in the first place. ;)

I rethought quite a lot of my philosophy, though, so I guess it was worth it. :)

Jack

08-13-2006, 09:34 PM

My point exactly.
Tsk, you could've saved us a lot of time by saying that in the first place. ;)

I rethought quite a lot of my philosophy, though, so I guess it was worth it. :)

Sorry but I couldn't find what he said. Would you be so kind as to quote him for me.

Thanks! :)

Twey

08-13-2006, 11:01 PM

If there has never been a demonstrable exception, it's taken as factWhat more proof could possibly be required?That one?

jscheuer1

08-14-2006, 03:16 AM

Before anyone gets too excited, I meant no demonstrable exception in the face of countless demonstrations of the veracity of a given physical law. I was not referring to claims regarding supernatural 'laws' which have neither supporting nor detracting evidence and are therefore merely speculation.

Twey

08-14-2006, 04:31 AM

Certainly. But still you admit that it is, of a sort, logic, although of course due to circumstances physical "laws" are considerably easier to test than "laws" of the insubstantial.

Jack

08-14-2006, 05:15 AM

You'll have to forgive me because I'm getting a good laugh out of this. Reason being is that some of us have actually felt God's presence and here you are telling us not to get excited over your little theories. Oh you of little faith! How amusing that you would think so little of us.

God in His infinite wisdom has hidden these things from you, and yet you tell us not to get excited over your little theories. How sad that you would allow yourselves to think that you can figure God out.

Surely you spoke of things you didn't understand, things too wonderful for you to know. Matters that are beyond your finding out.

If you think your wise by the standards of this age you should become a fool. Somewhere it's written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

But you are so wise. Surely you are the people and wisdom will die with you!

jscheuer1

08-14-2006, 05:20 AM

"laws" of the insubstantial.

Name one.

jscheuer1

08-14-2006, 05:27 AM

You'll have to forgive me because I'm getting a good laugh out of this. Reason being is that some of us have actually felt God's presence and here you are telling us not to get excited over your little theories. Oh you of little faith! How amusing that you would think so little of us.

You have a funny habit of overusing bold and italic text (which I removed from the quote). Are you that insecure about what you are typing?

Who are you to say with certainty that your actual experience of God's presence was anything more than an hallucination, can you prove to me that it wasn't? Many people have 'visions'. None of these come with documentation. Some folks just assume that they must be God talking to them or whatever. Many serial killers have this type of experience and are certain that God is telling them whom to kill.

I don't think little of 'you', frankly you scare the ________ out of me!

Twey

08-14-2006, 05:37 AM

"laws" of the insubstantial.Name one.
The soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intellectual, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and ... the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintellectual, and multiform, and changeable.
Reason being is that some of us have actually felt God's presence and here you are telling us not to get excited over your little theories. Oh you of little faith! How amusing that you would think so little of us.Ah. Now this I take objection to. People of the forum, please forgive me for biting on this one.

Yes, we of little faith. I scorn faith. I avoid faith wherever possible, because "faith" means "believing in something with no evidence whatsoever, against all the odds, when it has been disproved credibly." You say you have felt God's presence. Therefore, you have a reason to believe in Him -- that is not faith, and I respect your beliefs in that way.
God in His infinite wisdom has hidden these things from you, and yet you tell us not to get excited over your little theories. How sad that you would allow yourselves to think that you can figure God out.Forgive me, but it is my turn to laugh. You scorn us for our lack of faith in God, and at the same time tell us that God is the one who has caused that lack of faith? You declare and denounce the work of your God in one sentence. You are quick to shout out "infinite wisdom!" from the rooftops, but apparently you don't stop to think what it means. Surely, if God is infinitely wise, and He has chosen to hide some knowledge from me, I am better serving him by continuing as I am?
Surely you spoke of things you didn't understand, things too wonderful for you to know. Matters that are beyond your finding out.That is exactly of what I spoke. I know it well, and it is this very uncertainty upon which I base my entire philosophy.
If you think your wise by the standards of this age you should become a fool.If you think there is such a thing as universal wisdom, perhaps you should be the one considering that career choice.
But you are so wise. Surely you are the people and wisdom will die with you!Indeed my wisdom shall die with me, for my wisdom applies fully only to me, as yours does to you, and John to his. By sharing that wisdom, some of it may find root in a like mind, where it can co-exist happily with the rest of that person's philosophy, but to attempt to force all of one's wisdom upon someone else, totally replacing their wisdom, is akin to burning the Mona Lisa and replacing it with Le Bonheur de Vivre. Both are of great value, but both are unique, and individual, and special, and neither can replace the other.

You show an extraordinary lack of insight into the minds of others, and have totally corrupted two whole intriguing discussions.

Jack

08-14-2006, 06:10 AM

Who are you to say with certainty that your actual experience of God's presence was anything more than an hallucination, can you prove to me that it wasn't?

Actually we have the words of the prophets, Apostles and many other witnesses that assure us of these things. Most of all, we have Christ Himself - the living and true witness of God. He's our assurance and confidence! What do you have? What ground do you have for your beliefs?

And oh, to compare people of faith to serial killers isn't to your credit my friend. However, what you don't know is that no murderer has eternal life.

So yes, I have all the assurance I need (And then some) right in a book. Written by men of faith. Men who spoke of things that are far beyond your reasoning.

If you think it so strange that a living and loving God would make Himself known then how will you ever call out to Him? And should He answer, would you not believe Him?

Hey, don't take my word for it. Take Him up on His word and see for yourself if He isn't faithful!

If you don't have a bible visit: http://www.biblegateway.com and start by reading the Gospel of John, and whenever you come across a promise of God call Him on it. I dare you!

jscheuer1

08-14-2006, 06:12 AM

What's with this bold text all the time? Why can't you type like everybody else? I find it offensive.

Twey

08-14-2006, 06:24 AM

So yes, I have all the assurance I need (And then some) right in a book.I have a book too, but it appears to be by Anthony Horowitz. Should I follow it?
If you don't have a bible visit: http://www.biblegateway.com and start by reading the Gospel of JohnThe Gospel of John is generally considered less accurate than the Gospel of Mark, which is said to have been written first.
If you think it so strange that a living and loving God would make Himself known then how will you ever call out to Him?When I was young and Christian, I began to have doubts, and, quite reasonably, looked to God to resolve them. I put a piece of paper on a table, and prayed to God that, should He exist and wish for my worship, he should cause his name to be written on that piece of paper. I came back an hour later and my mother had used it for a shopping list.

I don't deny the existence of your God, but if He does exist, He doesn't want me to worship him. Or his name is "eggs x 2, pots x 6."
Actually we have the words of the prophets, Apostles and many other witnesses that assure us of these things. Most of all, we have Christ Himself - the living and true witness of God.Prove it.
Personally, I think your vision is far more convincing than the words of the Bible, which often conflict.
What's with this bold text all the time? Why can't you type like everybody else? I find it offensive.He believes that his words are the only truth in this thread, so he is trying to emphasise them. I've come across this before.

jscheuer1

08-14-2006, 06:35 AM

I put a piece of paper on a table, and prayed to God that, should He exist and wish for my worship, he should cause his name to be written on that piece of paper. I came back an hour later and my mother had used it for a shopping list.

I don't deny the existence of your God, but if He does exist, He doesn't want me to worship him. Or his name is "eggs x 2, pots x 6."

That's precious (I really mean that) but, God is all that and more if you go in for that sort of thing.

Jack

08-14-2006, 07:27 AM

What's with this bold text all the time? Why can't you type like everybody else? I find it offensive.

Why do I write like that? Because I like it.

Twey, you said to "Prove it"! Well I already pointed to the bible. Simply because you can't see it's truth doesn't mean it's not there. What people have to come to understand is that we have to come to God on His terms and not ours. Does a sick person tell his doctor what to do or does he place his trust in his doctor? Simple but that's pretty much how it works. The sickness in our case is sin and only through Christ can a man be justified. God has provided the cure and it's up to us to take it. If you want to die in your sins - your free to do so!

Anyway, if you want to know the truth you'll have to come to God on His terms - otherwise you haven't got a prayer.

The righteous will live by faith. Get some otherwise your end isn't going to be a pleasant one. And let me add that I'm looking forward to God's righteous judgment. With or without you. Preferable with you!

Twey

08-14-2006, 07:46 AM

Twey, you said to "Prove it"! Well I already pointed to the bible.No, you pointed to evidence but didn't prove that that's the truth. Simply saying "this is the truth and that's that" isn't really good enough.
What people have to come to understand is that we have to come to God on His terms and not ours. Does a sick person tell his doctor what to do or does he place his trust in his doctor?I don't know about you, but I certainly don't place my trust in my doctor. I ask exactly what each treatment or medicine does, then decide myself whether to take it or not. I trust my doctor in his capacity to accurately tell me the advantages and disadvantages, but the final decision is up to me.
Preferable with you!I'll see you in Hell :) There is more than one religion that states that anybody who isn't a part of that religion will go to Hell. If we take it as granted that any one person may only belong to at most one religion, and that all the priests are telling the truth, everybody will go to Hell. Faith is a pointless exercise, and is against the order of sapience. Animals have faith that the sun will rise, that the water will flow, that the fish will be edible. Humans are sapient. What sets us apart from those animals is that we question.

jscheuer1

08-14-2006, 08:29 AM

The Truth has been handed down to us in so many forms by so many people, religions, holy books, and perhaps even divine agents. Some of it appears to say the same thing, some of it appears not to agree. If I were God though, I wouldn't really care how someone found their way to me.

Bramage

01-12-2007, 02:18 AM

What I tell people is that God created us in His image and of course our spirit isn't a separate identity. My spirit is my spirit - not a separate identity.

Truth be told it would look more like this.

1+1 = 1

The reason I say that is that the bible tells us that the Son dwells in the Father and that the Father dwells in the Son - thus they are one. Two beings yet because they indwell each other there one.

You speak as one who understands the bridal chamber, and the way in which all of us must come to the father thru Jesus. When one surrenders to the bridal chamber and realizes their true love (Jesus), then they are able to renounce the world and become one with Jesus, the Resurrection, The Holy Spirit, and the light.

I used the exact same expression of 1+1=1 in telling others how it is we enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And yes, my spirit is also one with Jesus.

jscheuer1

01-12-2007, 03:00 AM

The metaphysical concept of 1+1=1 isn't exclusively a Christian concept. If it works for you that way, I'm happy for you. Er, as long as it doesn't allow you to justify some horrendous behavior in the name of your god.

djr33

01-12-2007, 05:21 AM

Er, as long as it doesn't allow you to justify some horrendous behavior in the name of your god.Exactly. "The ___ (book of religion) says I should ____" ...meh.
My problem with religion is when a certain religion tries to force its view(s) on to another (including atheists).
And when it's used in justification of bad acts (that effect others... I couldn't care less if someone wants to do something 'bad' to themselves.)

Jack

01-12-2007, 05:57 AM

http://www.beholdhecomes.net/reg01.jpg

BLiZZaRD

01-12-2007, 06:00 AM

The main problem with religion is that no one specific type has it right, at least not yet.

How do I know? I can feel it. Just like being thrown into the deep end of the pool, you just KNOW which way to swim to get to the surface. Yes, some people do drown for going the wrong way (lost souls?) but a vast majority just know where to go. Follow your feelings and YOU have it right, no matter what it says in any book.

jscheuer1

01-12-2007, 06:06 AM

Just like being thrown into the deep end of the pool, you just KNOW which way to swim to get to the surface.

That's beautiful.

djr33

01-12-2007, 06:19 AM

Haha, yeah.

I think the thing about religion is that no matter what, the majority of the world has it wrong. Even if the religion which has the most followers (I'm not sure... I think it would be an Asian religion, though I can't say, specifically... Buddhism? Maybe...?, or perhaps Christianity, or maybe Islam), then they still don't make up more than 50% of the world. Hear that, people? The majority of the world is wrong.

Think about it as democracy. In a vote for being religious or not, then religion would eaaasily win. As for any particular religion being right, it would lose. "Is Christianity right?" If the world were to vote, it would be wrong. Same goes for every other major and minor religion.
I don't mean to say this proves they ARE wrong, but just that it shows it's a complex thing. Additionally, it also shows that there are many options. It may not be that one of the most popular religions is 'right' but that one of the smallest, such as some small tribal belief, is the right one. Everyone else would go to Hell. Or, whatever their equivalent/etc. is.

BLiZZaRD

01-12-2007, 06:25 AM

Haha, yeah.
Even if the religion which has the most followers (I'm not sure... I think it would be an Asian religion, though I can't say, specifically... Buddhism? Maybe...?, or perhaps Christianity, or maybe Islam), ...

