God

[LeiYunFat]

That's a dilema...what really would God coming down and giving us the answers prove? A Jewish proverb (according to a professor of mine) once described a group of men having an argument. The man aguing for his position said, "If I am right, let that river run backwards up the mountain." And the river ran backwards up the mountain. The men arguing against him said, "This does not prove anything." The first man, still confident in himself said, "If I am right, let those birds fly backwards." And the birds flew backwards. The men opposed to him still denied this was anything usefl to the argument. And finally, the man said, "If I am right, let God come down and tell you I am right." And sure enough, God came down and said, "Men, this man here is right." To which the opposing men replied, "God, you gave us these minds and these laws for a reason. We would appreciate it if you let us use them to solve our own problems. With all due respect, you coming here does not solve anything."

And you know what, I completely agree. If God were to come down and solve all our problems, what good would it do? We wouldn't be any better off... And of the two caveats you described, I think the only one I can accept is the second one. If God wants to be found with the laws that govern us, he could make it so. But so far, we only have these things to work with, and I don't think anyone making it easy for us is going to convince me of much.

 

[aliquisdeus]

That's an excellent allegory. Thanks for sharing.

 

[solafide55]

Personally I'm more interested in exactly who Jesus was and what he did and said than in whether he liked to smoke the stickiest of the icky.

Being able to see for myself the true nature and powers of the supposed messiah would be a significant spiritual experience that would probably shift my views on a lot of things. There are only two problems with this:

1) If I(we) knew for a fact that, and I'm only using the christian faith as an example here, god or one of his aspects existed and exhibited godly powers, then faith would no longer be a part of the equation. Would this then mean a shift of spiritual focus to something else, with the universal acceptance of monotheism?

2) There's no real evidence that what we can perceive with our very limited human senses is a reliable source of information.

Given those two caveats, I tend to wonder if there's any real choice in belief systems. It would seem existentialism is the only one of which we can be somewhat certain. Even that, however, is based on the assumption of some merit to our sytems of analytics. Having had that thought, I immediately change my mind and begin to wonder if nihilism isn't the answer.

It seems to me that it's easier, in a lot of ways, and perhaps more advantageous to simply stick to what you believe in. Nonetheless, I'd still like to "know" the answers.

Sweet post. I wish there were more people who could articulate the way you do. As for wanting to know what Jesus said, did, and taught. There is ample record of such within the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible or what it says then you should look to the earliest Christian followers. Look at what they taught and did. If they were to follow Christ then they must of emulated Christ somewhat in there actions and words.

I disagree with your first post somewhat. I believe that even if we were to see God or see Jesus walking around doing miracles that many of us would still not believe. All evidence is interpreted through our presuppostions. As much as we would like to say we are unbiased, we are biased. I believe in God therefore I come to the table with a bias, and the same is for an atheist. Back when Jesus was running around doing miracles people looked at him in different ways. Some thought he was just a prophet (mere man), some thought he was God, others thought he was in bed with the devil. The funny thing is they all saw him do miracles and heard him teach, but they all came to very different conclusions about who he was.

You are very right however about your last point being that if we chose a belief system at the end of the day there is an assumption or (Faith) we are using to hold to it. No one can prove absolutely that Jesus is God, but I think we should know what Jesus and the Bible actually says about us before we throw it out of the realm of possiblity. The same would be true for other religions as well.

 

[LeiYunFat]

I don't know how convincing miracles would be...the only thing I believe they would prove is that the said person can miraculously do these things. But that wouldn't mean I would follow that person to the ends of the universe. Yes, you can create an experiment that yields objective results. The H20's chemical properties became such and such in so many seconds. Only the next step is biased, whether or not this means you should bow to the person creating the miracle.

What would convince me? Unequivocal evidence through natural laws.

 

[aliquisdeus]

Well said, solafide55.

