Is there such a thing as God?

[KingGengar]

magic froma physics perspective means "unknown". It might be magic (supernatural), it might be knowable, or at a very fundamental level it may be unknowable. The physics of the very small does not lend itself to questions of What and How. I have absolutely no idea what an electron is, yet I can describe and predict its behaviour well. that is what makes it part of scientific understanding and not supernatural or magic. So though I won't say physics is magic I will say that some of it is quite magical. Physics taught me that there are limits to my personal knowledge. Limits that are beyond the limitations of my own metal capacity. Limits that are apparently beyond any living person. Mathematicians has a similar ephiphany with Godel's incompleteness theorem.

When you say atomic physics "might" be knowable, you admit that at present it is NOT entirely knowable. Therefore, without proof that it is totally natural (totally of physical laws), it may be supernatural (originating from a Creator, but then working with physical laws in this universe). That is on the origin.

But even the behavior cannot be predicted 100%. Electronics works because it works MOST of the time. We have not truly described things, neither the makeup ("what an electron is") nor the behavior ("what an electron does"). We only THINK we know, and we say this because we can invent things which work with electrons, and we can make experiments involving electrons which sometimes work, sometimes don't.

And with that analogy and truth, we can make some small leaps. For example, dreams are "real." People dream, animals dream (we assume). You can't touch them - you can't TRULY explain why people have dreams - you can't even say some are not omens or messages. But no one denies that dreams (like thoughts or personalities) are "real" (perceivable, repeatable, observable from a distance). But no one can say they don't originate from some place other than natural law.

You open your arguement with "IF" then assume that it is true to justify your conclusion. This just won't work to convince anyone even with the correct scientific declaration that energy can neither be created or destroyed mixed into your arguement.

I'm not pointing this out to anger you or dismiss your opinions. I am pointing this out because the seed you are sowing will not grow. Not because the soil is barren but because the seed itself is faulty.

You omitted my final comment, which was "I cannot prove it, only conclude it." The seed is NOT faulty. I may conclude as I like, and I did NOT say I proved a thing, which means I am NOT trying to convince you that what I said is absolutely correct. I was ONLY trying to show you that life-force MAY be energy.

Notice, however, that you took NO stand on whether life-force was energy, did NOT give an opinion or make a conclusion of your own, and remained distant from anything I actually said. But you did once again go after my syntax and/or logical structure, even though you know what I was driving at.

If you AGREE that life-force is energy, that energy is what drives the cells to reproduce, the brain to think, the "personality" to thrive, then I suppose you agree that we have a soul that persists after death, since you agree that energy is immutable.

If you DISAGREE that life-force is energy, then what is it?

I am still awaiting your theories, opinions - whatever - on life-force, dreams, personalities, thoughts, and other "intangible" things that we take for granted as being real, but which are only constructs of thought we use to identify things which may or may not match our explanation.

 

[Immorto]

Lots of great debating going on here =] but...here's my theory.

You guys know about the Telephone game right? well, if you don't it's when you get a huge chain of people, tell the first person a sentence, then have them tell the person next to them and so on. when it gets to the end it sounds something like this...

the purple elephant trotted through forest treefrog brown hippos together. when it started out as...
a treefrog met a brown elephant and hippo in the forest.

I think that Jesus was a man, a good man, who did things because he wasn't selfish. some people think he is god, some people think he doesn't or didn't exist. I think that he did exist, but, not to the extent that people see him as. I think that he did good deeds, and helped people out with daily life, but was seen as an extremely nice, and popular person. Somebody didnt like that, and put him to death on the cross.

they told stories to their kids, who told their kids, and so forth. Those stories eventually turned into something greater....and greater....and greater everytime they were told, because they wanted to feel like they knew something amazing, so they made it better and better everytime. Eventually, the amazing man turned into the creator of the universe and to hold that title, the bible was made.

I believe that you should do good, because you don't want to be selfish, not because you want to go to heaven, or find nirvana, or what have you. the world kills people well, because it does. I think that everybody should believe in god if that helps you get through your life in happiness, but, not to argue (debate is ok) that god is real, and he will send you to hell if you dont believe.

One last question on this topic (I don't think I will post any more) If God is almighty, and can do anything, "can he make an object that he cannot lift?"