Actually, about 3 years ago there was a world wide study, done in part by National Geographic and a couple other big name corporations I forget who now, but the single religion with the most followers, the most loyal followers and the lowest number of leavers, while also having the highest number of converts, and if I have my memory about me the lead was an astronomical 32% over Buddhism, which was second on the poll... Satanism.

tech_support

01-12-2007, 06:52 AM

Ummm... let's try not to force someone to believe in something. **cough** JACK.

They can believe whatever they want.

djr33

01-12-2007, 07:13 AM

I doubt that Satanism really has the most followers, though traditional religions that include such things a animal sacrifice may have been included as such. The other criteria are irrelevant. Also, note that anything that is funded by corporations (as most things are) has an agenda.

No need to insult Jack, but I agree, to an extent. Believe what you want, but all of the religious stuff you constantly toss into posts might as well be binary, at least to me. I just skip over it for the most part, because it doesn't interest me. No offense. And again, believe what you want...

tech_support

01-12-2007, 08:23 AM

We can never know what the truth is until we die, though.

jscheuer1

01-12-2007, 10:17 AM

We can never know what the truth is until we die, though.

Perhaps not even then. If this life is all we have, we will not know anything when we die.

djr33

01-12-2007, 02:28 PM

You will know, or rather, I suppose not be aware of knowing, that there is no afterlife....

Twey

01-12-2007, 02:40 PM

If there isn't, then it would, by definition, be impossible to know that :)

djr33

01-12-2007, 02:47 PM

Well, you will certainly be quite aware if there is, and you would have a lack of knowing if there isn't, but of that you could never know. However, perhaps there is a brief last moment in which you're like "Oh @#*$... it's actually over"... then... it's over. Perhaps.

jscheuer1

01-12-2007, 05:54 PM

Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights?

djr33

01-12-2007, 07:51 PM

That's bordering awfully close to "If a tree..."

:D

Jack

01-12-2007, 07:57 PM

Ummm... let's try not to force someone to believe in something. **cough** JACK.

They can believe whatever they want.

I agree 100%!

I actually believe that God doesn’t want to save everyone – in order to reveal His wrath.

Someone said something to the effect that he doesn’t think that God wants him to worship Him. I gave that some thought and he may be right. How else is God going to reveal His wrath unless He has objects of wrath? So you see, I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anyone.

I’ll admit that when I had first learned about Christ that I had more zeal then knowledge and that I was out to save the world, but let me assure you, that has changed. :)

djr33

01-12-2007, 08:04 PM

If you believe in god you believe in free will... so....

...but, sadly, that is so many times no the case.

Twey

01-12-2007, 09:21 PM

I actually believe that God doesn’t want to save everyone – in order to reveal His wrath.Is this the point at which we pick up omnibenevolence and chuck it out of the window? :p

*advances towards omnibenevolence, which is looking scared*

jscheuer1

01-12-2007, 11:05 PM

Is this the point at which we pick up omnibenevolence and chuck it out of the window? :p

*advances towards omnibenevolence, which is looking scared*

Isn't that made by Dodge? The omni, I mean. This is where the silliness of religion creeps in. God loves everyone but will damn you to hell if you step out of line and oh, he needs money.

If God exists, the Holy Spirit is constantly pouring down - up, down, backward, forward and sideways - we are constantly bathed within and without with it, we are it and we are also ourselves. It's pouring for saints and sinners and everyone in between. No one is stopping you from experiencing the bliss of this fact at this very moment but yourself.

I experience this pretty often. I often wonder what else could it be? But, that still doesn't prove anything about the existence of God. That's why I am an agnostic. I also have most all the usual sorts of experiences as well.

The Bible and other Holy books get a lot of this stuff right but, there is so much lost in translation and you cannot read an experience. That's what life is, an experience.

BLiZZaRD

01-13-2007, 04:15 PM

Well said sir. It's the choice that makes us human.

Although I would like to see a group of wild animals sitting around a river bank contemplating their life and afterwards :D

tech_support

01-14-2007, 03:13 AM

http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/comments/0,,21023886-5001021,00.html

...Right in Australia

jscheuer1

01-14-2007, 04:29 AM

Although I would like to see a group of wild animals sitting around a river bank contemplating their life and afterwards :D

They don't have to. Being wild animals, they are just in it like fish in the sea. It gets a little tricky with pets and domesticated animals. They are susceptible to the neuroses of the people around them.

As you say though, it is the choice we have as humans. I wonder about those dolphins though. It would be arrogant to think that we are the only creatures who have this level of consciousness and even more so to think that there are none higher, even if there are not.

Twey

01-14-2007, 01:57 PM

It would be arrogant to think that we are the only creatures who have this level of consciousness and even more so to think that there are none higher, even if there are not.Indeed. We can see as evidence that dolphins haven't built buildings and adapted their environment to suit them, polluting the world in the process -- a sure sign of a higher intelligence if ever I saw one :p

As well as the detectable, there are whole spectra we can't even sense -- there's nothing to say that some kind of intelligent being formed from some form of radiation couldn't exist. We'd never detect it, of course, since we wouldn't know what to look for, and there's nothing to say that it wouldn't find us equally undetectable.

BLiZZaRD

01-14-2007, 06:16 PM

Bigfoot... we don't believe in him because he is blurry! That's my theory anyway.

djr33

01-15-2007, 10:50 PM

Haha. That's great.

Jack

03-18-2008, 08:37 AM

Hey man, the Spirit of God doesn't mean that it is God.

Have you ever read the following?

Acts 5:3-4 (New International Version)
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

tech_support

03-18-2008, 08:39 AM

But the spirit of god is in you, and god is up there.

Jack

03-18-2008, 08:50 AM

If you believe in god you believe in free will... so....

...but, sadly, that is so many times no the case.

Well, if we didn't have free will then God couldn't judge us.
So yea, I believe in free will.

Jack

03-18-2008, 08:58 AM

But the spirit of god is in you, and god is up there.

Isn't God everywhere? :cool:

benslayton

03-18-2008, 03:24 PM

Have you ever read the following?

Acts 5:3-4 (New International Version)
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

Yup I was WRONG sorry bout that, I do understand the trinity now, as before i did not. This topic is pretty old dont even remeber how it was started but anyway....

Jack

03-18-2008, 08:10 PM

I do understand the trinity now

Nah, the trinity is a man made doctrine.

djr33

03-19-2008, 01:01 AM

Is the bible not?

Rather, how can one trust that the bible itself is enough evidence that the bible itself is truly the word of God?

Certainly this logic does not prove that it is definitively not the word of god, but it makes clear that there is no proof, beyond simply believing the book (in which case one might as well formulate a religion based upon Harry Potter [oh, wait, some people have already.... and we all think they're kinda insane]).

I've been pondering a lot recently on the subject of religion, and I certainly have no means to disprove god, so I admit openly that there is a possibility (though to what degree I am not yet able to determine) that god does in fact exist. However, beyond that, I find it so unlikely that any man made interpretations and organized religion are accurate, due to biases and political motivations (even if for the best of causes).

So, if we assume god is real, then that doesn't mean the church is, nor the bible, and even if the bible (why not? perhaps it is), then still not the church. And, of course, all but one church (and religious person, for that matter) must be wrong, due to differing interpretations.

It's strange-- religion changes over time, yet god simply cannot.

An African American man, 200 years ago in the United States, was said to be seen BY GOD (that is-- through the white interpretation/explanation of god) to be inferior, and legitimately treated as a lesser being. And same for women, if to a lesser degree. But now Gays are still not accepted by the church, or at least some churches. Yet ask a church, either in favor of or against the acceptance of homosexuality, and they will tell you their word of god is true.

How is a man, given that he has much less insight than god, able to see god clearly, when, in fact, as part of the religion that is specifically not possible?
Blindly follow the blind?

It seems to me that following the bible, that is supposing it is the word of god, is quite logical and should receive no criticism. But then following the church or the word of another (that would then exclude the preachers themselves-- for their own, and only their own, ideals) is clearly fallacious.

In fact, the only possible way to truly follow god is to do so without certainty, so I find it logically problematic that Christians (to be US-centric, or you may use any other religious group if you so desire) are so finitely certain of their ideals. Homosexuality is wrong; abortion is wrong; yet, why? We, as mortals, can only aim toward god, not equal him, so we really can have no idea of what is right, or wrong, and so should be open, not closed, in how we deal with others. To expand, if someone else has a different interpretation, we should be open to that as well, as neither human has any greater insight. By that logic, Judaism certainly is equal to Christianity, though in the past this slight difference has started more than a few wars.

//pondering...

And in conclusion, if there is a god, which religion is correct, and why, beyond the literature of that particular religion?
The bible is not enough evidence, as in that sense any book, such as the Qur'an, can easily be used in the same way, to justify itself.
So, circular logic excluded, let's say I were to choose to become religious, what should I pick?

Rockonmetal

03-19-2008, 02:37 AM

Wow... again... i'm confused (partly because i'm not religious... *haven't got the time for it... and that music is my god*)
...again like someone said... i'd never thought i'd be seeing this on DD...

Jack

03-19-2008, 03:32 AM

let's say I were to choose to become religious, what should I pick?

I'm leaving tomorrow so I'm not going to be around a computer but I hope you find what your looking for.

Pick the one that comes to you! :)

djr33

03-19-2008, 03:58 AM

But what if the wrong one comes to me? Clearly the majority of the world has chosen the wrong religion, as no religion holds a majority.

Rockonmetal, since we have this here, might as well discuss. Don't worry, this isn't exactly "on topic" or important for the forum. This is purely social.

tech_support

03-19-2008, 05:46 AM

But you should believe that you picked the right one, it's your gut feeling. What if there is no wrong? Just think of the bright side.... and you'll be fine.

If atheism is right for you, well mate, go for it. No one's stopping you.

molendijk

03-19-2008, 10:59 AM

djr33

03-19-2008, 06:38 PM

Strongest argument I've yet heard. But of course there is the phenomenon of "faith", which specifically disproves, or at least acts against, what you said.

Following that logic, the answer is fairly simple: we should stop trying to guess, and just act like we have common sense and are decent people, and it will either: make the world a better place while we're here before no afterlife after death, or make the world a better place and gain us a place in heaven or other such afterlife happiness.

molendijk

03-19-2008, 11:15 PM

But of course there is the phenomenon of "faith", which specifically disproves, or at least acts against, what you said..
I guess that what follows from what I said is that 'faith' simplifies the mystery of the unknown. That's no problem as long as 'faith' is not used as a means to fill existential incertitude. People who use 'faith' that way have too often shown to not be capable of baring the thought of other people not needing 'faith' in order to give meaning to existence. That's the whole problem of fundamentalism, whether it's christian fundamentalism, islamic fundamentalism, or whatever. (In Holland, we seem to have both right now. Stupid!).

Arie.

molendijk

03-20-2008, 12:35 AM

If atheism is right for you, well mate, go for it. No one's stopping you.

As I argued in my previous post: you'll never know. So you won't know what's God. So you cannot say that It exists. So you cannot say either that It does not exist. So there are no arguments in favor of 'belief'. So there are no arguments either in favor of atheism. We know nothing. I'm very happy with that.

Arie.

Jas

03-20-2008, 12:58 AM

Either the universe ('matter') has always existed, either it started somewhere/at some moment of time. In the first case, we deal with eternity; in the second case, we deal with creation (and with an eternal void before that(?)). Both things are beyond human comprehension; they are unknown.
Well put. The big bang had to come from something, right?

I only found 'peace in my mind' (as they say) when I realized that you can never know.

I disagree with that one completely. I believe that you can know, and not in a self-determined kind of way. I believe that you can get an answer to whether of not there is someone up there; and, I believe that you can get the answer from Heavenly Father himself, through the power of the Holy Ghost, by asking in prayer in the name of His son Jesus Christ. See James 1:5-6

"If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.
"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed"
(May not be exactly right-- I typed that from memory)

So, my question to you is this: why can't we get an answer from God? Think about it--why would God talk to people in the time of Christ or Moses or Noah or Adam etc and not to us today? I think He's always been there, but people haven't always been looking. (A quick edit to clarify this-- I am not saying we're all going to talk to God face to face as did Moses. Only that we can still get answers directly from him through prayer.)

Again, I am not talking about a person saying "Yeah, I guess he is up there." Rather, I am saying, why can't you know it?

Sorry to typing such a long post-- I myself don't like reading long posts :p

molendijk

03-20-2008, 01:28 AM

If God (g) is almighty, then he can create a situation in which he is bigger then himself. So if God is almighty, then we can have: g>g, from which it logically follows that g<g. Hence, if God is almighty, then both g>g and g<g, from which it seems to follow that g cannot exist. So God cannot be almighty.
What's wrong with that? And why do English-speaking people write 'ALmighty' instead of 'ALLmighty'? Shouldn't there be the notion of ALL in 'almighty'? Let's put some spell(ing) on that.

