God is real?
- Thread starter s0meguy
- Start date
Why does any natural law exist? I believe the laws of nature are the way they are because it's the only way they could be. Any other way would be inconsistent/paradoxical. Causality must exist, because if it didn't the Universe couldn't be consistent with itself. Inconsistencies are due to flaws in reasoning/understanding, etc., and don't exist in reality.
Uh, did you even read my post? I'm not sure what prompted your response. No living thing is a necessary truth. God is not a necessary truth either. Funny thing is, if he's possible, he's not necessary. If he's not necessary, he's not possible.
Alpha said:
I think the whole debate about God raises from the wrong definition of God:
If we say that God is something we humans cannot fully understand, then all debates about His qualities and properties are bound to end up being illogical and inconsistent.
If we say that God is something we humans can fully understand -- then I think we are giving ourselves undue credit. Or even think that we are God.
Thank you for the essay, Alpha, but evolution is also not a law and it is not scientific. And if Darwinian evolution is not your brand of evolution, then what brand is it that does not include mutations, natural selection, and macroevolution as the vehicles for your evolution?Alpha said:
Jenyar is correct. Your definitions and inferences do not conform to the conclusions. Your conclusions are not logical.
The correct definition is "creator of the universe." Anything else, such as:
is extraneous and not part of the definition. That God is something humans can't understand is not implicit or inherent in the definition. It is a claim made by theists, which is unsupported.
Remember, inconsistencies & paradoxes point to flawed assumptions/premises, etc. They do not indicate an inconsistency in reality. Thus, if the definition of God is paradoxical, it means it is not true, not that God exists and is paradoxical.
Now that's nonsense. Understanding the definition of God in no way requires complete comprehension of said concept.
Not scientific? Now that's funny. Evolution is only contested from religious and ignorant standpoints. There are many lies, misconceptions and myths perpetuated about evolution. It is science, it has been proven and observed, it is known fact.
I refer you to www.talkorigins.org
How are they not logical? Each of the conclusions are labelled for the definitions/inferences/conclusions they came from.
Jenyar claimed I2 is illogical, but it follows from D3 & D1. Time & causality exist, and the Universe is all of existence, therefore God (as the creator of the Universe) created them. That is a valid logical inference.
If you claim God did not create them, then God did not create the Universe (all of existence) and the definition is false and must be redefined if the argument is to continue.
Alpha,
I simply don't think this is a "correct definition". I claim that there can be no such thing as a "correct definition" of God. To make a "correct definition" of God, one would have to be God.
It all depends on which "definition" of God you choose.
It is unsupported in the realm of strict logic. It is only if one subscribes to strict logic at all times and in all events, then God, indeed does not exist. I claim that we do not subscribe, neither can we subscribe to strict logic at all times and in all events.
(I think that we like to though, and it would certainly make life easier for us.)
But if humans are limited beings, then they are also paradoxical and can make paradoxical claims. As such, objective reality stays forever elusive to humans.
I strongly believe that all we are actually dealing with is our thinking about phenomena, we're not dealing with phenomena themselves. So, I see your point. But as far as I know, you are saying that objective reality as such is consistent, while I say that we can prove neither that it is, nor that it isn't.
A quick check: Are you implying that the definition "God is the creator of universe" is paradoxical, and not true? And that as such, it says that God is not the creator of the universe? And that, in order to prove/show (?) God's existence, another definition is needed?
Do you think that induction is the proper way to come to any truth?
Yes!
I simply don't think this is a "correct definition". I claim that there can be no such thing as a "correct definition" of God. To make a "correct definition" of God, one would have to be God.
It all depends on which "definition" of God you choose.
It is unsupported in the realm of strict logic. It is only if one subscribes to strict logic at all times and in all events, then God, indeed does not exist. I claim that we do not subscribe, neither can we subscribe to strict logic at all times and in all events.
(I think that we like to though, and it would certainly make life easier for us.)
But if humans are limited beings, then they are also paradoxical and can make paradoxical claims. As such, objective reality stays forever elusive to humans.
I strongly believe that all we are actually dealing with is our thinking about phenomena, we're not dealing with phenomena themselves. So, I see your point. But as far as I know, you are saying that objective reality as such is consistent, while I say that we can prove neither that it is, nor that it isn't.
A quick check: Are you implying that the definition "God is the creator of universe" is paradoxical, and not true? And that as such, it says that God is not the creator of the universe? And that, in order to prove/show (?) God's existence, another definition is needed?
Do you think that induction is the proper way to come to any truth?
Yes!
