Ye Religion Thread

[haunted]

There we go. Well, I'm not asking to replace it with genesis. I just believe that the theory behind the initiation is definitely lacking something to me, and that is what has led me to believe that there is a superior being. As far as religion goes, I don't know what I am. And concerning the limits of this superior being? Who knows, not me.

[quadz]

So it would seem foolish to suddenly proclaim a particular theory is The Final Answer.

[quadz]

I just believe that the theory behind the initiation is definitely lacking something to me, and that is what has led me to believe that there is a superior being.

But if the very thing about the Big Bang that bothers you is 'where it came from', why would it be OK to solve that by proposing a superior being?  Aren't we allowed to question where the superior being came from?  What sort of physical (or meta-physical or extra-dimensional or whatever) laws allow the superior being to exist? Obviously if it exists, it exists according to some principle(s) that allow it to exist. Are we not allowed to question what sort of physics would make the existence of this superior being possible? And in so questioning, we would quickly end up looking toward the origins of where this superior being came from.

Turtles all the way down. 


Regards,

quadz

[DaHanG]

I just believe that the theory behind the initiation is definitely lacking something to me, and that is what has led me to believe that there is a superior being.

But if the very thing about the Big Bang that bothers you is 'where it came from', why would it be OK to solve that by proposing a superior being?  Aren't we allowed to question where the superior being came from?  What sort of physical (or meta-physical or extra-dimensional or whatever) laws allow the superior being to exist? Obviously if it exists, it exists according to some principle(s) that allow it to exist. Are we not allowed to question what sort of physics would make the existence of this superior being possible? And in so questioning, we would quickly end up looking toward the origins of where this superior being came from.

Turtles all the way down. 


Regards,

quadz

i personally think no matter how we terminate the infinite regress, we're going to terminate it by something simple or some simple concept. with god, like quadz said, we still have a huge problem as to where/how "he" came about. what did indeed allow this god to come about? unfortunately, it seems we should not be asking this question based on what the general belief is - 'he's outside of time/all powerful/was always there/will always be there/infinitely good/perfect'. this is probably the LEAST intellectually satisfying answer imaginable, but by far the most emotionally satisfying answer which is why people seemingly tend to not investigate and/or flock to religion.

i think personally no god means life is far more special than life with a god. this is our only life, make it the best it can possibly be. when you die it will be just like before you were born - non existence. eternal life/holding hands with jesus in heaven seems like a dirty promise to me, although i will be the first to admit this can have a positive impact during an individual's life.

[QuakeDuke]

how does god fit into our scientific understanding of things? science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING. why do you think the national academy of sciences (people who know far more than us) have 93% of it's members in disbelief in a god. philosophy of eliminating the infinite regress by something immune to it is not 'evidence'.
-------snip--------- paste --------------
although it may not have been very clear, that is, in a sense my point. the majority of the world believes in god, and that does not mean they are right. when there are overwhelming statistics of scientists opposing the concept of god, one must wonder why. why is it that people who study how things are are far more susceptible to disbelief in god? why is it that people who have never studied evolution will almost certainly believe in intelligent design? my point was only that if god existed, science would only help reveal him; yet we see through the consensus of belief among scientists, they are FAR less inclined to believe in god than a non-scientist.

I will take you at your word that's what you meant - however.....

It sure does come across you trying to make a point (to reaper?)  there is no reason to believe in God because 93% of the national academy of scientists do not. I would say applying that same logic across the board means just because 93% of them don't believe in God doesn't make them right either - is that, in a sense, your point?

Just because there happens to be a consensus of belief among scientists (accepting your statement and statistics here) doesn't invalidate that perhaps everything we've learned in science does help reveal him, and the science community (the 93% you refer to here) just can't see it - anymore than at one time science couldn't see (and thus didn't accept)  many of the things we take for granted today.


You say "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING." I can't agree with that statement. If it were true, science would be able to explain every occurrence humans (or animals, etc) experience and, unless I've missed a journal or two, that isn't happening. Rather, it's almost as though the more we learn, the more we find we don't know.  To throw out the premise there is a guiding force, an overseeing god who (whether or not we understand the concept or not) has/is creating (is/isn't involved) in what  we presently perceive to be reality is to throw out what may well prove to be the truth.

I realize, being a dinosaur, older'n dirt and a few other age related things I've been called, I'm probably not up on scientific method as well as I could be, but I always thought the only time it was permissable to totally dismiss a premise from being considered as a possible answer was that premise was disproved by fact?