 

[KingGengar]

I think that Jesus was a man, a good man, who did things because he wasn't selfish. some people think he is god, some people think he doesn't or didn't exist. I think that he did exist, but, not to the extent that people see him as. I think that he did good deeds, and helped people out with daily life, but was seen as an extremely nice, and popular person. Somebody didnt like that, and put him to death on the cross.

they told stories to their kids, who told their kids, and so forth. Those stories eventually turned into something greater....and greater....and greater everytime they were told, because they wanted to feel like they knew something amazing, so they made it better and better everytime. Eventually, the amazing man turned into the creator of the universe and to hold that title, the bible was made.

Since I have no life and live by my computer, I'll answer right away.

The part about Jesus being a nice guy isn't really the story. When you read the Gospels, you have a picture of guy who received a message from God, which was to go to Jerusalem and tell the powers-that-be that they were not correctly administering the Torah. This can be seen in the stories, especially in Christ's trial, where they bring false witnesses (breaking the Ninth Commandment). As you can imagine, because the keepers of the Law were corrupt, and Jesus refused to back down, there was gonna be trouble. The story is not about a nice guy of whom some were jealous, but of a man who told the truth and was silenced. Notice when Judas tries to return the 30 pieces of silver, and confesses his sin, he is told by the judges to go away! Confessing sins to a priest of the temple ought to result in at least a chance at repentance if not a trial. They couldn't have that - they were complicit with Judas.

I believe that you should do good, because I don't want to be selfish, not because I want to go to heaven, or find nirvana, or what have you. the world kills people well, because it does. I think that everybody should believe in god if that helps you get through your life in happiness, but, not to argue (debate is ok) that god is real, and he will send you to hell if you dont believe.

Doing good for its own sake is a good reason, IMO. So is doing good because you believe God said so (the Law), IMO. Doing harm in the name of God is never good. We could argue all day about commandments and laws and religions, but the main things are, IMO, Does God exist? and Does God have a law which I must follow?

One last question on this topic (I don't think I will post any more) If God is almighty, and can do anything, "can he make an object that he cannot lift?"

The counter-question is, Does God need to "lift" anything?

 

[i like burdn of a day]

well, im just gonna say one thing. how could we be if there wasnt a god? how could it just so happen that earth has everything essential for our living here? how could we have feelings that have no physical appearance, but are still there?

 

[Benzo]

@kinggangar- Now that you claim that you do not have a life, can you prove this? Did the creator not provide enough evidence to you for your existance? How can something without life live by something? ( lol, jk- and I hope you see the humor - !
(could not resist- neener!) I also like the counter question to "lift"- God lifted a finger to create. Why relift if He himself said "It is good"?
If I created something, and that something became "tainted", I would express my anger in that I will need to fix the problem. And I would use my abilities/power/knowlage to return my creation back to how I made it in the first place. Thus, relifting the finger, per say.
And since you are at your pc 24/7- I can expect a quick responce from you. lol.
Also, you said that it is interesting that when you post, another person post's in reply.
Look at it from this point of view: your making good points, and demonstrating a solid belief/theory for yourself.
Not alot of people will agree with what you post, but it makes them think.
Same with my postings- I accept that others do not belive or think as I do, and "argueing" only sovles the fact that not everyone has the same experiances and knowlage to be correct in all possable points of view on a subject such as this.

Our knowlage is limited, and the source/resources all cover such a vast area of every aspcet of human existance.
You can live to be 100+ (and no, I am not saying that we will/will not be able to achieve this ) and still never be an "expert" on any subject.
I think it is amazing that a creator who has every aspect of knowlage in every field of science, math, ect... was even willing to share that all with us in the first place.
Since we are mortal, and have an unknowing time limit to our existance- even as a life form that is in currently numbered in the billions, we will never find the exact truth. We can only go on what is right before us, and make descisions on how to live life that make this existance as happy as one should have it in a short time limit.
Even with all the research from others in the past, somewhere along the line some one elses resaerch will prove it wrong, or attempt to prove it wrong.
God is one who can give us individual attention, ( IMbelifes)- If I need answers, He is there to answer them. If He already provided those answers, I can seek them out.
In discussion such as this, I have found a few answers. And I believe in some of those answers, because if God created all aspects of life and knowlage, I can not realy disregard anything posted in here to be false.
And yes, I did say "if"- even though I do believe God did create everything- the "if" is there because I am imperfect.

 

[Gir]

well, im just gonna say one thing. how could we be if there wasnt a god? how could it just so happen that earth has everything essential for our living here? how could we have feelings that have no physical appearance, but are still there?

so because you can't see it you attribute it to god. ok.