You make a good point, one I had been overlooking in my ramblings. Lei's absolutely right. Human experience is shaped by our perceptions of our reality. No two people experience the same reality. Conversely, reality is shaped by our perceptions. This throws yet another wrench in just about any belief system. It does however open up some interesting possiblities.

In the field of quantum physics scientists are now observing data that suggests what eastern mysticism has said all along, that everything in this life is connected. That all are one. At the level of particles the barrier between energy and matter breaks down and when you look at anything closely enough, you see what you WANT to see. The act of your observation itself changes the behavior of the particles.

I find this concept quite fascinating because it implies that we humans are ourselves a part of reality..not an observer but an actual aspect of it. That reality itself is a fluid thing that shapes itself towards some unknown purpose. I posit that it is for our, and thus its own, benefit. We create the dream and immerse ourselves in it and the dream shows us what we need to see. This would explain miracles fairly well I think as a prompt to transcend to another plane of thought, one more capable of comprehending the nature of reality.

I realize there are a number of rather wild leaps of logic in what I've just expressed, but isn't it a lovely thought?

 

[solafide55]

I don't know how convincing miracles would be...the only thing I believe they would prove is that the said person can miraculously do these things. But that wouldn't mean I would follow that person to the ends of the universe. Yes, you can create an experiment that yields objective results. The H20's chemical properties became such and such in so many seconds. Only the next step is biased, whether or not this means you should bow to the person creating the miracle.

What would convince me? Unequivocal evidence through natural laws.

Natural Law in and of itself implies a creator/creators. The law of biogenesis alone would give you that. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics would tell you there was a beginning to this universe, unless we can somehow find a way to violate those principals on a massive level. Natural law can be subject to change and is not an objective 100% secure position. Experiments are biased in that the person doing the experiment is biased, but that we even put faith in the scientific method is biased. Who is to say that Bob smoking weed with his thumb in his ear can't arrive at truth? The scientific community likes to put it's faith in that method, but that method can't check itself. Just because it works most of the time does not mean it is absolute. It could be reliable, but not valid. Who's to say 10 years down the road there isn't something better? We don't know so we put our trust in science, but science is ever changing and what you think you know today you might not know tomorrow.

 

[LeiYunFat]

Natural Law in and of itself implies a creator/creators.

Implies. Key word.

The law of biogenesis alone would give you that. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics would tell you there was a beginning to this universe, unless we can somehow find a way to violate those principals on a massive level.

Too bad this means nothing to the validity of specific faiths. And yes, that is/was what I am talkin about.

Natural law can be subject to change and is not an objective 100% secure position. Experiments are biased in that the person doing the experiment is biased, but that we even put faith in the scientific method is biased. Who is to say that Bob smoking weed with his thumb in his ear can't arrive at truth? The scientific community likes to put it's faith in that method, but that method can't check itself.

Yes, it can. And that is the beauty of the scientific method. And, have you ever heard of a double-blind experiement? The results yeilded are pretty damn objective.

Just because it works most of the time does not mean it is absolute. It could be reliable, but not valid. Who's to say 10 years down the road there isn't something better?

Nobody. But if it works, then it works. You can't argue with results. Science and the way we investigate things are tools. When you need something done that the tool can't do, you use a new tool.

We don't know so we put our trust in science, but science is ever changing and what you think you know today you might not know tomorrow.

Are you suggesting that religious faith is some kind of, never ending diamond in the rough? Everything changes. Everything. But that doesn't mean we criticise things for changing, like it makes it less reliable.

Perhaps now you won't misunderstand my comments as "blind faith."

 

[LeiYunFat]

Well said, solafide55.

You make a good point, one I had been overlooking in my ramblings. Lei's absolutely right. Human experience is shaped by our perceptions of our reality. No two people experience the same reality. Conversely, reality is shaped by our perceptions. This throws yet another wrench in just about any belief system. It does however open up some interesting possiblities.