Unless.. you are somehow saying because these 93% disbelieve (because they are scientists) it's irrational to believe in god?

Keep on truckin.....

QD

[DaHanG]

You say "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING." I can't agree with that statement. If it were true, science would be able to explain every occurrence humans (or animals, etc) experience and, unless I've missed a journal or two, that isn't happening. Rather, it's almost as though the more we learn, the more we find we don't know.  To throw out the premise there is a guiding force, an overseeing god who (whether or not we understand the concept or not) has/is creating (is/isn't involved) in what  we presently perceive to be reality is to throw out what may well prove to be the truth.

you seem to have interpreted "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING" as "science knows EVERYTHING". of course we don't know the reasoning behind every occurence in humans/animals. how does this have any relevance to the existence or lack of existence of god? who's to say it's not a fairy or fairies that's some sort of guiding force of nature instead of god?

It sure does come across you trying to make a point (to reaper?)  there is no reason to believe in God because 93% of the national academy of scientists do not. I would say applying that same logic across the board means just because 93% of them don't believe in God doesn't make them right either - is that, in a sense, your point?

Just because there happens to be a consensus of belief among scientists (accepting your statement and statistics here) doesn't invalidate that perhaps everything we've learned in science does help reveal him, and the science community (the 93% you refer to here) just can't see it - anymore than at one time science couldn't see (and thus didn't accept)  many of the things we take for granted today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless.. you are somehow saying because these 93% disbelieve (because they are scientists) it's irrational to believe in god?

it's not necessarily irrational, because there is a problem in how did it all start and people simply pick a side (many are actually told what side is right with fear of pain/suffering/etc). it is unscientific, however, to say something exists without any evidence (hence faith - belief without evidence). it would be funny to see that scientists, who are among our best and brightest, who traditionally have a goal of intellectual honesty, are somehow god hating heretics. the world/universe/etc is exactly how you would expect it to be if there was not a god, and this is revealed through science. this is probably why the NAS statistics are what they are. of course there's always that possibility he exists, but if you're desperately seeking the truth, it would be intellectually dishonest to say god exists without evidence - and does not require any explanation of how "he" came about. that's a silly scientific concept

like i said, my disbelief is purely intellectual. a few quick reasons previously mentioned: there is no evidence, god is far more complex than the universe and only brings about a more difficult problem, why did he exist in this supposed nothingness?, why did it take 13.7 billion years for the all powerful being to create the grateful recipient?, evolution is pretty much proven, etc.
 

[Whirlingdervish]

I always thought the only time it was permissable to totally dismiss a premise from being considered as a possible answer was that premise was disproved by fact?

close.

With regard to the scientific method, "fact" is kinda a naughty word..

"Generally accepted theory" seems to be slightly more fitting than using the word "fact", since due to the uncertainty principle we can assume that nothing is accurately measurable and thus all of our observations, and the conclusions based upon them, *could* be wrong. thus, nothing can be factual in all circumstances.

I have a feeling this is where Dahang's 93% comes in. If a vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something, it gets portrayed as a "fact" even though it's really only a theory with a lot of supporting observations and none that discount it.
Only the truly cutting-edge researchers seem to understand that they can't necessarily work on the shoulders of others, and trust those previous conclusions without question. they have to take these "uncertain" theories into account when they compare their data and search it for patterns. Something that seemed quite true one day, could easily be refuted the next by a single disagreeing observation.

the difference between these generally accepted scientific "facts" and the new theory that will one day replace them could be something as small as one observation that doesn't obey the "rules"...



on a side note:
a scientist should never discount input and observations unless they are completely redundant and unrelated..
If it's measurable, and it pertains to the hypothesis in question, then it should be included as data, even if it "breaks" popularly accepted theory.

[DaHanG]

i would like to briefly point out i've always claimed god as being a possibility, and i never claimed he was disproved .

never underestimate the power of zeus 

[quadz]

never underestimate the power of zeus

[Bleach]

zeus is all sparks-no fun... come to my Pan party this saturday!

[QuakeDuke]

you seem to interpreted "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING" as "science knows EVERYTHING".

How else can I interpret a statement that says "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING"? I would think for it to be true  science has shown there is absolutely no need could only be based from one of two positions. We either know everything, or we believe we can know everything and take it as a done deal that current research (into whatever area) will eventually prove our theory to be correct - a postulation I'm not ready to accept - even from a purely scientific standpoint. Too many unknowns involved.

of course we don't know the reasoning behind every occurrence in humans/animals. how does this have any relevance to the existence or lack of existence of god?