 

[weavile#1]

well, if the universe didn't exist without us, wouldn't it make a lot of sense that this universe is fine-tuned for life. Since, if a universe could not exist without us, every universe that could not sustain us would cease to exist. The only 'perfect' universe is left.

 

[KingGengar]

Benzo: Thanks for the words of wisdom and support. Keeps me in perspective. I like the humor, too

 

[Benzo]

^humor is a great addition to our life- as some have pointed out the "Platupus"- is it a sence of humor from God to put such an inquizative creation into existance? Or was it mathamaticaly calculated to be what it is in defiance to "the odds" of something being alive even though it makes no logic with in the suroundings of it's existance? Was it evolution that had left over peices that somehow came to gether and it lived?
You are welcome for my support, as in reutrn you have done the same for me and others with similer beliefs.. But, the wise part is to be a credit shared among all who seek reasoning to something they wish to better understand for themselves. ( make sence?)
I like percpective, personaly. Anology is awsome in that it is flexable enough to use as a tool to get better understanding, especaly when everyone does not think the same way.
The logic behind the belief that there is a God is only proven when a person has "evidence" of such a cliam. They must believe that the evidence they find is truethful enough, or logical/reasoning to accept that claim for themselves.
The sharing of information, wheather believable or not is an elimination process performed by everyone in order for one to come to a conclusion as to what to be truethful or not.

 

[NoPoke]

Kinggengar. you miss my main point. At a fundamental level quantum mechanics may be absolutely and completely unknowable. We may never have any idea as to the HOW or the WHY. But that does not mean that electronics works only part of the time. Electronics works 100% of the time. No exceptions. We may not always understand but the universe doesn't care about our ignorance.

Dreams: why pick the least likely explanation? Why not accept that even if we don't understand dreams they are most likely a consequence of natural physical processes. The reason I advocate this is because otherwise the distinction as to what is supernatural and what isn't is arbitrary. It is based upon our current levels of ignorance, it changes with time.

Life-force. I have no idea what this might be, other than a pointless concept used to cover up ignorance. Personally I'd rather admit my ignorance than try to hide behind concepts or ideas that are unlikely to exist. Life force makes as much sense as the dragons that were marked on early maps as terra incognita. Or the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Or flying pigs.

Even if I assume that there is such a thing as life force. It does not have the properties of a force and neither does it have the properties of energy. So what is it? what does its introduction add to the debate?

 

[Benzo]

^As far as dreams go, there are numorouse theories and explenations that interpret what dreams are.
My understanding of dreams are not scientific, but in the nature of how the mind works while we sleep.
In my research on dreams, I conclude the following result in my research.
The mind is allways at work. The mind never rests. In order for the mind to stay functioning while we sleep, there is a need for some brain "activity" to take place that we are not conscience of.
How is it that the mind is able to keep memory? Dreams assist in that proccess by "replaying" images, stimulating all the bodies sences and keeping it in fine tune. While we sleep, the body heals. In our dreams, images and sounds, even smells are "played" to keep the sences in a "reminded" state of reflection.
How is it that you can remember what something felt like? or tasts? If your mind shut down completely, you will cease to exist. There will be no need for dreams to keep the body in fine tune. Dreams are the minds tool to keep everything in check- like when you "boot" your pc. Without some kind of energy to keep the pc going, it can not function. Dreams are a low level of energy that the mind uses to "reboot" the bodie's main set of the five sences, and dreams are what the mind uses to "scan" your scences to see if there is a need for repairs. That is my research on dreams and what I have come to understand what the need for dreams is.
The life force behind existance can be of either living or non-living. A life force brings a non living thing into existance, or manipulates it to be what ever to serve a purpose. If a life force brings into existance another life form, it shares some of it's energy to support the life form it creates. The energy could be from itself, or the energy spent in creating that life form.
Or it can also have the intelligence to use a seporate form of energy to use in creation of such a life form.
The enrgy we all have is always in need of fuel. (food) Even the electric current we carry has a reason in sustaining our life. We can generate an energy, and we do give off some evidence of that energy.
A fever, an aura, ( also considered a vibe, but that is another topic) a blast of warm air, fliuds, ect..... it is all in the release of energy, and yes, some of our life source.
A life force is not bound to just what is with in the restrictions of the flesh. Energy is transferable, it can be manipulated, or even distributed. When to much of it accumulates, it could have a negative reacton, or a new result of something good.
Some would say that that is the big bang theory, but I personally think that the odds and intellagence theries outway in favor of the two vs the bb theory.
A life force is the needed enrgy to sustain life. Even if the life form relies on other things to provide the needed enrgy to remain alive.
And the "left over" energy is not wasted, it is transfered or obsorbed by something else that can benfit from the life that lost the use of the life force.
@nopoke-you are correct imo about that the universe does not care about our ignorence. But the introduction of it into this discussion is that it brings options of thought into this debate for others to have a chance to understand what someone is talking about.
Ignorance in laimans terms: not knowing when to see a good point due to being unable to think or reason with what one lacks- a brain.
( not an isnult or to downplay at you nopoke)- just something I live by- I can claim ignorence, but I will never wallow in it because I do not see a point of interest that has reason.
So, if God has a life force behind Him, it could be possable that His life force could run out. I say that as a possability- The bible does say that we are to be ruled by His son. If God loves us so much, why would He step aside to let His son take over unless He can no longer to take care of us?
I think we carry some of the life force that God has- another reason why I beleive that God exists.
Am I the only one to think this?

