Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

conditional afterlife

Ah, yes, the "hook".  Forgot about that...

[reaper]

You'd think that, but the fabrication of a conditional afterlife based on your life actions and beliefs covers that base.

yes, life is a test from god

[QwazyWabbit]

You'd think that, but the fabrication of a conditional afterlife based on your life actions and beliefs covers that base.

yes, life is a test from god

To which, being omnicient, he already knows the answer. So why bother with the test at all?
If he doesn't know the answer then he cannot be omnicient. Which is it?

[DaHanG]

So most people believe in something "ridiculous", but it is "intrinsic" and constitutes as evidence in favor of a god.

I said Einstein beleived god wasn't active because he isn't active in everyday life, i.e, he's not out stopping some car accidents and not others.  If god created everything, everything is, in a certain sense, attributed to god.  For example, someone recovers from cancer, yes some others don't, but people thank god, because they are so happy for the existence of life.  God is active to them, in one sense (he created everything), therefore you can attribute events to god, yet he didn't actually change the mechanics of things.

I never said what I personally thought.  But people saying they believe god is active, has varying meaning.

You and Einstein's private convictions on god are irrelevant to the point I made.

You said the concept of god being intrinsic to humans was evidence for god - a point already worth criticizing in its own right. Yet you go on to then say that the general idea of god humans have (an intervening god) is ridiculous. If humans are deluded about the intervening god, how is their belief in him evidence for him? Incompatible.

Think about this.

You're essentially saying that humans' delusion is evidence of their delusion...as long as you just believe in the Reaper version of a limited amount of intervention (and yet believe the world is perfect, life is a [deliberate] test, etc.)?

[|iR|Focalor]

You'd think that, but the fabrication of a conditional afterlife based on your life actions and beliefs covers that base.

yes, life is a test from god

A test? A fucking test!?! I thought he was perfect and benevolent! Try "testing" your woman by going out to dinner and clubbing with your ex until 6am and tell her it's so that you can "test" her to see if her reaction proves that she truly loves you. You'd have to be a total sadomasochist to attempt such a thing. Or an asshole. That could only be construed as deliberately sabotaging whatever relationship you have with that woman. If the woman has any brains, she'll kick your ass to the curb directly. And this is why I kicked the idea of God to the curb long ago, because I think he's just a sadistic asshole.

As it's been pointed out already, there are really only 2 logical explanations for such behavior:
1.) God does not truly know what the outcome will be, and therefore he isn't all knowing (and subsequently incapable of creating a perfectly functioning universe)
...or...
2.) He is all knowing, but he is a malevolent sadist because he allows pain, tragedy and failure to happen for his own personal amusement.

And furthermore, God is NOT perfect, otherwise no one would have any logical ground to stand on while leveling accusations at him. I'm just a measly pathetic human peon. He's a perfect and powerful deity with unlimited wisdom. How is it that a redneck hick like me with no college degree can make a personal observation that he's an illogical, imperfect, improbable, impotent, spiteful, sardonic asshole?

[Arm0r]

I think ive asked this question before to multiple people and have yet to recieve a solid answer: 

When looking at everything I know somehow there is an explanation for it, why it's there, etc....my question is...how do you create something...from nothing?

saying "there was a bang, and here everything is" takes a great leap of faith as well,  where did it all come from?  for science to be right about it, all of the matter/energy has to be eternal and have no begining...which to me is about as hard to believe as a god making it all.   Everything within this realm of understanding has to have a begining, if the begining can't be explained or even partially explained then im convinced there had to be a higher power at work.

If I give you nothing, what can you make from it?  Nothing.  Same goes for stars etc, if they didn't have gas, they could not burn..if they did not have matter/gravity/etc they could not form...where did it all come from? 

Not saying I believe in any bible god, but I believe a higher force/god did have to exist in order for the cosmos and everything we see in life to be.

[Whirlingdervish]

here's how I address that question in my own layman's understanding of it:

The something from nothing argument is a side effect of the way we've simplified the problem into a catchy phrase in a language that can be vague when it comes to specific meanings. Technically we only see half of the actual stuff that is in the universe, and the other half when brought together with that which we see, negates it, causing a state we would call nothingness.


Technically there still is nothing in the universe when viewed in terms of total energy in the system.

When stripped down to their component parts, all of the so-called solids that we see are actually made of energy which exists within the system along with an equal amount of anti-energy that negates it when viewed as a whole. As far as we can tell, the universe is a closed system with no recorded outside interference from extra-universal creatures or gods.

The reason we see something instead of nothing is based on our way of seeing, where we currently are and what we're made of.