It only relates if we presume to equate scientific knowledge as proof of the lack of existence of god. To imply we have "knowledge" that proves the non-existence of god is, by it's very nature saying we have all knowledge, thus knowing all reasoning behind every occurrence etc.  For some scientists, the more they learn and understand the complexities of creation (eg. life, whether organic, inorganic, or the perhaps yet to be discovered silicon based tribble on Ganymede or in a galaxy far far away) the more open they become to looking beyond our current perceptions and understanding to another explanation of how this has all came about regardless of where that exploration may take them.

who's to say it's not a fairy or fairies that's some sort of guiding force of nature instead of god?

If the force is capable of all knowledge (which would be necessary to guide), having all power (necessary to create, maintain), etc that force by it's very definition would be god regardless of what man chose to call it.

Just because there happens to be a consensus of belief among scientists (accepting your statement and statistics here) doesn't invalidate that perhaps everything we've learned in science does help reveal him, and the science community (the 93% you refer to here) just can't see it - anymore than at one time science couldn't see (and thus didn't accept)  many of the things we take for granted today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless.. you are somehow saying because these 93% disbelieve (because they are scientists) it's irrational to believe in god?

it's not necessarily irrational, because there is a problem in how did it all start and people simply pick a side (many are actually told what side is right with fear of pain/suffering/etc).

I would be the last to disagree with you about the problems of coercion used in any religious / secular system - it's pretty much rampant and part of human nature to control. However, at the risk of offending (and I truly don't mean to offend any) true spirituality, the following of gospel truth is non-violent. It's man who has corrupted the teachings and brought pain/suffering/etc into the equation.

it is unscientific, however, to say something exists without any evidence (hence faith - belief without evidence).

What would you consider evidence to prove faith? Totally inexplicable healing? What?

it would be funny to see that scientists, who are among our best and brightest, who traditionally have a goal of intellectual honesty, are somehow god hating heretics.

I don't see most scientists as god hating heretics. Honesty is a good goal, but, like many of man's traits seems to be pretty subjective to the person.

the world/universe/etc is exactly how you would expect it to be if there was not a god, and this is revealed through science.

If science has somehow revealed this fact, I guess I must of missed where it was published

The world is how I expect it to be based on man's desire to be in control of everything and his willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve that control, including the destruction of resources and habitat which brings about it's own problems. My view of universe is constantly changing as I learn more and more and I'm totally fascinated by what I learn. As for the case of it being the same as if there was not a god - wouldn't that mean we would have to know how it would/should be if there were a god? For contrast purposes of course.

of course there's always that possibility he exists, but if you're desperately seeking the truth, it would be intellectually dishonest to say god exists without evidence.

What, in your opinion would/could be considered evidence god exists? Does lack of this (perceived / known) evidence prove the non-existence of god?

and does not require any explanation of how "he" came about. that's a silly scientific concept

I don't know about silly, but I've never  taught we should not question or seek such an explanation - I don't believe it's consistent with total biblical teachings to blindly believe.

like i said, my disbelief is purely intellectual.

Granted and accepted. If it's purely intellectual this means you are open to change, or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? (purely possible )

a few quick reasons previously mentioned:
there is no evidence,
god is far more complex than the universe
and only brings about a more difficult problem, why did he exist in this supposed nothingness?,
why did it take 13.7 billion years for the all powerful being to create the grateful recipient?
evolution is pretty much proven, etc.

In order above:

What would you consider evidence.
Granted. God would, by definition alone, have to be much more complex than the universe - this to me would tend to prove, not disprove. Wouldn't be much of a god if he weren't.
Why would god have to exist in nothingness before what we perceive as the universe came about?
Might as well ask why does it take me an hour to do something. Just because I have the power do something in 10 minutes doesn't mean I can't take an hour to do it if I so choose.
Evolution being a fact (or not depending on one's viewpoint) proves / disproves the existence of god how?

Totally on another subject, if I may. Are you a grad student? Where are you going to school?

Thanks...

QD

PS. Anyone see the blurb on the tube about the  film shark - a truly weird looking creature (no comments on my pic please ) that lives about 1/2 mile underwater.

[QuakeDuke]

I always thought the only time it was permissible to totally dismiss a premise from being considered as a possible answer was that premise was disproved by fact?

close.

With regard to the scientific method, "fact" is kinda a naughty word..

"Generally accepted theory" seems to be slightly more fitting than using the word "fact", since due to the uncertainty principle we can assume that nothing is accurately measurable and thus all of our observations, and the conclusions based upon them, *could* be wrong. thus, nothing can be factual in all circumstances.