In the field of quantum physics scientists are now observing data that suggests what eastern mysticism has said all along, that everything in this life is connected. That all are one. At the level of particles the barrier between energy and matter breaks down and when you look at anything closely enough, you see what you WANT to see. The act of your observation itself changes the behavior of the particles.

I find this concept quite fascinating because it implies that we humans are ourselves a part of reality..not an observer but an actual aspect of it. That reality itself is a fluid thing that shapes itself towards some unknown purpose. I posit that it is for our, and thus its own, benefit. We create the dream and immerse ourselves in it and the dream shows us what we need to see. This would explain miracles fairly well I think as a prompt to transcend to another plane of thought, one more capable of comprehending the nature of reality.

I realize there are a number of rather wild leaps of logic in what I've just expressed, but isn't it a lovely thought?

Very lovely, one I used to lose myself in for many many days. Now, my thoughts are limited. I now feel that things are connected, to an enormous amount...one that we as people can not realize, but it is not big enough to encompass the entire planet. Like the old cliche of the butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon would cause a typhoon in Japan? I don't think it's quite so drastic. I used to think every little thing we did affected everything to some degree. But I just can't find that thought occuring much anymore.

 

[R.Lewis]

Ive not read the other posts, just wanted to thorw this in.

I believe that "IF" there is a God, we have misinterpreted him/her in a big way, or God is not all good.

Many people have died in vein for his name alone. "IF" there is a god and a devil I think they are the same thing.

I'd belive that its much more likely that we are an experiment. People argue about war and famin, cancer etc... and say, that they dont believe in god because of this. Well what If he doesnt really care for individuals, he is just interested if to see if we have the inteligence to cure cancer without our help and stop all wars.

 

[solafide55]

Implies. Key word.

If you don't like implies, then how about logically deduces. Even Socrates admitted as such. To me the natural laws and the extreme complexity of life, logically implies that there has to be a creator/creators. Socrates took it a step further and concluded that if there are creators then one begat another and so on until eternity, but somewhere down that line there had to be a first, who would ultimately be the most powerful, therefore that is the one that is worthy of being classified a deity in the true sense.

Too bad this means nothing to the validity of specific faiths. And yes, that is/was what I am talkin about.

I never said it did, but it should cause you to step back and ponder for a moment.

Yes, it can. And that is the beauty of the scientific method. And, have you ever heard of a double-blind experiement? The results yeilded are pretty damn objective.

No it can't. The method is not capable of checking itself. Even a double blind experiment can't check itself. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The fact that you choose one a method over another is the inherent bias in the system.

Nobody. But if it works, then it works. You can't argue with results. Science and the way we investigate things are tools. When you need something done that the tool can't do, you use a new tool.

Look how many times science has been wrong. The tool would prove to be reliable to a point, but never absolute.

Are you suggesting that religious faith is some kind of, never ending diamond in the rough? Everything changes. Everything. But that doesn't mean we criticise things for changing, like it makes it less reliable.

The last time I checked Christianity has changed as well, but only based on the people interpreting it or rewriting the text. However, that is change due to human beings not necessarily the text itself. What is more important is that following Biblical text I can live with a consistency that most others can't when it comes to moral law. I have a supreme law giver, therefore a foundation with which to stand on. I'm not saying you don't, but I find it fascinating when world views are pushed to the extreme, they are found wanting. Plus I find the Christian view of God most interesting, because if we admit that God is exists, then he needs nothing from us, yet almost all other religious views make man the sole factor in "salvation." Christianity at its root does not; it makes God and his work the sole factor for "salvation"

Perhaps now you won't misunderstand my comments as "blind faith."

I never said you were blind as a person, but you have faith, everyone does. Some in science, some in God, some in themselves, some in drugs, some in sex, some in money, some in physical stature, and the list can go on. It's a question of where is that faith best suited to go and does it matter at all. If not then live drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, but if it does we have a situation on our hands that we should all stop for a second and take a look at. That is why I'm very happy you put up this thread and appreciate everyone who takes a second to stop by and discuss things in a civil fashion.