Arie Molendijk (a native speaker of Dutch, not to be confused with German 'Deutch' = German; perhaps we should replace 'Dutch' with 'Hollandish'. What a mess!).

thetestingsite

03-20-2008, 04:07 AM

Um...yea?

/* THINKS TO SELF */
what do you say to something like this that is "constructive criticism" (if that makes sense)
/*END THINKS TO SELF */

tech_support

03-20-2008, 06:21 AM

As I argued in my previous post: you'll never know. So you won't know what's God. So you cannot say that It exists. So you cannot say either that It does not exist.I don't know if you're a person or not. I've never seen you. Therefore, I think you're a robot. I can't prove that you're you.

djr33

03-20-2008, 07:13 AM

I like your posts, Arie.

Jas, the big bang... yep. If there is a god, I say he created it.

Tech_Support, that's not quite right. Religion is more like assuming he's a robot and going on that assumption. It's not assuming that he's a person, since that's expected. Religion is having faith in something more than expectation or fact.

molendijk

03-20-2008, 10:15 AM

Well put. The big bang had to come from something, right?
Yes, but I did not mean to suggest what you seem to imply here

I disagree with that one completely. I believe that you can know, and not in a self-determined kind of way. I believe that you can get an answer to whether of not there is someone up there; and, I believe that you can get the answer from Heavenly Father himself, through the power of the Holy Ghost, by asking in prayer in the name of His son Jesus Christ. See James 1:5-6

As an answer to 'I only found 'peace in my mind' (as they say) when I realized that you can never know', that quote is a clear illustration of what I said earlier, namely that faith simplifies the mystery of the unknown. Besides, you cannot disagree with someone's personal experience. You can only disagree with someone's arguments.

Arie M.

boxxertrumps

03-20-2008, 02:37 PM

/me has no real opinion on religion other than it's complete bunk and has done nothing but cause grief for humanity while stunting it's growth as a species.

molendijk

03-20-2008, 03:36 PM

/me has no real opinion on religion other than it's complete bunk and has done nothing but cause grief for humanity while stunting it's growth as a species.
That can be said about virtually anything based on 'belief in one and only one absolute concrete truth'. It's not an intrinsic property of religion, but of bad 'versions' of it.

Arie M.

Twey

03-20-2008, 03:53 PM

So there are no arguments in favor of 'belief'. So there are no arguments either in favor of atheism. We know nothing. I'm very happy with that.That's quite unscientific :)
I disagree with that one completely. I believe that you can know, and not in a self-determined kind of way. I believe that you can get an answer to whether of not there is someone up there; and, I believe that you can get the answer from Heavenly Father himself, through the power of the Holy Ghost, by asking in prayer in the name of His son Jesus Christ. See James 1:5-6Yum, circular arguments.
If God (g) is almighty, then he can create a situation in which he is bigger then himself. So if God is almighty, then we can have: g>g, from which it logically follows that g<g. Hence, if God is almighty, then both g>g and g<g, from which it seems to follow that g cannot exist. So God cannot be almighty.That applies to any attempts at arithmetic involving infinity. It doesn't take well to being manipulated that way.
What's wrong with that? And why do English-speaking people write 'ALmighty' instead of 'ALLmighty'? Shouldn't there be the notion of ALL in 'almighty'? Let's put some spell(ing) on that.There's a subtle difference between "all" and the prefix "al-," though it would take a smarter person than I to describe it accurately, I suspect. "All-mighty" would be omnipotence, which isn't necessarily implied by "almighty" (e.g. "there was an almighty gust of wind").
That can be said about virtually anything based on 'belief in one and only one absolute concrete truth'. It's not an intrinsic property of religion, but of bad 'versions' of it.Hmmm, not necessarily: bad religions also tend to have two other properties that make it considerably worse than adamant adherents to, say, the theory that the universe revolves around the Earth: 1) the chief proponent of The Truth is infallible (and therefore so are any interpretations of said Truth that happen to suit the speaker's purposes), and 2) terrible things will happen if The Truth is not followed by everybody else in existence, whether only to the infidels or to a larger community, possibly the whole world, so any non-believers must be converted or wiped out (the latter only applying to religions that believe the larger community will suffer for the ignorance of the unbelievers, of course).

molendijk

03-20-2008, 04:46 PM

That's quite unscientific :)
It's not unscientific to say that you cannot derive something from something else about which you cannot state anything.

That applies to any attempts at arithmetic involving infinity. It doesn't take well to being manipulated that wayAgree!

There's a subtle difference between "all" and the prefix "al-," though it would take a smarter person than I to describe it accurately, I suspect. "All-mighty" would be omnipotence, which isn't necessarily implied by "almighty" (e.g. "there was an almighty gust of wind").
Then the question is where 'al' comes from. Prefixes normally have independent correlates somewhere in the language, or in another language (like Latin --> anti-demonstration).
By the way, something similar to the 'al-phenomenon' can be found in words like 'thoughtful', 'wonderful', etc. The suffix 'ful' clearly has something to do with 'full', semantically, but we write 'xful', although there is no independent 'ful' in English (if I'm not mistaken). But, of course, that has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

Arie M.

Jas

03-20-2008, 06:07 PM

Yes, but I did not mean to suggest what you seem to imply here

Yes, I know. But It's the same kind of concept. The big problem that I have with the big bang theory is that it explains a start to the universe-- and maybe there is some truth to it-- but it does not explain the start.

As an answer to 'I only found 'peace in my mind' (as they say) when I realized that you can never know', that quote is a clear illustration of what I said earlier, namely that faith simplifies the mystery of the unknown. Besides, you cannot disagree with someone's personal experience. You can only disagree with someone's arguments.

Yes, the balance of faith and knowledge. But isn't faith based on knowledge? I can't say that tech_support is a robot, because nothing points to that. I have faith that he is a person, because I can see human like qualities in his writing (I hesitate to use the word faith in this context, as it seems more of a religious word then anything else).

Going along with that, I believe we receive a conformation after testing a belief in faith-- whether it's a yes or a no. If I believe that God exists, and I exercise faith in Him by living how He's asked me to, He will give me a witness (and He has). Otherwise, who's to say whether atheism is more or less correct then Christianity? The point is that anyone could say anything and find it true. So then, what is truth? And then, what's faith?

We know the sun will set tonight, and come back up tomorrow. And, tomorrow morning, we'll be able to say "Ah! I knew it!" Likewise, with religion, we don't have to wait until we die to know; we can know now. 1) "Take a chance" by obeying the principles and doctrines 2) Have faith that you'll get an answer 3) Pray with a sincere heart 4) listen for the answer and 5) do something with it (You won't get an answer if you're just going to say "Ok" and go on with life).

(I hope that wasn't too preachy :) I don't want to offend anyone's beliefs. Religion is very a personal and very sensitive subject, so I apologize if I said anything that offends anyone.)

/me has no real opinion on religion other than it's complete bunk and has done nothing but cause grief for humanity while stunting it's growth as a species.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I going to go non-religious for a second (please suppress your sighs of relief :p) and point out that the English version of the bible shaped the English language more then anything else in the history of our language (second is the writings of William Shakespeare). That's just one example. Religion shapes human kind, whether we like it or not.

Drama was also a form of religious practice, so we have plays like Shakespeare's today because of religion (Though in Shakespeare's time, it was more about entertainment then religion, if I remember my English literature correctly; either way, it started with religion-- I believe it was the Greeks?). Also everything that has sprouted due to the works of Drama.

EDIT: Good grief, that's a long post!

boxxertrumps

03-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Yes, I know. But It's the same kind of concept. The big problem that I have with the big bang theory is that it explains a start to the universe-- and maybe there is some truth to it-- but it does not explain the start.

From my limited knowledge of sub atomic physics I have a possible theory that wouldn't conflict with any verifiable fact I know about...
If you carefully observe a large area of space, you notice that it is not a vacuum 100% of the time, particles are actually zipping in and out of our existence. it would be possible that enough of these particles reacted with one another to create/pull into our existence more particles. this could have been fast enough to create all the matter we have in the universe we have today(exploding as the big bang), or over time to collect until it finally exploded.

If any REAL physicists are reading, please correct any mistakes I've made or tell me I'm off my rocker.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I going to go non-religious for a second (please suppress your sighs of relief :p) and point out that the English version of the bible shaped the English language more then anything else in the history of our language (second is the writings of William Shakespeare). That's just one example. Religion shapes human kind, whether we like it or not.

English has far too many irregular verbs and allows for overly complex sentences which are hard to interpret while maintaining perfect grammar.
I remember twey talking about this at one point...

That can be said about virtually anything based on 'belief in one and only one absolute concrete truth'. It's not an intrinsic property of religion, but of bad 'versions' of it.
A 'belief in one and only one absolute concrete truth' is a religious belief.

Also, most European religions are 'bad'. The most glaring examples are the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. The Thirty Year's War started because of religion as well.

djr33

03-20-2008, 07:32 PM

...And, tomorrow morning, we'll be able to say "Ah! I knew it!" Likewise, with religion, we don't have to wait until we die to know; we can know now.No. That's specious. The sun may not rise tomorrow. You can't know the future. A good guess is not knowing it, even if you will be right. It is only assuming, or guessing.

As for the Bible shaping English, the Qur'an has shaped Arabic. Is the Qur'an entirely right then as well?

Translation of the bible is another issue of importance, something I'm particularly interested in, studying languages. At some point, I may try to read it in its original form(s).

In general, religion is a huge political and social tool. It organizes people and gets things done. The world would absolutely not be as it is today if it were not for religion. Religion is the main cause of war, and a main cause of people revolting to overthrow governments. Religion is, for all practical reasons, ONLY a social tool used by those in power of the religion to get things done. I'm talking about organized religion, of course. Now, beyond this, the religion may be in fact correct, but in any sense that applies to us mortals, it is just a social tool, at least until there is proof it is real. It's certainly an effective tool. But religions can be used for bad, as well. Islam does not condone terrorism, but some claim it does; the same is true of all religions and all have been used for terrible acts, such as the Holocaust, Manifest Destiny (killing of Native Americans as a God-given right), and other such tragedies.

Jas, in your use of "a" not "the" for "a start" of the universe, you are making it indefinite-- that there is more than one start. Did you mean it only explained a moment, that it isn't really the start, or that it only is one possible start?

The fundamental difference between science and religion, though, is that science is a systematic study toward the truth and, as long as the scientists are unbiased, which we can hope most are, they have no trouble changing theories when given evidence. The big bang may be wrong, but at the moment evidence points to it, so I will without attachment temporarily accept it for now; this doesn't mean it won't be disproved later. It's just the best explanation we have now, as we try to explain more and more.
However, with religion it is entirely the opposite. Knowing little, someone supposes religion is entirely correct. Then this expands into a lot, basing it on the little. And religion is this closed subject for people, in many cases, where it can't be even the slightest bit wrong. Why is gay marriage wrong? Oh, god said so. But few people seem open to the idea that perhaps everything else is right about religion, but that one concept is wrong. (I'm just using that as a timely example, considering current politics-- many apply.)
Consider that 200 years ago African Americans were considered lesser, within religious groups as well. Tell them that these "inferiors" would be equal in 200 years, according to Christianity, then they would have either laughed at you or hung you as a traitor.
But now, gay rights are this crazy subject for Christians (in most cases), but in 100 years, when, inevitably, I think, homosexuality is accepted (if not entirely understood by all), religion will change.
It's this definite nature that bothers me.
As a book of guidelines to live life well, the bible may be amazing, but as a word for word picture of reality, it's kinda insane. Just like "living so that Jesus sees you well" is a good way to live-- being a good person; but polishing some glasses in case he has bad eyesight so you're ready for his return... well... that seems a bit extreme to me. And some people interpret it that literally, and finitely.

As for the infinity issue, it basically disproves infinity as a mathematical number; it is a concept to represent the end of bounds, to fit into problems where we must look at probable destinations of values (ie, "really big"), but not a finite answer. 1/0 gives an error despite the fact that it is, basically, equal to infinity.
So, you either disprove infinity and thereby god, or show that it is beyond our understanding and/or system of representation, by that example above.

Jas

03-20-2008, 07:35 PM

particles are actually zipping in and out of our existence

Sounds like spontaneous generation, which has been proven false, but I don't know about the sub atomic context. I haven't gone past College Biology in science :o

English has far too many irregular verbs and allows for overly complex sentences which are hard to interpret while maintaining perfect grammar.
I remember twey talking about this at one point...