Nonsense. If we have no definition for God then what are we talking about? The one thing people always refer to, or have as an inherent attribute when referring to God is "creator of the universe." There is nothing to suggest that one would need omniscience or first hand experience to have a definition for "God." And omniscience is another attribute commonly attributed to God that is not agreed upon.
The only one that makes sense. Any other attributes given to God only create paradox, such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc. The one attribute believed to be potentially consistent is the definition used in the proof. I really don't see how you can contest the definition. It isn't inherently limiting by claiming the absense of any said attributes, so what problem could you possibly have with the definition?
Being limited does not imply inherent paradox.
Some objective truths yes, ie., contingent truths, but not necessary truths.
In order to prove reality to be inconsistent one would have to use logic, which is the foundation of true reasoning and any proof. You essentially would have to use logic to disprove logic. This is nonsense.
For this reason no proof can be made to prove reality is inconsistent. The only method we have to determine the truth of the matter is empirical.
No inconsistency has ever been found in reality, and never will be. Each and every inconsistency or paradox has existed solely in the subjective realm, and has been due to incomplete or incorrect information, or false assumptions, or faulty reasoning, etc. Thus, there is nothing to suggest reality is inconsistent, and any suggestion to the contrary must be admitted to be unsupported and irrational.
Pretty much. It's inconsistent with the definition of Universe. Either the definition of God must be changed, or the definition of the Universe. If the Universe is redefined so as not to be all of existence, then there are things (such as time & causality) which were not created by God. The direct consequence is that God is not unlimited as claimed by most theists and is subject to certain fundamental natural laws just like anything else.
What's the relevance of the question? The only truths reached from induction are ones of statistics and probability.
Yes what?
Last edited:
It's so amusing. Those who believe in God and those that believe the universe has always existed, you all don't realize how much you have in common. God vs Universe is the same as God vs Allah or the chicken vs egg paradox. And any contradictions or paradoxes that arise are due to your people's definitions and assumptions of trying to define something you know nothing of, both when it comes to God and the Universe.You're wasting your times proving each other's points because you're both right but just calling God and the Universe by different names when they're both one in the same thing.
- N
P.S. Nice recent post, Rosa.
- N
P.S. Nice recent post, Rosa.
Alpha said:
Exactly. And this is where my linguistic expertise comes in: I think that the term "God" is something like a "place-holder word", or like a pronoun. If I say "you", this word has a referent (and thereby a definition) -- but only in a certain context. Otherwise it means "the other person present and taking part in a conversation". Who that other person is, depends on the individual context.
In language, when we speak, use words, understand, we start off completely intuitively; we don't begin by using exact definitions, as in the beginning, they aren't possible.
Similar goes for any knowledge. The holistic explanation of knowledge and learning says that one cannot understand certain claims without understanding a significant chunk of the theory of which they are part.
For example, in learning the Newtonian concepts of 'force', 'mass', 'kinetic energy', 'momentum', one doesn't learn any definitions of these terms in terms that are understood beforehand, for there are no such definitions. One memorizes them, and only after one has memorized enough terms and their definitions (their inter-relations) of the Newtonian theory, do they begin to "make sense" -- one re-builds the theory in one's head in trying to understand it. But until that happen, as long as those definitions are "loading up" into your brain, those terms work as more or less definite place-holders, and the net (that gives them meaning, meaning is received from being inter-related) between them is still in the making.
I think that when it comes to our (and I mean humanity in general) knowledge of God, this net is still in the making, hence the troubles.
... and this is because God has been anthropomorphized -- humans cannot but antropomorphize.
I think that "omniscience" is indefinable by humans. Hence the schlammassel with it.
I think that net as mentioned above is still in the making.
No inherent, but possible paradox.
But do we *already* have all or at least a significant portion of those necessary truths?
You can use logic to disprove "logic" all the time: choice of premises. We have no monopoly over being able to make the right choice of premises.
... and knowldge gained from empirical observation is bound to be inductive.
Easy on the "never" and future tense. Choice of premises.
How can you be sure that your reasoning is not faulty in some way right now? There are things you don't know, and as such, it could be that you have arrived at your conclusions based on faulty premises, or that new knowledge will prove them faulty.
Yes.
I think that traditionally, human thinking about God is largely inductive, this is why I asked. In inductive thinking, limitations for the group of observed phenomena are set -- and these limitations can lead to making erroneous premises.
And, in everyday life, in the strive for survival, humans act on the basis of some probability calculations. It is not about making the best possible choice, the maximax, not even about going for the optimal -- we go for the one that seems most feasible right here ight now. We don't have time to gather evidence and data forever.
Yes, I too think we need a new definition of God and Universe!