I have a feeling this is where Dahang's 93% comes in. If a vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something, it gets portrayed as a "fact" even though it's really only a theory with a lot of supporting observations and none that discount it.
Only the truly cutting-edge researchers seem to understand that they can't necessarily work on the shoulders of others, and trust those previous conclusions without question. they have to take these "uncertain" theories into account when they compare their data and search it for patterns. Something that seemed quite true one day, could easily be refuted the next by a single disagreeing observation.

the difference between these generally accepted scientific "facts" and the new theory that will one day replace them could be something as small as one observation that doesn't obey the "rules"...

I was wondering if anyone might catch that

on a side note:
a scientist should never discount input and observations unless they are completely redundant and unrelated..
If it's measurable, and it pertains to the hypothesis in question, then it should be included as data, even if it "breaks" popularly accepted theory.

Kinda the way I learned it...

QD

[QuakeDuke]

never underestimate the power of zeus 

Indeed: Lightning bolts have to be created, they don't just appear out of thin air!

They don't? Darn. Guess  I can put up the kite and key....

QD

[DaHanG]

you seem to interpreted "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING" as "science knows EVERYTHING".

How else can I interpret a statement that says "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING"? I would think for it to be true  science has shown there is absolutely no need could only be based from one of two positions. We either know everything, or we believe we can know everything and take it as a done deal that current research (into whatever area) will eventually prove our theory to be correct - a postulation I'm not ready to accept - even from a purely scientific standpoint. Too many unknowns involved.

we certainly don't know everything, and we don't believe we can know everything either (are there not limitless boundaries of knowledge?). this does not by any means imply god is lurking somewhere simply because we haven't evolved to all knowing beings. i still don't really know what your point is.

of course we don't know the reasoning behind every occurrence in humans/animals. how does this have any relevance to the existence or lack of existence of god?

It only relates if we presume to equate scientific knowledge as proof of the lack of existence of god. To imply we have "knowledge" that proves the non-existence of god is, by it's very nature saying we have all knowledge, thus knowing all reasoning behind every occurrence etc. 

i've already stated that it's impossible to disprove god. saying there is no evidence for god is completely different from saying god has been disproven.

who's to say it's not a fairy or fairies that's some sort of guiding force of nature instead of god?

If the force is capable of all knowledge (which would be necessary to guide), having all power (necessary to create, maintain), etc that force by it's very definition would be god regardless of what man chose to call it.

correct, but who's to say it was the fairies who created the universe? what if all they know is how to guide the forces of storms (not zeus  ). they may be considered 'gods', but they aren't gods in the sense that they created the universe. they may have came about spontaneously or just always existed - we just can't see them.

Just because there happens to be a consensus of belief among scientists (accepting your statement and statistics here) doesn't invalidate that perhaps everything we've learned in science does help reveal him, and the science community (the 93% you refer to here) just can't see it - anymore than at one time science couldn't see (and thus didn't accept)  many of the things we take for granted today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless.. you are somehow saying because these 93% disbelieve (because they are scientists) it's irrational to believe in god?

it's not necessarily irrational, because there is a problem in how did it all start and people simply pick a side (many are actually told what side is right with fear of pain/suffering/etc).

I would be the last to disagree with you about the problems of coercion used in any religious / secular system - it's pretty much rampant and part of human nature to control. However, at the risk of offending (and I truly don't mean to offend any) true spirituality, the following of gospel truth is non-violent. It's man who has corrupted the teachings and brought pain/suffering/etc into the equation.

i would be the last to deny that the overall message of the bible is non-violent. however, there are certainly unpleasant verses that in my opinion are unjustifiable even within context. a few extremely simple verses come to play in timothy:chp2-11-15

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

we certainly overlook these sexist primitive thoughts in today's modern age. there are far more unpleasant verses in the old testament, and even some in the new testament.

it is unscientific, however, to say something exists without any evidence (hence faith - belief without evidence).

What would you consider evidence to prove faith? Totally inexplicable healing? What?

sure, let a human instantly regrow a leg that was blown to pieces within seconds. let someone with their eyes gauged out regrow them within seconds. anything that science is 100% clueless on would certainly catch my eye.

the world/universe/etc is exactly how you would expect it to be if there was not a god, and this is revealed through science.