 

[KingGengar]

NoPoke: By refusing to take a position on things which you cannot quantify or know nothing about, you limit your input. I cannot but wonder what you will be missing in your life by refusing to acknowledge things beyond your ken. Just because you cannot fathom certain things doesn't mean they don't exist.

You also keep talking about taking the "least likely explanation." If you don't know the nature of a thing, how can you make a judgment on its most or least likely explanation? What you really mean is that you choose the least threatening explanation, because any explanation that wanders past your acceptance level threatens your ideal. But there must come a time when you should wonder if anything which you cannot explain, such as if any dreams have been omens (among tons of other examples), exists, and actually research such things, in order to make your opinion of them more factual. Merely stating that something is more or less likely because you can or can't accept it doesn't make it so.

Life-force. I have no idea what this might be, other than a pointless concept used to cover up ignorance. Personally I'd rather admit my ignorance than try to hide behind concepts or ideas that are unlikely to exist. Life force makes as much sense as the dragons that were marked on early maps as terra incognita. Or the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Or flying pigs.

How very interesting that you insult things in order to ignore them. Life-force is now a "pointless" concept. Is it? Do you mean you have no life-force? What DO you mean? "Used to cover up ignorance?" Wow - that's not too judgmental and final (sarcasm). "Hide behind concepts?" Man - you are really afraid to even take a peek. "Unlikely to exist?" That is simply being blind - you are certainly animated by something which is not merely cellular - what is it? What is your personality? Speak on this. "As much sense as dragons..fairies..flying pigs." In the first place, you can't prove these other things don't exist. In the second place, you talk a lot about using logical fallacies, and then you break your own rules by setting up these strange and insulting comparisons. Are life-force, dreams, and personalities (and God) REALLY as insensible as flying pigs? The first three are known to exist in some fashion, whatever the name you want to put on them (and God is more likely than you think).

Honestly, stop saying you're not being insulting and then go on to be insulting. It's insulting.