 

[aliquisdeus]

I don't believe that natural law implies the presence of a deity. I think there may be a difference in opinion here as to what natural law constitutes. I see natural law as "a law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority". I'm not seeing where you drew the correlation between natural law as such and the laws of science. The laws of science, religion, or any other system of belief are that of man's interpretation and thus unsubstantiated. Saying "if you jump up vertically you will fall back down, thus the Law of Physics" has never made sense to me.

Take Biogenesis for example, a creationist would present the following argument.
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

There are many other approaches to the issue, but I prefer asking the question "who decided that, say, a rock was nonliving matter?" If you think about that for a moment or two the entire argument of biogenesis and natural laws crumbles. It's interesting that the first Law of Thermodynamics would support the idea that all matter is living. If energy is neither created or destroyed, only changing from one form to another, then it follows that there is no living or nonliving..only different forms and itensities of energy.

"Plus I find the Christian view of God most interesting, because if we admit that God is exists, then he needs nothing from us, yet almost all other religious views make man the sole factor in "salvation." Christianity at its root does not; it makes God and his work the sole factor for "salvation""

That is some rather dubious logic. God requires that you admit he exists. Setting aside the fact that in my opinion both have requirements (or you might call them guidelines) that would dictate how one should live one's life, your logic fails nonetheless in that admitting to the existence of a higher power is the only real act in any faith. The rest is a result of the admission. Because you believe in god, you must then act in a way that upholds your beliefs. The result is requirements.

More simply put, if the only requirement of God in the christian faith is to admit the existence of God, then salvation is clearly in the hands of man as with all other faiths (which is assumed for the purposes of this argument but not necessarily true). It is up to man to acquire belief, just as it would be up to a buddhist to know the impermanence of reality as a requirement of achieving the goals of his faith.

Science cannot be called objective pace LeiYunFat. As I stated in my previous post, the observer influences the observed without fail, no matter what he might do to prevent it. It is a belief system as any other. The difference is that it's more highly regarded because it appeals more to our logos (here: "human reasoning about the cosmos") while many other faiths deal with mythos (here: "The pattern of basic values and attitudes of a people").

I don't think that this division is as natural as the early western philsophers would have us believe.
I see no option for faith but evolving to something that exists in both worlds simultaneously.

 

[LeiYunFat]

God damn! I just want yall to know I've read your posts and think they are very interesting, but I haven't been able to actually make a real reply. Sorry bout that.

 

[aliquisdeus]

There's no expectation or rush. I'm quite enjoying this topic, thanks for starting it. Or, bringing it up, rather.

For those who are following, I expanded upon my previous post.

 

[LeiYunFat]

If you don't like implies, then how about logically deduces. Even Socrates admitted as such. To me the natural laws and the extreme complexity of life, logically implies that there has to be a creator/creators. Socrates took it a step further and concluded that if there are creators then one begat another and so on until eternity, but somewhere down that line there had to be a first, who would ultimately be the most powerful, therefore that is the one that is worthy of being classified a deity in the true sense.

I subscribe to the closed universe theory. In this case, it helps to narrow things down. The universe is like a ball. It keeps inflating and deflating, like a heart beat. It's a very cool theory, but still doesn't solve the "origin of infinite power" thing. However, I believe there is more to it that just stopping at infinity.

I never said it did, but it should cause you to step back and ponder for a moment.

Why? The existance of a diety doesn't improve the disposition of organized religions.

No it can't. The method is not capable of checking itself. Even a double blind experiment can't check itself. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The fact that you choose one a method over another is the inherent bias in the system.

Why not? I don't understand what you mean. Upon close inspection, you may be right in a sense, and maybe I called it wrong earlier, so here it is...

Look how many times science has been wrong. The tool would prove to be reliable to a point, but never absolute.