Ha ha :D I can't make a good argument against that, so I won't try lol.

Also, most European religions are 'bad'. The most glaring examples are the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. The Thirty Year's War started because of religion as well.
I think of extremists as people who misunderstand their religion or have lost track of it's purpose. Besides, how many "religious" people are like that? (Religious being in quotes because, technically, even a belief that God doesn't exist is a religious belief.) You don't see Pope Benedict or Joel Olsteen or Thomas S. Monson telling their congregation to start wars.

molendijk

03-20-2008, 07:41 PM

From my limited knowledge of sub atomic physics I have a possible theory that wouldn't conflict with any verifiable fact I know about...
If you carefully observe a large area of space, you notice that it is not a vacuum 100% of the time, particles are actually zipping in and out of our existence. it would be possible that enough of these particles reacted with one another to create/pull into our existence more particles. this could have been fast enough to create all the matter we have in the universe we have But the crucial question is: where do these particles come from?

English has far too many irregular verbs and allows for overly complex sentences which are hard to interpret while maintaining perfect grammar. I remember twey talking about this at one point...Believe me: Dutch and German are much more complex. That's perhaps not obvious from studying grammar books, but you should be aware of the fact that grammar BOOKS only tell you a million-th of what's in your BRAIN. (Dutch is my native language, and I speak German and English rather well - my posts are not horrible). Guess what: I always found English easier than German![/QUOTE]
A 'belief in one and only one absolute concrete truth' is a religious belief.Not necessarily. Think of good old FIDEL
Also, most European religions are 'bad'. The most glaring examples are the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. The Thirty Year's War started because of religion as well.Now that's just too easy reasoning. Think also of all the good things that have been done in the name of 'faith'. The work of Albert Schweizer, for instance.

Arie M.

djr33

03-20-2008, 07:48 PM

Indeed. Religions are powerful tools, often used in bad ways. Sometimes for good. And perhaps, in the case of a single religion, actually correct, though we have no means to determine which one that is.

Jas

03-20-2008, 07:53 PM

No. That's specious. The sun may not rise tomorrow. You can't know the future. A good guess is not knowing it, even if you will be right. It is only assuming, or guessing.
With that attitude, you could also say that the back of your hand might have spontaneously turned orange :p But if you don't like the example, then okay. Perhaps that was a bad one to use.

In general, religion is a huge political and social tool. It organizes people and gets things done. The world would absolutely not be as it is today if it were not for religion. Religion is the main cause of war, and a main cause of people revolting to overthrow governments. Religion is, for all practical reasons, ONLY a social tool used by those in power of the religion to get things done. I'm talking about organized religion, of course. Now, beyond this, the religion may be in fact correct, but in any sense that applies to us mortals, it is just a social tool, at least until there is proof it is real. It's certainly an effective tool. But religions can be used for bad, as well. Islam does not condone terrorism, but some claim it does; the same is true of all religions and all have been used for terrible acts, such as the Holocaust, Manifest Destiny (killing of Native Americans as a God-given right), and other such tragedies.

That seems a depressing view of religion. Why not include it's purpose: making people better people. Giving them deeper happiness and satisfaction from knowing their living their lives in a good manner, and feeling confident that something good waits for them when they pass on.

Jas, in your use of "a" not "the" for "a start" of the universe, you are making it indefinite-- that there is more than one start. Did you mean it only explained a moment, that it isn't really the start, or that it only is one possible start?

Yeah, sorry. I was talking about one point in time, as opposed to the whole.

The fundamental difference between science and religion, though, is that science is a systematic study toward the truth and, as long as the scientists are unbiased, which we can hope most are, they have no trouble changing theories when given evidence.

I don't disagree at all.

Why is gay marriage wrong? Oh, god said so. But few people seem open to the idea that perhaps everything else is right about religion, but that one concept is wrong. (I'm just using that as a timely example, considering current politics-- many apply.)
Consider that 200 years ago African Americans were considered lesser, within religious groups as well. Tell them that these "inferiors" would be equal in 200 years, according to Christianity, then they would have either laughed at you or hung you as a traitor.
But now, gay rights are this crazy subject for Christians (in most cases), but in 100 years, when, inevitably, I think, homosexuality is accepted (if not entirely understood by all), religion will change.
It's this definite nature that bothers me.

Now your making a sun will come up assumption. Religious tolerance toward things will not always change, nor have they in all religions. Take the use of drugs in the Mormon church. That will never change, despite the growing problem. And I have to shout fallacy: the African Americans issue was anti-Christian from the start. It was a mistake that many churches made-- but not and I repeat not all religions made. The Mormon church, once again, was never in favor of slavery and welcomed freed slaves. Be careful in your assumptions, as some of them are a bit offensive.

djr33

03-20-2008, 08:04 PM

With that attitude, you could also say that the back of your hand might have spontaneously turned orange But if you don't like the example, then okay.Yes, it may have. Check. Now, if you have some strange impulse to look, and you probably will, it only proves that you really do not know, and cannot know. Hey, perhaps you had a bowl of mashed carrots next to you on the table and accidentally rested your hand in them. See? Little is impossible. And, hey, what if god wanted your hand to turn orange? If you're religious, you can't rule anything out, if God wants it.
Also, it's again specious to relate such a finite thing to something like religion or science. The odds that your hand spontaneously changes are so low, whereas proving religion is much more difficult and not something that is a "given" as is the color of your hand. More than that, it is not within the same realm; within reality and the nature of reality play by different rules; one we understand, and the other we cannot see clearly.

That seems a depressing view of religion. Why not include it's purpose: making people better people. Giving them deeper happiness and satisfaction from knowing their living their lives in a good manner, and feeling confident that something good waits for them when they pass on.I'm quite aware that that can be construed as critical, but that was not my meaning. It is not depressing or uplifting. Religion is ONLY a social tool, and often used politically.
By saying that is HAS A PURPOSE, you prove that, specifically.
Now, this is beyond whether or not a certain religion is true. But, really, there are two things going on: 1. believing a religion; 2. that religion having an effect.
And you are wrong to assume that all religions are created for people being better. I make a religion; I say it's for people to be better. Then I make everyone drink the "special kool aid" and see what happens.
SOME religions may be good and some may be bad, in intent, but all religions seem to have been abused at some point by someone or other, and also probably used for good by someone else.
They claim to be for good, whether or not that was actually the intent. And sometimes they are. And sometimes they are not.
Factually, they are, therefore, just social tools.

Yeah, sorry. I was talking about one point in time, as opposed to the whole.Well then I must agree. big bang, yes. But what about how that was created? God? Who knows.
I certainly find it more likely that god created the big bang than he created the world 6,000 years ago.

Now your making a sun will come up assumption. Religious tolerance toward things will not always change, nor have they in all religions. Take the use of drugs in the Mormon church. That sure will never change, despite the growing problem. And I have to shout fallacy: the African Americans issue was anti-Christian from the start. It was a mistake that many churches made-- but not and I repeat not all religions made. The Mormon church, once again, was never in favor of slavery. Be careful in your assumptions.You see it too literally. Ignoring the gay issue, then let's change this to be an argument set in 1870. Slaves free. Women can't vote. Then women later get to vote. Did the christians think they should? No. Did they quote the bible using quotes that had the word "man" in it? SURE!

And not all religions are the same. But you just helped me disprove all Christian sects, aside from the mormons. Now, just find a fault with the mormons, and all of Christianity is disproved, if you want to look at it that way. The exception does not prove that the rest were innocent, at a minimum.

And you say that the "african american thing" was a mistake... but.... um.. you still say that the "gay thing" is not a mistake? And what about in 100 years, IF it is then accepted?

To expand, consider the pattern: 2000 years ago, there was this guy on a hill who threw lightning bolts. wow, haha, that's funny. 2000 years from now, won't they be looking back at those silly people who still used microwaves and believed in Jesus?
Certainly nothing I can prove, but it's an interesting thought.

In the end, formal religion seems like a waste of time to me. It's like playing the lottery and the winner gets to go to heaven. Personally I prefer to just live well and hope for the best, and not try to presume to understand something I don't. If there is a god, he does not exist in a realm where the word "exist" even includes him in its definition; it's beyond the big bang, beyond protons and neutrons, beyond quarks, and beyond the bible. Our perception cannot understand him; so how can our understanding?
The bible and other organized religions, I suggest, are only ways of interpreting god in our limited way, trying to understand.
And SOME of these attempts are not for pure purposes at all, but social or political goals.
So, which are real? How do we know? And, more importantly, why do we care?
If people just stopped worrying about their religion so much, it seems that there would be a lot more time to actually be better people.
Sitting in a church and praying seems like a waste of a Christian's time to me, as they could be out doing whatever good deeds god would want, but instead they just sit and admire him. Is god really that narcissistic? And by saying that I don't mean that he is, but rather that he probably isn't, and would he not rather the time be better spent than organizing groups of people following him?

It's like a race and all of these different teams invent very strange cars to get there, while god watches, puzzled, because all he wanted the people to do in the first place is just act sane and kind while they were around, with no particular need, or even a possibility, of ever actually winning that race.
I'd be highly amused to find out that everyone is really worshiping the same god and just got these badly distorted/translated/made up ideas of what to do to please him, when in the end it isn't about that at all, but just behaving well in general.

And despite its inherent "good" nature, or supposed "good" nature anyway, religion seems to become an excuse far too often-- "well, I shot him, but I'm Christian, so I'm mostly good anyway", as if the being Christian part actually means something, more than the fact that that person was just shot.

This is NOT true for all religious people, and I fully support those who believe in a religion and work to make things better, but for those who use it as a social and political tool to force upon others their own views, or who use it as an excuse... well... let's just say there are some serious problems with religion.

And before disputing me, try to ignore your religion for a moment, and consider others. Do you feel so strongly about defending a religion that isn't yours? Religious people band together to support that "GOD EXISTS!", then just turn around to stab each other in the back when they see him slightly differently.

Anyway, such a strange and complex issue.

Jas

03-20-2008, 08:17 PM

Again, fallacy. Your generalizing religions way too much, and making many assumptions about what it is and where it's going. The president does not run the catholic church, the pope does.

Women's right to vote was not a religious issue so much as it was a moral issue, the same is true with the treatment of freed slaves. (Actual slavery aside, as in some religions it was accepted-- but not all). Yes religion teaches morals, but not always successfully. Love one another doesn't always get through. Is that the religions fault, or the peoples?

Bottom line: stop generalizing.

EDIT: and I don't have a problem with defending other wholesome religions. Just because I am religion A doesn't mean I like or dislike some one from religion B. And the whole I shot him thing: What? "Faith without works is dead, being alone."

Anyway, such a strange and complex issue.
:)

djr33

03-20-2008, 08:30 PM

religious issue so much as it was a moral issue,Religions define morals. What else would? should? could?

Generalizing is the point; i'm not faulting every individual religion, but the overall mess from all of them. And this is reality, not intent. They may be intended to do great stuff, but that's not the case, a lot. Right?

Plus, generally, they're all wrong, except one.

What I mean is not that you hate other religions, but that it's weird-- one religion must be right, since they are mutually exclusive. Even if you prove science wrong, it doesn't prove YOUR religion right.

molendijk

03-20-2008, 09:19 PM

Hello Jas,
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are trying to defend a point of view at all cost, for the sake of the point itself. And that you would feel lost if your point could be proven to be false. But shouldn't we rather be happy with each point of evidence pointing towards whatever truth? I would have no problem in changing my point of view if evidence would force me to do so.
The reason I think you don't think my way (= be willing to change a point of view if evidence is given) is the way you react to the argument's of others, which simply are elements of a debate, not attacks. For instance, your reaction to an observation made by drj ('That seems a depressing view of religion. Why not include it's purpose') is purely defensive, not argumentative:).
Am I wrong?

Arie.

Jas

03-20-2008, 09:41 PM

The reason I think you don't think my way (= be willing to change a point of view if evidence is given) is the way you react to the argument's of others, which simply are elements of a debate, not attacks. For instance, your reaction to an observation made by drj ('That seems a depressing view of religion. Why not include it's purpose') is purely defensive, not argumentative:).
Am I wrong?

Arie.
That's not how I meant it to come across. I simply meant to point out that if that was what religion is for, we're all in bad shape.

molendijk

03-20-2008, 09:50 PM

That's not how I meant it to come across. I simply meant to point out that if that was what religion is for, we're all in bad shape.
But implicitly: we're not in a bad shape, because that is not what religion is for (?)

Arie.