As far as dreams go, there are numorouse theories and explenations that interpret what dreams are.
My understanding of dreams are not scientific, but in the nature of how the mind works while we sleep.
In my research on dreams, I conclude the following result in my research.
The mind is allways at work. The mind never rests. In order for the mind to stay functioning while we sleep, there is a need for some brain "activity" to take place that we are not conscience of.
How is it that the mind is able to keep memory? Dreams assist in that proccess by "replaying" images, stimulating all the bodies sences and keeping it in fine tune. While we sleep, the body heals. In our dreams, images and sounds, even smells are "played" to keep the sences in a "reminded" state of reflection.
How is it that you can remember what something felt like? or tasts? If your mind shut down completely, you will cease to exist. There will be no need for dreams to keep the body in fine tune. Dreams are the minds tool to keep everything in check- like when you "boot" your pc. Without some kind of energy to keep the pc going, it can not function. Dreams are a low level of energy that the mind uses to "reboot" the bodie's main set of the five sences, and dreams are what the mind uses to "scan" your scences to see if there is a need for repairs. That is my research on dreams and what I have come to understand what the need for dreams is.
The life force behind existance can be of either living or non-living. A life force brings a non living thing into existance, or manipulates it to be what ever to serve a purpose. If a life force brings into existance another life form, it shares some of it's energy to support the life form it creates. The energy could be from itself, or the energy spent in creating that life form.
Or it can also have the intelligence to use a seporate form of energy to use in creation of such a life form.
The enrgy we all have is always in need of fuel. (food) Even the electric current we carry has a reason in sustaining our life. We can generate an energy, and we do give off some evidence of that energy.
A fever, an aura, ( also considered a vibe, but that is another topic) a blast of warm air, fliuds, ect..... it is all in the release of energy, and yes, some of our life source.
A life force is not bound to just what is with in the restrictions of the flesh. Energy is transferable, it can be manipulated, or even distributed. When to much of it accumulates, it could have a negative reacton, or a new result of something good.
Some would say that that is the big bang theory, but I personally think that the odds and intellagence theries outway in favor of the two vs the bb theory.
A life force is the needed enrgy to sustain life. Even if the life form relies on other things to provide the needed enrgy to remain alive.
And the "left over" energy is not wasted, it is transfered or obsorbed by something else that can benfit from the life that lost the use of the life force.
@nopoke-you are correct imo about that the universe does not care about our ignorence. But the introduction of it into this discussion is that it brings options of thought into this debate for others to have a chance to understand what someone is talking about.
Ignorance in laimans terms: not knowing when to see a good point due to being unable to think or reason with what one lacks- a brain.
( not an isnult or to downplay at you nopoke)- just something I live by- I can claim ignorence, but I will never wallow in it because I do not see a point of interest that has reason.
So, if God has a life force behind Him, it could be possable that His life force could run out. I say that as a possability- The bible does say that we are to be ruled by His son. If God loves us so much, why would He step aside to let His son take over unless He can no longer to take care of us?
I think we carry some of the life force that God has- another reason why I beleive that God exists.
Am I the only one to think this?

Benzo: Thanks for the ideas on dreams and life-force. They make sense in many ways.

Of course, the idea that "evolution" would be able to create such a thing as a dream is nonsense. If dreams are necessary, evolution is not its Creator - they would have to exist from the beginning as a matter of survival. So, the only question is, did randomness create life with dreams, or did a Creator? I think we know the answer. But if dreams are NOT necessary, what are they if not bodily functions? We know that some people claim to have omens and warnings in both sleeping and waking dreams, which later turned out to be true. What are these?

Now, life-force is another interesting thing. It's one thing to say that "life" was created - it's another to say that life can sustain, have an urge to persist, and have a means to reproduce. I find it incredible that anyone could posit that such things come from randomness, when the obstacles against such things are so obviously gigantic, and the odds of success so astronomically negative. Things like cellular regeneration fascinate me in terms of origin - how is it that randomness was able to produce a system that produced replicas at a rate good enough to be observed as replication? Sure, there are tumors and cancers, bad genes, and so forth, but the vast majority of cellular regeneration causes healing, babies, and other miracles.

On the subject of God and life-force, I think you may be on a right track, Benzo. Life-force of both animate (soul) and inanimate (atomic forces) objects has always been, to me, God's "energy" at work. The only argument I have is that God will never be absent, according to Revelation and Daniel. "I will be your God and you will be my people." And Jesus will be the light in the new Jerusalem, even as God is there always. But what I've said is factual only in that it is in the Bible - I can't prove this will happen.

 

[MattPL]

You need to read thoroughly.

I said "why would a god"- not why would God have a gender. God has a gender- He. A god would not have a gender, because that is ridiculous.
The conclusion? It's just another instance of Christianity and other organized religions appearing ridiculous.

I can't tell if you're trolling, completely and utterly ignorant of Christianity, illiterate, or a combination of them all.

Not trolling, not *completely* illiterate, and I'm not trying to be ignorant.

And, if I'm reading this correctly, are you saying that God, from the Bible, is not a god?

How am I undeserving? I prayed to God, and asked him to rid the world of cancer.I doubt he would care if I were Christian or not. And how is that acceptable?

I don't know why you would be undeserving, nor did I say you were. And God might care, you never know.

 

[dogma]

Kinggengar. you miss my main point. At a fundamental level quantum mechanics may be absolutely and completely unknowable. We may never have any idea as to the HOW or the WHY. But that does not mean that electronics works only part of the time. Electronics works 100% of the time. No exceptions. We may not always understand but the universe doesn't care about our ignorance.

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but I honestly know very little physics.

Have I understood this right? On a very basic level, aren't electrical currents essentially the movement of electrons? And aren't electron movements inherently uncertain in the quantum mechanical formulation of physics?