...Science helps show the epitome of flexibility. "If the theory doesn't apply, change the theory." Isn't this what Einstein said? Science is great in that, nothing HAS to be. Everything can be challenged.

The last time I checked Christianity has changed as well, but only based on the people interpreting it or rewriting the text. However, that is change due to human beings not necessarily the text itself. What is more important is that following Biblical text I can live with a consistency that most others can't when it comes to moral law. I have a supreme law giver, therefore a foundation with which to stand on. I'm not saying you don't, but I find it fascinating when world views are pushed to the extreme, they are found wanting. Plus I find the Christian view of God most interesting, because if we admit that God is exists, then he needs nothing from us, yet almost all other religious views make man the sole factor in "salvation." Christianity at its root does not; it makes God and his work the sole factor for "salvation"

As you said, the interpretation is the only thing that changes. But it's the only thing that matters. I'd say most Christians of the Middle Ages were pretty "extreme". The only consistancy is the one you find in your interpretation, which makes everything circular.

I never said you were blind as a person, but you have faith, everyone does. Some in science, some in God, some in themselves, some in drugs, some in sex, some in money, some in physical stature, and the list can go on. It's a question of where is that faith best suited to go and does it matter at all. If not then live drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, but if it does we have a situation on our hands that we should all stop for a second and take a look at. That is why I'm very happy you put up this thread and appreciate everyone who takes a second to stop by and discuss things in a civil fashion.

Yeah, but after reading my posts and your replies, I almost sound like one of those secularists who worship Newton and Einstein n ****.

 

[LeiYunFat]

If you don't like implies, then how about logically deduces. Even Socrates admitted as such. To me the natural laws and the extreme complexity of life, logically implies that there has to be a creator/creators. Socrates took it a step further and concluded that if there are creators then one begat another and so on until eternity, but somewhere down that line there had to be a first, who would ultimately be the most powerful, therefore that is the one that is worthy of being classified a deity in the true sense.

Let's try it then;

Since life is complex
And since the probablility is small things would work out like they have
Therefore the existance of God is the only answer.

I've heard the arguments about gravity, distance from the sun, probability, etc. If you weren't a gambler, then it would be in your best interests to bet on God. But even so, every bet has a chance of missing it.

I'll go ahead and connect this with my interpretation of the closed universe theory-

since the universe expands and contracts, and everything resets itself eventually, a 1/1000000 e^100000000 chance can happen. How do we know we aren't the 1000000 e^100000000th universe to exist? In this way, probability arguments are drastically weakened...

 

[matt182]

Sure, I believe in God. Speaking from a physiological stand point, I just refuse to believe all this happened by 'accident' or through subtle changes coming from lower life forms.

Kind of funny considering your name is evolution,

Id think youd benefit from knowing more about the subject then ignorantly "refusing" something that has enourmous evidence, quite the contrary to the god hypothesis.

 

[Karky]

If god existed, he could create all the evidence we have for evolution and everything else no problem. So the whole "there's more evidence for evolution than god" just doesn't hold up. If god made this planet, he made that evidence.. perhaps to test us?
I'm not saying I believe one way or the other, I'm just saying that the argument doesn't hold.

 

[matt182]

thats in regard to creationism. In that things didnt evolve but were just created, just "appeared".

I know this is an old thread suprised you didnt mention it ;p, but i was just searching for something interesting and this has got to be as interesting as things get.

 

[Karky]

yeah, if god just created everything as they were, he could have put the evidence there to test us, or whatever. If he exists, he is the almighty and can do anything.

The real interesting question is, if god is almighty, can he then create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? If he can, he is not allmighty because there is something he can't do (lift the rock) but if he can't create it, there's also something he can't do, which again says he's not allmighty

 

[matt182]

that really just preposterous. I think beleiving in a god is a delusion.

I couldnt really care what people beleive in. it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Not to mention the crisis religion has caused for our earth. There will always be good and bad people, but for a good person to do bad things takes relgion.