Twey

03-20-2008, 11:09 PM

It's not unscientific to say that you cannot derive something from something else about which you cannot state anything.It's unscientific to be happy knowing a mystery exists and not trying to solve it :)
You don't see Pope Benedict or Joel Olsteen or Thomas S. Monson telling their congregation to start wars.You see them telling their followers to discriminate against others, directly or otherwise, and informing people in countries with a high rate of AIDS infection that it's wrong to use condoms. Misery and death result.
If any REAL physicists are reading, please correct any mistakes I've made or tell me I'm off my rocker.Not that I'm a real physicist, but you're off your rocker :) Before the creation of the universe, however that may have happened, there were no particles to zip around and no time or space for them to zip around in, by definition.
We know the sun will set tonight, and come back up tomorrow. And, tomorrow morning, we'll be able to say "Ah! I knew it!" Likewise, with religion, we don't have to wait until we die to know; we can know now.We 'know' (for a given value of 'know,' I'm obviously skirting the edges of the enormous subject of epistemology) that the Sun will rise tomorrow because we've lived through several thousand days just like it before and remember the Sun doing so on every one of them. How many deaths have you lived through, and how well do you remember your trips to the afterlife? :) On the subject, this (http://www.jcnot4me.com/Videos/Kissing_Hanks_Ass-video.mov) (17MB .mov QuickTime video) is rather amusing and also illustrates the point quite well.
1) "Take a chance" by obeying the principles and doctrines 2) Have faith that you'll get an answer 3) Pray with a sincere heart 4) listen for the answer and 5) do something with it (You won't get an answer if you're just going to say "Ok" and go on with life).Impressive, self-brainwashing in five easy steps :p Basically you're saying that it's only possible to get a conclusion if one has already reached said conclusion. Worryingly, quite a lot of people seem to subscribe to this logic. Why would a god bother to confirm its existence to someone who already believed in it? Wouldn't it be rather more productive to tell the people who didn't? Also, clarify 'a sincere heart.' This sounds like rather intentionally ambiguous wording to me, of the type I've noticed a lot in religious discussions.
Yes, the balance of faith and knowledge. But isn't faith based on knowledge?No, the complete opposite. Faith is the irrational belief in a concept despite a lack of knowledge that confirms said concept. I can believe tech_support is a human because I've seen other humans (including myself) and he has certain qualities that I recognise as being characteristic of humans. There is a small measure of faith involved, since I don't have access to his mind to check (and whether even that is conclusive is questionable), but I have proof to the level of that on which I usually act that he is human. Religions generally demand blind faith from their followers: faith without any evidence at all, basically saying "believe this" and expecting the person to believe it.
As for the Bible shaping English, the Qur'an has shaped Arabic. Is the Qur'an entirely right then as well?And the Torah Hebrew, and the works of Confucius Chinese, &c. Any major and long-lasting work will eventually effect its language if its original form is preserved in its popularity.
As for the infinity issue, it basically disproves infinity as a mathematical number; it is a concept to represent the end of bounds, to fit into problems where we must look at probable destinations of values (ie, "really big"), but not a finite answer.Gods can be thought of in the same way.
1/0 gives an error despite the fact that it is, basically, equal to infinity.Not quite. The operation x / y means "take y from x until x = 0 and return the number of subtractions required." Division is therefore undefined for y = 0, because no matter how many times one takes 0 from x, it will never equal 0.
Now, beyond this, the religion may be in fact correct, but in any sense that applies to us mortals, it is just a social tool, at least until there is proof it is real. It's certainly an effective tool. But religions can be used for bad, as well.They're simply a tool for power and manipulation. Like any form of power, the outcome depends on how it's used.
That seems a depressing view of religion. Why not include it's purpose: making people better people. Giving them deeper happiness and satisfaction from knowing their living their lives in a good manner, and feeling confident that something good waits for them when they pass on.It would be interesting to meet the person who originally came up with the idea of religion and ask, but I very much doubt this is so. Religion (belief in anthropomorphic gods) starts and ends with faith -- an attempt to explain away our ignorance about the world.
Religions define morals. What else would? should? could?Conscience.

molendijk

03-21-2008, 12:34 AM

It's unscientific to be happy knowing a mystery exists and not trying to solve it :)My being happy about it was not ment to be part of the conclusion of Aristotle-like reasoning, but as an everyday (non-logical) COMMENT ON a conclusion. Nothing unscientific about that. There's a difference between 'unscientific' (ment to be scientific, but failing in that respect) and non-scientific (not ment to be scientific at all).
Not that I'm a real physicist, but you're off your rocker :) Before the creation of the universe, however that may have happened, there were no particles to zip around and no time or space for them to zip around in, by definition.Exactly!
The operation x / y means "take y from x until x = 0 and return the number of subtractions required." Division is therefore undefined for y = 0, because no matter how many times one takes 0 from x, it will never equal 0.Not necessarily true. You have to go on substracting until 0 is reached. And that will take you to the end of the the universe and further. So that will take you forever: dividing by 0 equals to infinity.
But quarelling about the difference between infinite and undefined is like quarelling about the difference between 'my father's only son' and 'me'.

Arie M.

djr33

03-21-2008, 12:42 AM

Not quite. The operation x / y means "take y from x until x = 0 and return the number of subtractions required." Division is therefore undefined for y = 0, because no matter how many times one takes 0 from x, it will never equal 0.Well, that's because you would continue the operation infinitely. So, judge whether you count after it equals it, or how many times you must try to get to it. //shrug

Religions define morals. What else would? should? could?Conscience.Well, yes. But I wasn't asking you-- I was asking someone who is religious, since his point was that morals are separate from religion.
And, yes, conscience is quite right, and should be the focus of what you do, not what someone else tells you. Even if their intentions are true, their conscience may differ from yours; why listen to them?

But quarelling about the difference between infinite and undefined is like quarelling about the difference between 'my father's only son' and 'me'.The only exception is in some odd cases in advanced math where you must actually use these numbers, and the limit of such a value is used for a purpose beyond just knowing what it is (such as in graphing equations created by dividing polynomials).

boxxertrumps

03-21-2008, 12:44 AM

Before the creation of the universe...
I didn't say the creation of the universe, i said the creation of matter the universe contains.
There's no evidence either way that there was a beginning or will be an end to the 3 dimensions we all love (only evidence that matter in it origanated from a singular point)

Should have been clearer i guess...

I can sound intelligent... neat. Also, IE has no spell check :(

djr33

03-21-2008, 12:47 AM

4 dimensions, yes?
Time being the 4th. You can look at it either from our perspective in terms of the universe or in the physical sense of a dimension, in which it all exists at once, interaction and defined by displacement.

boxxertrumps

03-21-2008, 12:52 AM

But daniel, you can't hug time.

djr33

03-21-2008, 01:03 AM

No more than you can hug width. Just hug slowly. That's you hugging 4 seconds. Or something like that.

molendijk

03-21-2008, 01:18 AM

4 dimensions, yes?Time being the 4th.Time independent from everything else? Independent from things that 'happen' in a 3-dimensional world? Can I grow older if nothing happens in my cells? How can there be 'Y after X' if X and Y don't happen? Rather interesting (and also confusing) questions!
Arie.

djr33

03-21-2008, 02:09 AM

It is independent. It overlaps, but not in the same fashion, at least to our perception, as the other dimensions.

Growing old is a change of dimension, not time. It occurs within time.

One moment is adjacent to the next much as is the chair i'm sitting on to me, then to the ground (meaning the moment before that).

Then, if you wnat to get into string theory, there are 10 dimensions (and perhaps that extra weird 11th one). Weird stuff and fun to think about. But certainly nothing proven yet. The only 4 "real" dimensions, though, are those. The 5th and beyond begin to deal with probability and timelines, beyond what a human can perceive.

tech_support

03-21-2008, 03:07 AM

They're simply a tool for power and manipulation.
And you're simply an idiot for believing that.

I don't like assumptions.

djr33

03-21-2008, 03:08 AM

And you're simply an idiot for believing that.Assuming I'm wrong.

Touchè.

Jas

03-21-2008, 03:24 AM

Well, yes. But I wasn't asking you-- I was asking someone who is religious, since his point was that morals are separate from religion.
I think I already answered that, as I already said:

Yes religion teaches morals, but not always successfully. Love one another doesn't always get through. Is that the religions fault, or the peoples?
And adding to what Twey said, your conscience, (in in my religion, it's sometimes referred to as the "light of Christ") gives you an initial, fundamental sense of right and wrong until you receive a deeper knowledge through the Holy Ghost. Just as people can ignore their conscience, they can ignore their religion.

People can be "taught" that one thing is correct, and still believe something else. Everyone has a choice.

tech_support

03-21-2008, 03:44 AM

Assuming I'm wrong.
But you're assuming I'm [and all religious people are] wrong.

djr33

03-21-2008, 04:29 AM

So you assume, then accuse me of assuming?
Fun circles.

tech_support

03-21-2008, 04:31 AM

But I'm assuming 'cause you [and everybody else are] assuming.

djr33

03-21-2008, 04:34 AM

Ok, as long as you're copying someone else.

tech_support

03-21-2008, 04:41 AM

We could sit here arguing about this all day...

molendijk

03-21-2008, 11:55 AM

And adding to what Twey said, your conscience, (in in my religion, it's sometimes referred to as the "light of Christ") gives you an initial, fundamental sense of right and wrong until you receive a deeper knowledge through the Holy Ghost. Just as people can ignore their conscience, they can ignore their religion.Here we go again: Jas, you simply state something that cannot be verified nor falsified. That's no problem, as long as you clearly separate 'I believe that ...' from 'It can be argued that ...'.
Everyone has a choice.I didn't choose to be born. Assuming we follow Jas's belief for a moment, then we should say that God made that choice. And God being Almighty, he knew in advance how I would think, act, etc. every second of my life. So if I were a believer (the way Jas believes in God), I wouldn't consider myself free.
The only 4 "real" dimensions, though, are those.As a matter of fact, I can only perceive things that have 3 'real' dimensions, all having length, width and height. 0-dimensional things (a point), 1-dimensional things (a line) etc. are just geometrical idealizations of things we cannot perceive as such, right?
We could sit here arguing about this all day...I would say: 'from eternity to eternity', since we're talking about God and infinitiveness.

Arie.

Twey

03-21-2008, 02:31 PM

And you're simply an idiot for believing that.Ad hominem from you? :-\ Your quote was slightly out of context, though. I'm not against religions in general (I adhere to one/several myself), but I am against organised, institutionalised religions in which the leaders or founders tell those below them what is right to believe and do.
And adding to what Twey said, your conscience, (in in my religion, it's sometimes referred to as the "light of Christ") gives you an initial, fundamental sense of right and wrong until you receive a deeper knowledge through the Holy Ghost. Just as people can ignore their conscience, they can ignore their religion.I have to agree with this (although obviously not in those words). The conscience is a rough and primitive tool for judging morality: it is easily corrupted by cultural biases and other people, and if one follows its guidance directly it can often be shown to contradict itself, in which case one rule must be defined and judged more important than the other. The same applies to religion -- and arguably all rigid ethical theories to date. The difficulties arise when people attempt to follow them literally for every situation. Rough moral guidelines such as conscience or religion (which is, after all, based on somebody's conscience) are far from perfect, but like perception are something we must initially follow simply because we have no more fundamental grounds for reasoning.
I would say: 'from eternity to eternity', since we're talking about God and infinitiveness.No, we'd die eventually :p

jscheuer1

03-21-2008, 03:46 PM

No, we'd die eventually :p

The way some folks argue these points (myself included at times), I can easily imagine the controversies reaching far beyond the grave. :)

djr33

03-21-2008, 03:47 PM

You mean we won't continue debating this in the afterlife?

Edit: //cross post, John. Ha.

Man 1: "Whoa, this place is soooooo awesome! We got into heaven!"
Man 2: "Uh.. no... this is hell... what's wrong with you?"
(And Man 3 just doesn't exist, having not believed in the afterlife.)

molendijk

03-21-2008, 05:58 PM

No, we'd die eventually :pYou're sure?



if(){W'll be immortal}


Arie.

djr33

03-21-2008, 07:35 PM

Death is an overdefined concept if there is an afterlife. Plus, death is actually undefinable, as the only way to tell is the absence of life. As a presupposition, then, you must have lived, such as is the argument over abortion-- when is the fetus actually alive, and then at what point is it able to be "dead". (With such a vague definition, it's quite easy to argue that abstinence is murder, as well.) Really, unalive is a much more fitting word.

tech_support

03-22-2008, 01:55 AM

I didn't choose to be born.You could choose to die. Your mum choose for you to be born, you weren't capable of making decisions back then. Your mum choose on behalf of you.
Assuming we follow Jas's belief for a moment, then we should say that God made that choice. And God being Almighty, he knew in advance how I would think, act, etc. every second of my life. So if I were a believer (the way Jas believes in God), I wouldn't consider myself free.
You're not free in this world anyway. You murder someone, you got to jail (and hell, if you believe in those kinds of things)

djr33

03-22-2008, 05:46 AM

You could choose to die.You can to some extent, though there are laws in many countries against that, in many cases supported by religious views.
Your mum choose for you to be born, you weren't capable of making decisions back then. Your mum choose on behalf of you.That's not necessarily true either; perhaps your mother wanted an abortion and some religious group did all they could to force upon her no other option but keeping you.