Therefore does it not follow that it is possible that in any length of conducting material, the electrical charge will not go through the entire material, i.e. that there is no electrical current all the way through? So it is possible that when you turn on a plug to switch on your TV, it won't turn on purely because of this phenomena?

So you can't say electronics works 100% of the time. Of course, given the statistics, the overwhelming majority of the time, it will work. I doubt you could ever get it not to work in a system with more than a few atoms. But the fact remains that it is possible for it not to work, even if that possibility has negligible probability.

Because it causes suffering.
It causes strife.
Disease, poverty, and struggle for resources with our exploding population...
Why would He interfere? Because it's quite hard to justify ALL of the suffering.

Why allow the Holocaust? If God can create and perform miracles- ever- then why no miracle to save millions upon millions of "His chosen people"?
Why allow cancer in the first place? Why allow any diseases? Any suffering?

Cancer might be a natural evil, but it is evil nonetheless. And it seems quite obvious that everyone should challenge why God allows evil to exist. Moreso, why He created evil... Or HOW He could create evil.

Are we going to turn away from the evolutionary/prime cause arguments to theodicy/problem of evil? I'm down.

This seems to be a very narrow-minded view of God, and creation. I really do not understand why 'everyone should challenge why God allows evil to exist'. Why on earth is this a hard concept? The belief that God created the observable world, 'evil' and all, seems like a very simple and elegant concept to me. Sure, it doesn't explain why or how he created the world in this particular way, but that doesn't negate the fact the original faith. I cannot see any inherent inconsistency in God being perfect but His creation not being so. (In particular, I don't see anyone claiming that His creation is perfect.)

Furthermore, 'turning away from the evolutionary/prime cause arguments' seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if you suddenly find yourself having faith. Plenty of people do this. I honestly cannot understand your objection at all. Maybe you just have a different concept of what you would like God to be than the people who believe in such a deity...

 

[NoPoke]

Dogma, it really does work 100% of the time, even when you get down to single electrons. QM tells us that you can't be certain exactly when an electron might arrive but you can be certain that it will. This manifests itself as noise on the signal, not the destruction of the signal or the absence of the signal.

At the most fundamental level we are clueless about what an electron is (its even worse for photons). But we know a very great deal about their behaviour.

 

[ryanvergel]

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but I honestly know very little physics.

Have I understood this right? On a very basic level, aren't electrical currents essentially the movement of electrons? And aren't electron movements inherently uncertain in the quantum mechanical formulation of physics?

Therefore does it not follow that it is possible that in any length of conducting material, the electrical charge will not go through the entire material, i.e. that there is no electrical current all the way through? So it is possible that when you turn on a plug to switch on your TV, it won't turn on purely because of this phenomena?

So you can't say electronics works 100% of the time. Of course, given the statistics, the overwhelming majority of the time, it will work. I doubt you could ever get it not to work in a system with more than a few atoms. But the fact remains that it is possible for it not to work, even if that possibility has negligible probability.




This seems to be a very narrow-minded view of God, and creation. I really do not understand why 'everyone should challenge why God allows evil to exist'. Why on earth is this a hard concept? The belief that God created the observable world, 'evil' and all, seems like a very simple and elegant concept to me. Sure, it doesn't explain why or how he created the world in this particular way, but that doesn't negate the fact the original faith. I cannot see any inherent inconsistency in God being perfect but His creation not being so. (In particular, I don't see anyone claiming that His creation is perfect.)

Furthermore, 'turning away from the evolutionary/prime cause arguments' seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if you suddenly find yourself having faith. Plenty of people do this. I honestly cannot understand your objection at all. Maybe you just have a different concept of what you would like God to be than the people who believe in such a deity...

It's the problem of evil, dude. You don't think it's a big problem? Why did people like Augustine write On Choice of the Free Will? Why do we study this argument in every philosophy of religion class? I've seen this problem of evil in at least 7 or 8 classes- basic religion, philosophy, humanities, literature, etc.

Nothing is narrow-minded about expecting God to be omni-potent/niscient/benevolence and seeing how this clearly contradicts with both what I said earlier about creating beings certain of damnation, and why there was evil at all, or why He allows it to affect people the way it does, etc.



"Furthermore, 'turning away from the evolutionary/prime cause arguments' seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if you suddenly find yourself having faith. Plenty of people do this."