The subatomic 'particles' that make all matter, appear to be the smallest forms of 'solid' matter because of the way we are forced to observe them. (in one specific moment of time, in a specific position, whilst moving at the speed of light)

In theory they actually consist of nothing but energy moving in concert in certain ways that imbue them with specific properties. Because of this, there really are no solids, just energy that acts as a solid.

The component bits of energy move faster than most of our recording devices can capture what we'd consider a picture of them in motion because our ability to record visible phenomenon is dependent on the speed of reflected or emitted light which would have to be greater than the speed of the thing being recorded (otherwise you get a motion blur) This motion blur causes us to see virtual particles were there is really just our kind of energy in motion.

When it comes down to it there is a net amount of 0 energy in the universe, which is what is actually meant by the conservation of energy laws from which the something from nothing argument stems. A net total of 0 energy has been created, destroyed, or introduced from outside the system (godly interference) from what we can observe.

All the matter that we consider to be 'something' is made of energy, likewise antimatter would be expressed in terms of the appropriate forms of "anti-energy". Supposedly they exist in equal amounts in the universe just not in the same place at the same time or they cancel each other out. Since the universe encompasses all space and all time in our closed system, in terms of the system they do cancel each other out. This would be how energy was seemingly created from 'nothing'. It wasn't created, the force that negates it's existence was instead moved to a different place by the expansion of the universe and certain forces that cause it to expand at different rates in different locales. (subatomic primordial black holes and such).


Our insistence that something actually is there, in between a bunch of nothing, is based on what we're made of and how we interact with the things in our neighborhood of the universe. If we were to bump into an equally energetic lump of antimatter, there would cease to be something as we define it here and the local universe would revert to it's nothingness state like all of the space we see between all of the somethings we know of.


I doubt that this is the 100% correct interpretation but it seems to make sense based on things I've read and learned over the years.

[quadz]

saying "there was a bang, and here everything is" takes a great leap of faith as well,  where did it all come from?  for science to be right about it, all of the matter/energy has to be eternal and have no begining...which to me is about as hard to believe as a god making it all.

The question of "why is there something rather than nothing" may indeed always be a mystery.

But from a scientific outlook, introducing God into the mix doesn't help answer that fundamental question in any way.

If it's matter/energy that always existed, then at least we have explanations for how, based on simple physical laws, complex forms like galaxies and planetary systems and complex molecules and sophisticated life forms can develop out of the initial chaos.

Adding God into that mixture doesn't seem to help explain anything, it just adds an extra entity.

Without God, if we have to say matter/energy always existed, at least it can have a simple beginning as far as initially being in a chaotic, disorganized state.

With God in the picture, we still have the fundamental question of "why there is something (i.e. God) rather than nothing", but instead of that 'something' having a simple beginning (matter/energy in a disorganized state), we have something incredibly, incredibly complex (a being able to create universes.)

So, from a scientific outlook, postulating that something simple always existed, is preferable to postulating that something incredibly complex always existed.


Regards,

quadz

[reaper]

Without God, if we have to say matter/energy always existed, at least it can have a simple beginning as far as initially being in a chaotic, disorganized state.

sounds reasonable...except you don't see cars exploding out of thin air assembling themselves.

god gets a free pass

shouldn't he?  He's instristic to humans, and belief formed the order and purpose out of chaos.

You're essentially saying that humans' delusion is evidence of their delusion...as long as you just believe in the Reaper version of a limited amount of intervention (and yet believe the world is perfect, life is a [deliberate] test, etc.)?

That's how you view it, i'm sure.  But I don't think they're totally delusional; I believe god doesn't stop some car accidents and not others.  That doesn't mean I don't think the foundation of their beliefs is the truth. 

What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, so how are you going to have a perfect world without pain?

You'd think that, but the fabrication of a conditional afterlife based on your life actions and beliefs covers that base.

yes, life is a test from god

To which, being omnicient, he already knows the answer. So why bother with the test at all?
If he doesn't know the answer then he cannot be omnicient. Which is it?

I would assume god created what he wanted to.  It can be a test to you and not to god.  That said, I do consider it a possiblity that no god exists.  Although writing god off as a byproduct of human stress, and as the default explanation of things, and the default authority on matters, seems dishonest to me.  Even if there is no god, take a look at the order belief in god has formed, and how it makes people act, and what that causes.  You can always look at the negatives, but there's another side to that as well.  Some weird shit goes on around here, people aren't just gonna write it off, because we can explain some physics off the world.