You murder someone, you got to jail (and hell, if you believe in those kinds of things)1. This is based on moral judgments, controlling society, that some people feel it is wrong to kill and therefore a crime that one should be locked up for. Again, mostly due to religion. (Though certainly something that, in general, I think most people would agree upon, though not for some moral point of view, just simply that allowing murder makes society chaotic and uncontrolled, with everyone living in a lot less peace.)
2. If you believe in hell, then it seems that human punishment is overrated... what's the point, and perhaps you were justified in the murder in a way beyond human comprehension that only god understood-- so you get punished by people, but then you go to heaven anyway. Hm.... seems like a great way to excuse human behavior. "Oh, well, god will fix it if we screw up.", much like "Oh, god said it should be this way."

tech_support

03-22-2008, 07:38 AM

You can to some extent, though there are laws in many countries against that, in many cases supported by religious views.
You mean ethical views. There you go blaming religion for everything.

djr33

03-22-2008, 07:50 AM

Blaming implies negativity. Religion is, however, as we've been saying, RESPONSIBLE for how the world is, to a significant degree.

molendijk

03-22-2008, 01:59 PM

You could choose to die I cannot, see below, this post.
You're not free in this world anyway. You murder someone, you got to jail (and hell, if you believe in those kinds of things)I’m not talking about freedom in its practical sense, which implies that the extend to which I cannot do things depends on my social environment. I’m talkink about essential freedom...
I did not choose to be born. By virtue of that sole fact, the things I do or don’t are predetermined in a way, since, if I would not exist, I wouldn’t be able to do anything. But apart from that: I did not choose the stuff (DNA, or whatever) I’m made of. That was determined by the nature/quality of my father’s and my mother’s ‘seed & eggs’. So here I am: a creature with predetermined properties. What about the role of my environment in ‘shaping me’? Either you could think that it doesn’t have any influence, because I already am who I am. Or you could say that it does shape me, by triggering certain aspects of my character. But the question what will be triggered and how it will be triggered depends on who I already am. So if I hang myself because of certain things in my environment, I eventually do it because I am who I am / because certain things are triggered that wouldn’t have been triggered if my parents’ seed & eggs would have been different. So my ‘decision’ to hang myself isn’t a decision after all. What we call ‘decision’ is a complex way of predetermined things that come together.
Of course: (1) in everyday life, we don’t perceive that as such; things are far too complex to give us that ‘sensation’ (of predetermination); (2) the words I am saying here are to be considered arguments in a debate, not as proof. I cannot prove anything. I’m just a believer, like Jas. We all are. AMEN

Arie.

djr33

03-22-2008, 06:21 PM

Indeed, there is a strange logic to this-- god is perfect and creates imperfection just to watch it be imperfect, without any failsafe device to hope that imperfection is saved from making drastic mistakes.
This is much like the new threat of robots taking over the world: humans rely more and more upon robots and then they take over, suddenly smarter than us.
So, god creates humans for whatever reason (what was his motivation? really... boredom? help with something? benevolence?), and then they become smarter than him, doing stupid things on their own. Well, perhaps not smarter, but more powerful, or at least powerful enough he could no longer control them.
Interesting thought.

Arie, I think your argument can be summarized in a very different way than you are describing but to the same end-- we only have freedom within 3 dimensions, though we can see the 4th. Time is beyond our control. Whether or not we are free to commit suicide, we aren't capable of not living at all. We aren't capable of controlling or deciding about our conception, or, aside from suicide perhaps, the end of our lives (even if we intend to commit suicide, a bus could hit us on the way).

molendijk

03-22-2008, 07:14 PM

-- we only have freedom within 3 dimensions, though we can see the 4th. Time is beyond our control.Interesting thought. We can see something, yet it's beyond our control. We can ask ourselves certain questions, yet cannot answer them. Where does that conscienceness come from?
Arie.

djr33

03-22-2008, 07:57 PM

Random neurons firing in our brain to the extent that we can think and are aware of this thinking.

jscheuer1

03-23-2008, 01:34 AM

I find it hard to conceive of a way that everything could be that precludes us all being of the same stuff. Can you?

molendijk

03-23-2008, 01:45 AM

John, it must be my poor English, but what do you mean? Do you mean that we're all made of the same stuff (as I suppose we are, but not in the same way)?
Arie

jscheuer1

03-23-2008, 02:00 AM

John, it must be my poor English, but what do you mean? Do you mean that we're all made of the same stuff (as I suppose we are, but not in the same way)?
Arie

It could also be my trying to be as universal as possible. In terms more apropos to you, perhaps I should have said:

However we have come to be, we are all indebted to those who came before, and composed of the same material that existed when the universe began or always was, and therefore we are all related.

Does that work for you?

Best Regards,

- J

djr33

03-23-2008, 03:17 AM

I agree. A fundamental property of physics is that energy and matter change but remain constant in amount.
Having God exist outside our realm is strange, indeed. Where's that wall?

jscheuer1

03-23-2008, 04:04 AM

Where's that wall?

A great wisdom, IMHO.

Who knows What.

is not a question or an evasion. It is a statement of fact.

Twey

03-23-2008, 03:02 PM

we only have freedom within 3 dimensions, though we can see the 4th. Time is beyond our control.Not necessarily true. Certain drugs or mental states can make time appear to slow down or speed up.

molendijk

03-23-2008, 04:01 PM

It could also be my trying to be as universal as possible. No, really, it was the structure of the English sentence that gave me problems.
However we have come to be, we are all indebted to those who came before, and composed of the same material that existed when the universe began or always was, and therefore we are all related. I couldn’t agree more!
Who knows What is not a question or an evasion. It is a statement of fact.Ibid.
Certain drugs or mental states can make time appear to slow down or speed up.That does not mean that we control time. It means that we see it in another form.
Arie.

djr33

03-23-2008, 11:10 PM

Not necessarily true. Certain drugs or mental states can make time appear to slow down or speed up.Um.... that's perception, not fact. The same drugs might make you think you have 3 arms or are floating in space, as well.

jscheuer1

03-24-2008, 12:21 AM

Thinking about this afresh - the time issue. I haven't pondered it in awhile. ;) I can easily say that time is fluid. It moves faster for us under certain circumstances and slower under others. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with drugs, though it can. It is the individual's state of mind that influences these fluctuations. I would suppose that any individual sufficiently in control of his or her mental state could reverse, fast forward, or otherwise influence time, as could (inadvertently) anyone out of control of his or her mental state. I have experienced both pre and post cognition. In my case these time states were always as a result of a confluence of factors, rather than as as a result of some rigid mental discipline. However, they do tend to demonstrate that, with the proper self training, these states could be entered into at will. The larger question (at least for me) is why?

molendijk

03-24-2008, 12:04 PM

Thinking about this afresh - the time issue. I haven't pondered it in awhile. ;) I can easily say that time is fluid. It moves faster for us under certain circumstances and slower under others. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with drugs, though it can. It is the individual's state of mind that influences these fluctuations. Isn't that true for everything, if 'experience' is involved? Shapes (3-dimensional things) are fluid, vibrations (music, etc.) are fluid ... Under certain circomstances, my bicycle in front of me seems enormous (so I think I cannot ride it to go home), music I normally hate seems sweet, etc. A totally different question is whether or not these things are controlled by my various states of minds. Djr's point of departure was that the 4th dimension can be seen, but not controlled, whereas 3-dimenional entities can be controlled (in a way). We can perhaps control the way we experience time, but not time itself.
Arie.

jscheuer1

03-24-2008, 01:59 PM

molendijk

03-24-2008, 03:23 PM

If you see an event over which you have no control before it happens, this would be controlling time. In that, the normal flow of time has been changed, at least for that brief period of precognition. I'm not sure if this has ever actually happened. I don't think there have been any verified cases. I have had some direct experience in this, but it would be open to interpretation by any objective investigator what the extent of my control over the event was, and to what degree I may or may not have (been able to have and then had) caused it simply by imagining it.If there were proof that this was not caused by imagination, then you did control time indeed.
(Perhaps I know what you're talking about ('Hey, I knew this was going to happen -- I've been here / seen this etc. already'), but, in my case, I always 'thought afterwards' that this must have been some illusion, some 'phase-shifting' of the brain).
Arie

djr33

03-24-2008, 08:11 PM

Seeing the next room doesn't equate to being in the next room. Though you might have some powerful insight into time, the same is true with seeing the future. In fact, according to the idea that we live bound within a point moving along a timeline, but time is everpresent, it isn't hard to believe that you could in fact see the future, or the past for that matter, but actually controlling your point in time or changing it's rate (not perceived rate but actual rate) is still not quite what's happening.

Our control of time is limited because:
1. We cannot control anything before we were born; we cannot control anything after we die (except through influence of others/situations).
2. We cannot adjust our position in time.
3. Only to a limited degree can we time travel-- that is we can go forward at a constant rate. So, to travel forward 1 year, we simply wait one year.
4. However, we cannot ever travel backward.
5. Furthermore, once we have traveled forward, we cannot go back again.

jscheuer1

03-25-2008, 04:15 AM

Time travel does have some very practical problems aside from one's possibly rigid view of time. Foremost in my opinion is the fact that any given point in space will not be there at another time. The cosmos is constantly moving. And, if we could travel through time while somehow accounting for 'cosmic drift', we would still be who we are in that moment, not some former or future version of ourselves.

Then again, enter parallel universes. Other times in our existence are not so different than a parallel life. Communication, mutual or one sided assistance, interaction should be possible.

Just because none of this is du jour, doesn't mean it couldn't be.

Still again, perhaps we are over thinking all of this. Anti-gravity? Impossible? No. I am sitting on an anti-gravity device as I type this. It is called a chair.

djr33

03-25-2008, 04:20 AM

Gravity is something you can interact with (like jumping). Time isn't.

Considering parallel universes being brought in, it would make sense to watch this to be discussing in the same terms. Very interesting, even if crazy, video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU1fixMAObI

jscheuer1

03-25-2008, 04:24 AM

Time, gravity, mass, speed - all of these are related. None of them exist without the others. I will check out the video though.

jscheuer1

03-25-2008, 04:42 AM

OK, nice vid! How does that say we cannot travel through time? By my understanding of it (and it appears to be good basic physics), all we need to do to time travel is to fold time from the fifth dimension.

djr33

03-25-2008, 04:47 AM

It doesn't do much in terms of describing our limitations; I just find it very good at explaining how the dimensions exist.
In short, the reason we cannot travel through time is that the dimensions above the 4th are inaccessible to us.

jscheuer1

03-25-2008, 05:05 AM

the dimensions above the 4th are inaccessible to us.

I would have to disagree. In the video, assumptions are made that are simply invalid. The flatlander cannot have a digestive system, sure. But that doesn't preclude existence. Energy itself could be sustenance. Then the ant is used as a stand in for the 'impossible' flatlander. All sense of rational proportion is then lost. The ant has access to at least 4 dimensions. To say that we have no access to the fifth dimension is just another way of saying that we cannot control time. Both are merely assertions with no empirical data available to incontrovertibly confirm or deny them. Very much like the 'God' question.

djr33

03-25-2008, 05:59 AM

By access I meant control, that is to say an ability to access and manipulate anything in the 5th dimension. We can view time and to a small degree interact with it, but the 5th dimension is inaccessible to us, really, not to say it isn't there.

molendijk

03-25-2008, 03:01 PM

So we have the big bang, (branched) possible continuations of the big bang, (branched) possible continuations of parts of possible continuations etc.
But what about the origin of the big bang, or the origins of multiple big bangs?
I don't know whether these questions are strictly related to any theory, but I'm convinced that no theory will ever be capable of fully answering them.
---------
Arie.

djr33

03-25-2008, 06:32 PM

Certainly can't answer those questions, and I think those questions are what should be answered by religion or more science, not "oh, the world was randomly created 6,000 years ago".

More importantly, though, I'm not sure it's important we know. In the realm in which we exist, that really is the beginning of time.

Let's get a more complex answer: That's simply as far back as we can see. This is all created by the vibrations of strings in the 11th dimension, and it all exists at once, in all dimensions, and our perception is all that determines what is "real". So, sure. That's fine. Now, what created strings? And for that matter, what created God?