If science has somehow revealed this fact, I guess I must of missed where it was published

The world is how I expect it to be based on man's desire to be in control of everything and his willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve that control, including the destruction of resources and habitat which brings about it's own problems. My view of universe is constantly changing as I learn more and more and I'm totally fascinated by what I learn. As for the case of it being the same as if there was not a god - wouldn't that mean we would have to know how it would/should be if there were a god? For contrast purposes of course.

yes we would, but i am referring to the general assumptions we make about god (certainly any type of god could exist). when i think of an infinitely good god, i wonder why did he invent natural disasters. clearly the whole fall of man/sin nonsense doesn't come into play when you account for something like the tsunami that killed something like 150 thousand innocent people. hitler i can understand because of free will, but what about viruses/bacteria (though some is good)/disease/natural disaster where it seems innocent victims are the primary target?

of course there's always that possibility he exists, but if you're desperately seeking the truth, it would be intellectually dishonest to say god exists without evidence.

What, in your opinion would/could be considered evidence god exists? Does lack of this (perceived / known) evidence prove the non-existence of god?

nothing proves the non-existence of god. evidence that he existed would be miracles / people rising from the dead / people coming back to tell us about heaven / having god intervene in our lives once in a while / pretty much anything that can't be explained by science. something even as simple as all people being united under one religion (not through force of man) because god has figured out a way to make himself clear would be very strong evidence to me. i am not saying that because we don't see these things happening, god does not exist. i am saying there is simply no evidence for his existence.

and does not require any explanation of how "he" came about. that's a silly scientific concept

I don't know about silly, but I've never  taught we should not question or seek such an explanation - I don't believe it's consistent with total biblical teachings to blindly believe.

maybe not blindly believe, but in the end you better or else you go to hell!

like i said, my disbelief is purely intellectual.

Granted and accepted. If it's purely intellectual this means you are open to change, or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? (purely possible )

certainly. i am desperately awaiting evidence or a reason to believe besides fear of pain and suffering burning in hell from very very old books.

a few quick reasons previously mentioned:
there is no evidence,
god is far more complex than the universe
and only brings about a more difficult problem, why did he exist in this supposed nothingness?,
why did it take 13.7 billion years for the all powerful being to create the grateful recipient?
evolution is pretty much proven, etc.

In order above:

What would you consider evidence.
Granted. God would, by definition alone, have to be much more complex than the universe - this to me would tend to prove, not disprove. Wouldn't be much of a god if he weren't.
1)Why would god have to exist in nothingness before what we perceive as the universe came about?
2)Might as well ask why does it take me an hour to do something. Just because I have the power do something in 10 minutes doesn't mean I can't take an hour to do it if I so choose.
3)Evolution being a fact (or not depending on one's viewpoint) proves / disproves the existence of god how?

Totally on another subject, if I may. Are you a grad student? Where are you going to school?

1)the general consensus of god is that he is the only thing that always existed, and he therefore had nothing before him. i wasn't there when this happened so indeed there may have been something other than him (perhaps a father god? ). to me that implies he isn't the true god i think of in that something was there at the same time or before his existence and he therefore isn't responsible for everything - which is what i assume almost all / all believe. i could go off on a tangent and state that there are an infinite number of gods, each responsible for his own universe, but there is ultimately only one father god (and once again, this father god does not require any explanation of how he came about). this idea is not much less crazy to me than the idea that there is only one universe and one god, because having a god without an explanation for his existence is a problem intellectually. who's to say our god wasn't created by an even greater god? when does this regress end? i think there should be some sort of simple beginning, or a simple never-ending concept within nature.

2)i simply fail to see the reason why he would take 13.7 billion years to create us (seemingly part of his divine plan according to scripture). surely this does not mean he couldn't have existed, but if he CAN create us much sooner, why the incredibly long process? it seems this being with no evidence is getting less logical or at least more mysterious (which is unhelpful) with further analysis.

3)evolution does not disprove/prove a creator of the universe. it does disprove the biblical god, however (unless you want an incredibly loose interpretation like that of a Joan Roughgarden). it does show that nature helps shape itself. these sometimes beneficial (random) mutations can ultimately result in a whole new species in which it's survival is nonrandom. there is no intelligent input in these mutations (unless you want to create the idea that god's guiding it). evolution does show, however, that complex individuals come into the universe late. to trace the origin of it all (the cosmos, whatever happened before the big bang/etc) to a highly complex all-powerful intelligence to me sounds like a huge leap of an assumption when there is no evidence.

i'm an undergrad at UCF

 

p.s. although i thoroughly enjoy this discourse, i won't be making these HUGE replies anymore 

[quadz]

How else can I interpret a statement that says "science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING"? I would think for it to be true