[|iR|Focalor]

Without God, if we have to say matter/energy always existed, at least it can have a simple beginning as far as initially being in a chaotic, disorganized state.

sounds reasonable...except you don't see cars exploding out of thin air assembling themselves.

god gets a free pass

There were cars floating around in space? Maybe cars were God then. Praise Jesus Chrysler!

Comparing cars (confirmed man-made compositions) with different random chemical reactions occurring in outer space is kinda pointless.

[reaper]

There were cars floating around in space? Maybe cars were God then. Praise Jesus Chrysler!

Comparing cars (confirmed man-made compositions) with different random chemical reactions occurring in outer space is kinda pointless.

You have the universe in a ball of dense matter, it explodes and creates humans (who would be generally without fear of commiting sin without fearing god), and humans create cars.  Seems a bit preposterous to me to explain it away with anthropic principle, and say it would just be simpler if everything exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

That may be the case, but there's a huge gap in knowledge.  So it's a nice thought, and a nice guess that the universe just is.  If it is possible, it's simpler.  But there are how many planets?  Maybe an alien race that controls good and evil, but I think there is a traditional type god personally.

[quadz]

Without God, if we have to say matter/energy always existed, at least it can have a simple beginning as far as initially being in a chaotic, disorganized state.

sounds reasonable...except you don't see cars exploding out of thin air assembling themselves.

Dammit, reaper.

A special message from Charles Darwin

We already have theories that describe how galaxies and planets form, and where the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium originated, etc. etc. etc.  Theories that make new predictions about what the what the universe should look like, that we can verify.  What has that got to do with "cars assembling themselves"?

[DaHanG]

Pre-Darwinian wisdom colliding with the year 2009.

[|iR|Focalor]

There were cars floating around in space? Maybe cars were God then. Praise Jesus Chrysler!

Comparing cars (confirmed man-made compositions) with different random chemical reactions occurring in outer space is kinda pointless.

You have the universe in a ball of dense matter, it explodes and creates humans (who would be generally without fear of commiting sin without fearing god), and humans create cars.  Seems a bit preposterous to me to explain it away with anthropic principle, and say it would just be simpler if everything exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

That may be the case, but there's a huge gap in knowledge.  So it's a nice thought, and a nice guess that the universe just is.  If it is possible, it's simpler.  But there are how many planets?  Maybe an alien race that controls good and evil, but I think there is a traditional type god personally.

No. It didn't just go BOOM and then POOF here's the humans walking around wearing tennis shoes and driving BMW's. There was a long tedious process that brought humans to that point. And there was a long tedious process that brought humans and all other life forms from small microorganisms to much larger and much more complex organisms. Perhaps if humans live long enough on this planet without fucking it up and killing it all, we'll be able to pinpoint where life begins. Maybe not. After all, if it took every organism millions of years to develop into what it is today, that would be one hell of a long science experiment.

[reaper]

A big ball of energy, with no spacial dimensions, exploding into something....interesting...seems pretty fucking odd to me.  And what, this just keeps repeating, and always exists.  

I'd have to ask, shouldn't there be nothing?  Nothing, can just be, it needs no cause.  It's not black, but it's not troubling that it can exist, and exist forever.  Seems there's a lot to begin with, I'd think you'd have to start small, but even though there's no spacial dimensions in the beginning, there's an awful lot of stuff goin on there.  

I'd say there's a hell of a lot we don't know about that.  And to me, I want to know how the "big" ball of energy is just sitting there forever, forming into what I want.  

No. It didn't just go BOOM and then POOF here's the humans walking around wearing tennis shoes and driving BMW's. There was a long tedious process that brought humans to that point. And there was a long tedious process that brought humans and all other life forms from small microorganisms to much larger and much more complex organisms. Perhaps if humans live long enough on this planet without fucking it up and killing it all, we'll be able to pinpoint where life begins. Maybe not. After all, if it took every organism millions of years to develop into what it is today, that would be one hell of a long science experiment.

yeah that's true, but I wouldn't bet against humans surviving in some form, abliet fucked up (yet perfect, because god works in mysterious ways), hey that's just how it is...

And on another note, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings don't have the answers to the above questions in any concrete sense.  Sure they could be right.  But they don't know what's going on, and I'd have to say Hawkings was wrong before.  He was saying he's an optimist.  However over time, every year the chance of severe catastrohpie is low, but over time inevitable.  Meaning in thousands of years.

I'm pretty sure we can come up with alternate systems, underground, self containing systems, secured underground..like a backup plan.  So yeah, when it does go down, it'll go to that, and there's the slightest chance it will fail.  But it won't be used much, if hopefully at all, so I wouldn't bet against it.

Speaking of which, I'm going to write the awesome super genious cripple, and get him in the religion thread!