The answers to these questions continuously reach outside our possible perception and realm of what can be answered. Few people who are religious seem to ask from where God exists. So, answer what's behind one wall just to find another, but not bother to ask what's behind that one, happily having answered a bit more.

I think the main point is that we're within a certain set of bounds and we might as well do the best while we exist in it. Whether or not the universe went Pop! or God was bored one day and started a complex game of chess, that doesn't affect us, in our lives, so there's no need to act based upon it, and we'll never be able to perceive if that's right or wrong anyway.

molendijk

03-25-2008, 07:33 PM

I agree, but there's one thing that has always struck me. Assume there is a person called Girgintuala that I don't know; never heard of her. Then I cannot think of Girgintuala, I cannot have proper or improper thoughts about her, etc: we don't have thoughts about something or somewhat who/that isn't part of our conscienceness. So how could we explain the existence of all sorts of 'impossible thoughts' (written down in this very thread) like God, infinity, things that existed before everything else existed etc. One would almost believe that the presence of those thoughts in our heads is explained by the fact that they have been thrown somehow into our brains. Girgintuala was never put into my conscienceness. But what some people call God/Allah/The Almighty etc. may have been put there.
Just a thought. Don't know who put it there.
-------------
Arie.

djr33

03-25-2008, 07:40 PM

Your logic is usually flawless, but that makes almost no sense to me.

First, think about that monkey hanging from your ceiling. That isn't true, no, but now you are thinking of it.

Rather than claim this defines anything, it would be easier to determine the motivations of those who made up these concepts in the first place. I find it much easier to refer to ancient religions. "What's lightning?" "Oh, that's when Zeus gets mad and throws stuff at people" "oh, ok"
See, it's just a way of explaining the world around us, usually, and sometimes a lie made up to influence others. "Look, I can do magic, give me money", or "I'm God, so vote me into office", and the like.

molendijk

03-25-2008, 07:49 PM

Your logic is usually flawless, but that makes almost no sense to me.

First, think about that monkey hanging from your ceiling. That isn't true, no, but now you are thinking of it.
That's because I know things like monkeys, ceilings, hang_from, etc. So I can combine them (I also know the notion of 'combine'). But what about 'infinity'?
----------
Arie.

djr33

03-25-2008, 08:03 PM

You aren't imagining infinity. You're imagining the sum of everything you can imagine, and more, and the process of trying to reach it. But you can't possibly be imagining infinity.
Anyway, it isn't logically impossible to imagine something you don't know about-- just guess about it.
However, just because we wonder about God doesn't mean god is real. It's just as likely (if not more so) that it's a false conclusion reached without enough evidence.
If you see an error on your computer you have some ideas what might cause it and you start to gues. that might be wrong, though,a nd it's really something much stranger. But you might believe, anyway, that it is what you thought in the first place.

molendijk

03-25-2008, 08:35 PM

However, just because we wonder about God doesn't mean god is real. It's just as likely (if not more so) that it's a false conclusion reached without enough evidence.I totally agree with you. I never intended to say something else. As I said earlier: I don't know. And that's all I know.
You aren't imagining infinity. You're imagining the sum of everything you can imagine, and more, and the process of trying to reach it. But you can't possibly be imagining infinity.Agreed, except for the last sentence. The 'and more' is the crucial point: I can imagine more then the sum of everything, as you say yourself. That's where I start imagining infinity, I would say.
Anyway, it isn't logically impossible to imagine something you don't know about-- just guess about it.In the sense that what a person guesses about are (real or fantastic things) resulting from all sorts of combinations of things that are known in the end. The combinations may be unknown, but they result from the 'known', normally. But imagining infinity would be an exception to that (?).
---------
Arie.

djr33

03-25-2008, 10:56 PM

Infinity is unimaginable because anything you imagine is smaller than infinity, by definition. You can try, but you can't ever concretely imagine it. It's like stabbing at something wit a sword in the dark. Sure, you try, but you never to see it.

jscheuer1

03-26-2008, 06:32 AM

I get a little uncomfortable when someone says cannot or doesn't at the frontiers of physics, science, or reality in general. We will never cross the sound barrier, we will never put a man on the moon, the earth is flat, that sort of thing. Control of time, access to certain dimensions, or whatever are just barriers that we haven't yet crossed - en masse. The light barrier is the most logical next frontier. There have already been experiments in particle physics which suggest that it perhaps isn't a barrier at all. I'm referring to the simultaneous states over any distance experiments, as well as the related particle leaving the chamber before entering it models.

In any case, it is generally a poor stance to take that something is inaccessible and/or impossible. Not yet documented is much more realistic.

Now, when we relate this back to the God question though, things change a little bit. Folks have for centuries, perhaps since the dawn of recorded time and before, been speculating about this one, and have often been doing so based upon their own preconceptions and (more significantly) needs and desires in a more intense fashion than with just about any (other) scientific question. This muddies, but doesn't entirely discount the field of investigation in this area.

I think that if there is a God, most likely God is so unimaginable as to defy any categorizations we might like to ascribe to God. Like (to put it in the dimensional terms, as are being bandied about here) the 12th dimension or beyond.

djr33

03-26-2008, 07:15 AM

I think that if there is a God, most likely God is so unimaginable as to defy any categorizations we might like to ascribe to God. Like (to put it in the dimensional terms, as are being bandied about here) the 12th dimension or beyond.I agree, completely.

Rather than trying to disprove evolution, I believe those people should be asking who created it; rather than disprove the big bang, ask who created it; superstrings in the 11th dimension?; and, for that matter, once god is found in this staircase to infinity, who created him/it?

molendijk

03-26-2008, 11:23 AM

I get a little uncomfortable when someone says cannot or doesn't at the frontiers of physics, science, or reality in general. We will never cross the sound barrier, we will never put a man on the moon, the earth is flat, that sort of thing.
Me too. But what I ment is this: when, at time t, we succeed in opening a door that was closed to us before t, then there will be another door (say, behind the first one) that will be closed to us at time t' > t. When we succeed in opening the second door at a time t'' > t', there will be a third door that will be closed to us at t'''>t'', etc. So each moment at which a 'cannot' becomes a 'can', there will be another 'cannot'. In that sense, you can say that there we always be a 'cannot'.
I think that if there is a God, most likely God is so unimaginable as to defy any categorizations we might like to ascribe to God.I'm of the same opinion if we take 'unimaginable' in the sense of 'something we fail to represent in our minds'. But if we take it in the sense of 'something that is beyond the scope of human thought' in general, then I don't agree. That's what I ment when I introduced Girgintuala.
I agree, completely. Rather than trying to disprove evolution, I believe those people should be asking who created it; rather than disprove the big bang, ask who created it; superstrings in the 11th dimension?; and, for that matter, once god is found in this staircase to infinity, who created him/it?I would prefer 'if statements'. If evolution, then ... If not evolution, then ... So, for instance: 'if evolution, then who/what started it'. By the way, I don't see why fundamentalist believers always oppose creation to evolution. It seems to me that the most logical explanation of what we see in life (forms) is that things evolve (evolution. And also that evolution must have started somewhere/at some moment of time (creation).
--------
Arie.

benslayton

04-15-2008, 05:05 AM

I agree 100%!

I actually believe that God doesn’t want to save everyone – in order to reveal His wrath.

Someone said something to the effect that he doesn’t think that God wants him to worship Him. I gave that some thought and he may be right. How else is God going to reveal His wrath unless He has objects of wrath? So you see, I’m not trying to force my beliefs on anyone.

I’ll admit that when I had first learned about Christ that I had more zeal then knowledge and that I was out to save the world, but let me assure you, that has changed. :)

But wait doesn't God love everyone... Why would he send just certain people to heaven? Why would He NOT give them a chance? If God doesn't love them why dont he just take them off the planet send them to hell now so they can rot there longer. Or better yet why did He even create them?

Here im gonna try one of those analogy things...
I have the resources to use any server, code in any language, and could write ANYTHING. I absoolutely love PHP but I absolutely hate .net.....
i wouldnt create something i dont like... i would create something i DO LIKE.

So to finsih this up... Why would God create something he doesnt like? and then let it rot in hell if hes a loving God... Isnt he the God of chances?:confused:

something to ponder jack...

I think thats a good question. Have any scripture?

molendijk

10-11-2008, 09:35 PM

God has made what he loves, his children.
And I've made what I love: my children (2 beautyful daughters, actually). After reading the above post, I'm sure I am a better father than the heavenly one.
===
Arie.

Twey

10-11-2008, 10:15 PM

I think Carlin has this one about summed up:
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list, of Ten Things He Does Not Want You To Do. And if you do any of these Ten Things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he'll send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry, for ever and ever until the end of time... but he loves you!
God has made what he loves, his children. He would make things he does not like to test our faith and courage. Say he makes vicious animals that would beat the crap out of us all. Well, what if we didn't pray to God for help? Well, we would be devoured. If we wanna live, we would obviously pray for help, and listen to this: God will ALWAYS answer prayers, but it is up to you how loud the volume is...So earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunami, and wild beasts wouldn't exist if we prayed hard enough, then? And if someone throws a devout Mormon into a cage of lions, they'll all just stand around the praying man and butt up against his legs like kittens? What about the people who do get eaten? Evidently they weren't good enough for God, and got punished as a result? Doesn't sound very forgiving, really, especially since omnipotence means that God was the one who created the flaws that he's punishing in the first place.
not even HE chooses where you will go based on your actions.Interesting. So you deny the omnipotence of God?

molendijk

10-11-2008, 11:31 PM

Twey, I'm with you. But don't try to convince fundamentalist believers with arguments: fundamentalism (islamic, christian, whatever) is reasonless.
===
Arie.

Twey

10-11-2008, 11:53 PM

Aye, aye, I know. In this case, though, I'm merely interested to see what magicyte thinks, since his beliefs appear to be in direct contradiction of the Bible, a stance of which I approve (although the right of a-la-carte believers to proclaim themselves a member of any existing religion without at least creating and defining their own sect is questionable, I suppose).

molendijk

10-11-2008, 11:54 PM

Magicyte, read this (http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics), please.

Why should 'non-believers' be forced to respect 'religion' and 'believers' when, at the same time, believers don't respect non-believers!

I feel I'm getting very angry indeed.
===
Arie.

jscheuer1

10-11-2008, 11:56 PM

I think Carlin has this one about summed up:

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list, of Ten Things He Does Not Want You To Do. And if you do any of these Ten Things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he'll send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry, for ever and ever until the end of time... but he loves you!

Well George should know by now, but he's not telling, he's dead. I think you left out part of that quote, at the end George often added (paraphrasing from memory):

"And he needs money."

Carlin had a very funny take on atheism or whatever exactly it was that he believed. The universe is very strange though. No one knows for sure what's really going on. I believe that it is because of this that so many have manufactured and/or clung to superstition masquerading as truth.

I've always loved Carlin's sense of humor. Another quote on this subject that I like (not sure if it's anonymous or not) is:

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

molendijk

10-12-2008, 12:01 AM

Aye, aye, I know. In this case, though, I'm merely interested to see what magicyte thinks, since his beliefs appear to be in direct contradiction of the Bible.
Fundamentalism is not interested in thinking and reasoning, just in instinctively feeling-based-on-fear. So don't be interested in what the person thinks.
===
Arie.

Twey

10-12-2008, 12:41 AM

Now to that one I take exception. People are always people, no matter what may they believe, and we should always take an interest in other people's opinions, no matter what we may think of their validity. If you like, you can think of it as a sort of living mythology :) I believe that everybody should be free to share their beliefs, as well as to question others' beliefs. The only aspect of that particular argument I dislike is when people attempt to suppress others' beliefs or proclaim that their own are the one truth to the exclusion of all else. As John hinted, while I do believe the Abrahamic God to be logically inconsistent, that doesn't mean there's nothing I can learn from its believers — if nothing else, then there are always clues in beliefs as to how humans in general think.

molendijk

10-12-2008, 10:36 AM

[...] there are always clues in beliefs as to how humans in general think.
True. And what I saw there is that humans tend to separate what they see as the 'truth' from logic / logical (in)consistencies.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course, and it's quite understandable, since our logic doesn't explain existence nor anything related to fundamental questions about it.
But going from there to firm statements about what is 'the Truth' is a step too far for me. Now, if you try to discuss that point with fundamentalists, in saying, for instance, that their truth is not necessarily 'the' truth, and in also admitting that your own truth isn't necessarily 'the' truth, then you will always encounter unwillingness in really discussing the matter. So I already know how fundamentalists think. Their way of thinking doesn't interest me any more. I cannot learn anything from it.
===
Arie

jscheuer1

10-12-2008, 04:59 PM

So I already know how fundamentalists think. Their way of thinking doesn't interest me any more. I cannot learn anything from it.