I don't think you understood that _at all_. I was asking if we were no longer going to talk about evolution or causation, and were instead going to talk about theodicy.

 

[dogma]

I agree I've understood neither NoPoke's point re Quantum Mechanics, or Ryan's point on the problem of evil.

Ryan first. I am coming from a completely different viewpoint than Christian theology. In my world view, as I've said many times before, I accept that my faith is completely arbitary.

Why is that, or rather, how does that work? Say that in my religion, I came across a completely unknown rule. Let's assume that I can verify that the rule is genuine, I have just never came across it before. Then without question, I would follow that rule, solely because of my belief in my religion. My decision process is thus: is this act enforced or permitted by my religion? If yes, do it; if not, don't.

This arbitrariness is also why I just don't understand the problem of evil (theodicy - I had to look that up!). To me, there is absolutely no contradiction of a completely benevolent, merciful God in the context of this world where we have cancer/murder/what-have-you. I don't understand why the two do contradict each other (remember - I am coming from a non-Christian viewpoint). Indeed, I can only see a contradiction if:

1) You are of the view that you can logically infer the existence of a God with your chosen qualities

This might be the conventional philsophical approach but I don't get how we as humans, with imperfect means of logic and intelligence, can hope to understand such complicated concepts through reason alone

2) Your faith forces you to believe that God can only create a world with no imperfections

Presumably some interpretations of Christianity force this, hence the need for the study of theodicy in the first place. But then, you are forced to reason every aspect of God in order to see whether they contradict each other. Which leaves you using reasoning to infer existence of God, or at least, the qualities such a deity may have.

This comes down to something quite fundamental. I've argued previously that the empirical method on which all Science is based doesn't actually add to our knowledge, because nothing is proved; hypotheses are tested (increasingly using statistical methods which opens up a new can of worms).

Here, I'm arguing that whilst the attempt to apply logic and reason is admirable, ultimately, it is futile. God cannot be reduced to a set of axioms, all consistent, all leading to an irrefutable conclusion. Ontological proofs have (valid) criticisms. Proofs that God don't exist have criticisms.

My "solution", to have a set of (arbitrary) beliefs seems to me the most simple and most elegant. Of course, someone else can have a completely different set of beliefs. If I ask that person why they hold those beliefs, I'd have more respect if they said "because, why not?" than to attempt justification via some theological/philosophical argument, all of which are open to severe criticism. With my way, I neatly sidestep all debate.

Why? Because I said so!

 

[Benzo]

^ simple is the best. the more complicated, the less you want to believe, because you have to understand that much more and have to describe it, without argueing.
I have asked so many times the "why not"- and I could care less if someone thinks I am ignorent. And, when they get tired of my questions, in my attempt to get the understanding so as to descide if I will take it as truthful, I think they are frustrated that they have to explain something that they do not fully understand themselves.
Although I do not use "why not" all that often in replies towards others, It is still an open option to keep things simple.

"because I said so"- ya, comes in handy at times - but if I use that, it is a last ditch effort per say to a person who does not have the abilitie to understand what I am saying.
rarely do I like to argue about something unless I feel that it is a life saving thing or issue, and in this thread, I find no reason to argue, but to stay simple.
Why simple? BECAUSE I SAID SO!
liked your point dogma-

 

[dogma]

Yeah, OK, but remember that my conclusion comes for a detailed look at not only the existing philosophical, theological and scientific arguments for God, but also whether it is possible for any such argument to convince me.

I'm not being petulant for the sake of it - I honestly can see no other world view that isn't contradictory. (The great thing about it is that anybody can say that, so that everyone can hold completely different world views, invoke my argument, and then we all get nowhere in terms of a debate. :biggrin

 

[NoPoke]

1=0 because I say so??? As you point out 'because I say so' is the end to all debate and reason. Also I don't think you are being petulant as you remain prepared to engage in debate and not just preach.

The scientific method is not about truth or proof. Why? because the method can never hope to achieve either. Scientific method is about chipping away at ignorance. A bright light that exposes what we can establish as incorrect. At its best the scientific method leaves very little room for ignorance and alternatives. What then happens is that the bright light of experiment is focused ever more strongly on the reducing domain of ignorance. This approach can never discover everything and is restricted to the domain of what is physically discoverable. Nevertheless in those areas it is King. Which is why I have objected to pseudo-science when it crops up and to poor math and general misunderstanding of statistics that are present in this thread (and others ) .