You are making a false syllogism here. To put the fine point on it required to show that, yes you may know how (the sort of process they most likely will employ - being closed to the possible relativity of their truth) they think about such matters, but you don't know precisely what any individual one thinks, unless you ask.

Further, you really cannot be certain of any individual's degree of openness by simply lumping them in a class (for example, 'fundamentalists'). And of course, among those who self identify as fundamentalists and/or who clearly fit into that category, there will be a wide range of both openness and of what it is precisely that they believe.

This is not to say that that there doesn't certainly appear to be a lot of people in the world who are closed to the type open discussion we have been talking about, and not to say that after talking with a number of folks like that it doesn't get at least a bit frustrating and/or appear pointless.

molendijk

10-12-2008, 05:37 PM

To put the fine point on it required to show that, yes you may know how ... they think about such matters, but you don't know precisely what any individual one thinks, unless you ask.
When I have the same discussion with 1000 people belonging to a certain group, and when the outcome of the discussion is the same over and over again, then ... yes: I cannot be sure about what number 1001 would say. Viewing things from that perspective, you are right. But I'll be tired after 1000 identical discussions.

Further, you really cannot be certain of any individual's degree of openness by simply lumping them in a class (for example, 'fundamentalists').
I only do the lumping after a very long while, see above. I always start with being open(-minded) and knowing nothing about the persons I talk to. So a priori, I don't put anybody in any class.

And of course, among those who self identify as fundamentalists and/or who clearly fit into that category, there will be a wide range of both openness and of what it is precisely that they believe.
John, I wouldn't call them fundamentalists, and they wouldn't self identify as such.
===
Arie.

Twey

10-12-2008, 05:51 PM

Everybody is different :) Even if their beliefs are all the same, their reasons for believing them may differ considerably. That's what interests me most at the moment.

molendijk

10-12-2008, 06:29 PM

Even if their beliefs are all the same, their reasons for believing them may differ considerably. That's what interests me most at the moment.
That's an interesting thought. Personnaly, I'm more inclined to believe that people who think like 'fundamentalist' christians do, ALL have THE SAME THING in common (despite all the differences): FEAR of not doing the right things, the things they think God asks them to do. That fear explains why the notion of punishment plays such an essential role in their belief, and why they absolutely need 'certainty'.
I once asked a very good (and very christian) friend of mine what he would do if someone could prove to him that Mary didn't get pregnant from the Holy Spirit, but simply from Joseph: 'what if Joseph and Mary 'did it' before marriage'? He said that this was impossible but, if it could be proven, h'd wish not to be born, because then Jesus couldn't be called the son of God anymore. My friend needed a fairy-tale-truth-certainty in order to survive.
I've come across this kind of experiences multiple times. By the way, I myself was raised in this belief by my parents. Luckily for me, I started to ask myself certain question when I was still very young. What I remember most of that period is FEAR. Not my fear, but my father's and mother's fear, and their friends' fear (and the preacher who said that he was absolutely sure that they didn't play jazz music in heaven, because jazz = SIN).
===
Arie.

Twey

10-12-2008, 07:54 PM

Jazz music? Sin? :eek: I was raised a Catholic, but my grandmother wasn't really a fearful sort of person — more that the religion dictated the 'proper' way to do things, and that disagreement with it should be met with disapproval as if one had performed an indecent act in public. I know the fearful types you mention as well, though — they tend to be the more fervent believers.

molendijk

10-12-2008, 08:27 PM

jscheuer1

10-12-2008, 08:55 PM

So I already know how fundamentalists think. Their way of thinking doesn't interest me any more. I cannot learn anything from it.

John, I wouldn't call them fundamentalists, and they wouldn't self identify as such.

Sorry, er my mistake?

Even if their beliefs are all the same, their reasons for believing them may differ considerably. That's what interests me most at the moment.

You are truly a wonder, my friend.

magicyte

10-13-2008, 12:55 AM

:o whoops

-magicyte

molendijk

10-13-2008, 12:24 PM

Who ever said that 'non-believers' should be forced to respect 'religion'? Anybody can do whatever they want.
As I said above, please read this (http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics).
===
Arie.

jscheuer1

10-13-2008, 07:30 PM

As I said above, please read this (http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics).
===
Arie.

That does speak to rigid attitudes that haven't been entirely overcome yet. Not quite as bad as slavery, which is also now unconstitutional like the laws cited in that article.

I find though that in certain circles, the reverse bias appears to be in effect. So this is no longer such an issue of civil rights for one group, as one of tolerance for each side by the other.

Twey

10-13-2008, 08:39 PM

No, siree!!Well, you stated that God has no control over those who enter Heaven, either by choice or by necessity. The latter denies omnipotence entirely, whilst the former is a too-heavy-to-lift paradox.

magicyte

10-13-2008, 09:13 PM

:o whoops

-magicyte

Twey

10-13-2008, 09:51 PM

So he has no control by choice? That definitely sounds like the former to me. 'Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?' Can God remove a portion of his own power and/or designate it to someone else? It raises some interesting questions about celestial free will :)

molendijk

10-14-2008, 12:21 PM

He is not the Guy who judges you. Jesus Christ does. God chose Christ to judge for him.
My name is Arie. I'm the father of two daughters. I'm not the guy who wants my daughters to suffer from anything. Now, I've also a son. I chose my son to judge my daughters. It's up to him to do whatever he likes. He may punish my daughters if he wants to, and even send them to death...
Magicyte: isn't that totally crazy and perverse?
===
Arie.

Twey

10-14-2008, 07:34 PM

Well, theoretically, if the son were perfect and the daughters were imperfect, it would be a logical choice. Of course, if the son were perfect, he would know exactly what to do to correct the daughters' behaviour so that none of them ever had to be put to death...

molendijk

10-14-2008, 08:57 PM

My name is Arie. I'm the father of two daughters. I'm not the guy who wants my daughters to suffer from anything. Now, I've also a son. I chose my son to judge my daughters. It's up to him to do whatever he likes. He may punish my daughters if he wants to, and even send them to death...
Magicyte: isn't that totally crazy and perverse?
===
Arie.

Well, theoretically, if the son were perfect and the daughters were imperfect, it would be a logical choice. Of course, if the son were perfect, he would know exactly what to do to correct the daughters' behaviour so that none of them ever had to be put to death...

If the son were perfect, he would know exactly what to do to correct the daughters' behaviour so that none of them ever had to be put to death. Right (?). Rather: he would be utterly astonished by the thought that his father had given his sisters the free will of not repenting after committing sin; he would be astonished indeed, since his father then would force him to punish the daughters in case they would choose the 'wrong free will'. (And, according to christians or mormons, that happens from time to time since, otherwise, hell would be empty).
===
Arie.

magicyte

10-14-2008, 09:45 PM

:o whoops

-magicyte

molendijk

10-14-2008, 10:28 PM

Dude: stop making metaphors with people who DON'T know what to do and who AREN'T perfect.
Dude: no I won't. Why would I? I try to understand some people's belief via metaphors.

I think he will obey what his Daddy told him to do.... God has strictly given Christ rules that will judge us FAIRLY!!!.
'Daddy' and 'fairly'. These words don't seem appropriate in the light of this:
"Several years later, God tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice his son . Abraham obeyed and took Isaac to the mount Moriah. Without murmuring, Isaac let Abraham bind him and lay him upon the altar as a sacrifice. Abraham took the knife and raised his hand to kill his son. At the last minute, an angel of the Lord prevented him from doing so. Instead of Isaac, Abraham sacrificed a ram that was trapped in a thicket nearby." (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac).
Do you call this normal? What if Abraham wouldn't have passed the test? Note that it's perverse to ask somebody to kill his own son. This is [I]Scheherazade!

God gave revelation that Christ will judge unto us according to if we OBEY commandments and if we SERVED others
God knew IN ADVANCE who would OBEY his commandments and who would SERVE others. So all he does is playing a despotic game. (I don't say he really does, if he exists. I only say he does if ONE sees things from your perspective).

If you obey the commandments and do good, you'll live with Them anyway
Who says I want to?

You might ask why I take all of this so seriously. For several reasons, among which the fact that certain world leaders believe in things similar to what you believe. I'm not happy with that.
===
Arie.

Twey

10-14-2008, 10:45 PM

magicyte: I think you're missing the point a little. The question Arie posed is an ancient one: if God created us (creator), and God knows all that we do or will do (omniscient), and God can do anything (omnipotent), and God wants the best for us all (omnibenevolent), then why does God give us flaws in the first place and then punish them later? Since he's omniscient, he knows when he gives us the flaws that those flaws will cause him to 'have to' punish us; since he's omnibenevolent, he doesn't want to punish us; since he's omnipotent, he is under no obligation to give us flaws or to punish us when they show up, since he could correct us some other way. One or more of the precepts of a Christian God logically has to be false, because only then do solutions to the paradox arise:If he's not the creator, then he didn't add the flaws — although this also necessitates him to be either not omnipotent (so that he can't do anything to prevent or remove the flaws) or not omnibenevolent (so that he doesn't care enough to remove the flaws, but isn't necessarily sadistic).
If he's not omniscient, then he doesn't know that the flaws can't/won't be corrected — he might add them in the belief that they'll build character;
If he's not omnipotent, then he doesn't have the power to prevent the flaws and inevitable judgement;
If he's not benevolent, then he can simply not care — although if he's omniscient, omnipotent, and a creator, this necessitates that he knows what he's doing when adding flaws, and therefore deliberately adds them in the knowledge that these will cause that they will cause pain later, and God is then assumed sadistic rather than simply uncaring.

magicyte

10-14-2008, 11:04 PM

:o whoops

-magicyte

djr33

10-14-2008, 11:15 PM

God does not know all that we do or that we will yet do.
Then he is not omniscient. He must exist outside of the normal bounds of time-- he created the world in far too fast a time to be "real" and also exists somehow outside of the bounds of "reality"-- time, as we know it.

I believe God does not know all that we will do. He hasn't set out a path for our life.
Knowing what we will do and determining it are different:
1. He can see the future if he is all-seeing (omniscient) by definition.
2. He can dictate what we do if he is all-powerful (omnipotent).
3. He may see what we do, and he may not decide it for us. But he would then be not choosing to help if we do something wrong.
It's like a game of chess in which he knows from the beginning who will win.

molendijk

10-14-2008, 11:44 PM

God does not know all that we do or that we will yet do.... Once again, I do not deny God's omnipotence.
That's the theological statement of the century! You deny that, if I'm capable of (doing) anything ('omnipotence'), then I'm capable of making myself such that I know everything ('omniscience').
Never mind, I think that (intuitively) I get what you mean. What you say makes me think of a wellknown children's state of mind in which believing that Santa Claus exists can coexist with the belief that he does not exist (I don't mean that sarcastically at all. If I remember well, this happens around the age of 5 or 6). Logic does not exist in that mental state. By the way, logic does not 'explain it all', as I said in a previous post.
But it seems to me that discussing things while being in that strange state of mind does not make it easier for us to understand each other's arguments.
===
Arie.

Twey

10-14-2008, 11:48 PM

God does not know all that we do or that we will yet do. That destroys the purpose of this particular post. Trust me: I believe God does not know all that we will do. He hasn't set out a path for our life. You see, that's why people get it wrong when I say that God forgives us no matter what we do. Once again, I do not deny God's omnipotence.Well, in doing so you definitely deny God's omniscience (remember, omniscient means 'all-knowing', 'with the ability to know anything' — part of the core Christian definition of God) and thereby deny God's omnipotence ('all-powerful', 'with the power to do anything'), since you're saying that it is impossible for God to find out how our lives will evolve. You're then edging towards a much saner view of God which only attributes 'creator' and 'omnibenevolent' to him.
Never mind, I think that (intuitively) I get what you mean. What you say makes me think of a wellknown children's state of mind in which believing that Santa Claus exists can coexist with the belief that he does not exist (I don't mean that sarcastically at all. If I remember well, this happens around the age of 5 or 6). Logic does not exist in that mental state.The Orwellian term 'doublethink' applies, but it is not a positive one. It denotes the ability to agree with and obey doctrines, even those that seem to logically contradict ('you must not kill'; 'you must not permit a witch to live', or whatever morally dubious cause religion is being used to promote at the time).
By the way, logic does not 'explain it all', as I said in a previous post.Without logic, anything can be presupposed. The IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) and the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) spring to mind — popular satirical religions based upon the foundation that followers of Abrahamic religions have no logic. I disagree with this criticism thanks to the input of good minds such as Aquinas and Berkeley, which I consider generally well-reasoned, if not taken quite far enough (although the rise of quantum mechanics throws some of their ideas into doubt).