If God = Universe, then the word God has no meaning. God is supposed to be an explanation for the existence of the Universe; ie., the cause.
This is true, which is why contradictory and inconsistent attributes are given to each religion's/person's conception of God. But still, they are extraneous.
Why do you keep claiming words are indefinable? If they weren't, the words wouldn't exist. Omniscience is all knowing. Simple.
Some are more or less ignorant than others...
Things also get redefined in light of certain information.
On the contrary, being unlimited has the consequence of paradox. One can't help but be limited.
Who knows?
Wrong. You need to see the distinction between logic and premises. Premises are any statement. Logic itself is what is used on the premises to determine a truth value. One disproves the premises using logic; logic itself is never disproved. How can you seriously think that reality could be inconsistent? If this were so, we would have no means of determining truth. Such a belief is a giant leap down the road to insanity. If reality were inconsistent, then acquiring more information and accuracy about things would lead to increasingly inconsistent results, not increasingly consistent results. Aquiring further information would not serve to resolve paradox, but would only worsen the situation. Reality must be consistent for there to be truth, and there is truth. The very argument that reality is inconsistent is an attempt to establish the truth that there are inconsistencies in reality, which defeats the argument!
No, deduction is used.
Choose your premises. My statement stands.
Because it's not inconsistent. There's no paradox.
This seems to rest on a faulty premise: that a universal negative statement can't be proven. But such is not the case. If you believe reality can be inconsistent, and that the inconsistency is not solely in your mind, then you are insane. And I would be insane to budge from that stance. And I do mean that literally.
I agree. Probably the source of the anthropomorphization mentioned earlier.
Well?
The definition of God is correct. So, how do we define the universe (the creation of God)? In other words: what didn't God create? Natural laws?
Alpha said:
They are extraneous to the debate about God when it comes to offering logical proof, indeed. But I venture to argue that such a debate about God is extraneous to one's ethical faith in God. See below.
Alpha said:
I take you are an atomist? I'm a holist, I doubt we will ever get along.
Alpha said:
Is the Universe limited? Is time limited? Is causality limited? ... If they are unlimited, does that mean that paradoxes are inherent to them?
Alpha said:
Exactly. Hence my concern.
Alpha said:
I used the word logic in " " the second time. I suppose I wasn't clear enough. You know that if anyone, I am the one preaching the choice of premises around here the most.
Alpha said:
Good point, thank you. Next time some "consequent relativist" tries to preach to me about relativism, I will run from him as if he were the plague itself.
Alpha said:
Inductiveness is due to the limitations of observations.
Alpha said:
I think the key to solve this "God issue" lies in the anthropomorphization. We must ask a practical question: Why did a certain religion develop, and how? -- And it is all due to answering the 3 Big Questions: Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? This is the frame in which an early society established its sense of identity, and developed an all-encompassing cosmogony. As such, the concept of God is originally a matter of ethics -- a matter of values, preferences and norms.
If anything, the origins of religious thinking are pre-rational, hence they inevitably cannot be properly understood with tools of modern rationality, we can only assume.
Trying to logically understand the God of established religions is measuring with the tools of logic something that didn't come into existence by the laws of logic.
The only God one can measure with the tools of logic is the God of philosophical construction. But that God has very little to do with the God of established religions.
The problem is that both theists as well as philosophers are using the same words -- but they often refuse to accept that they are actually speaking TWO DIFFERENT languages. They act as if it were only one language, it is just that the other party is using the words wrongly.
What "God" is to a theist is not the same as what "God" is to an atheist.
Originally, the debate about God is about ethics -- values, preferences and norms, and not about logic. A logical explanation of a God of an established religion is bound to have logical inconsitencies and paradoxes. Explaining that God and trying to define him is the same as if one would try to logically explain and define why it is more logical to prefer apples to peaches.
Alpha said:
Well -- well. The definition of God is correct -- but this God you are talking about is a philosophical construct, not a God of an actual religion. Philosophy as such should be able to do without God.
And I think I know where the problem stems from: In logics, as well as in labyrinths, when you get lost, go back to the last known junction:
You know how the separation of human knowledge into disciplines happened, right? And that for a long time, what we nowadays call "philosophy" and "theology/religion" were one and the same thing! Hence the confusion.
And mother church added to it greatly when Descartes was ordered to write the Meditations -- he wrote them with the purpose that the Church would have ready-made arguments against non-believers, trying to convince them of their wrong. (However, in the course of time, this aspect of Descartes' work became completely obscured!)
This is how God, initially a matter of values, preferences and norms, entered the philosophical debate on the level of logic.
God was brought into philosophical debates for reasons other than philosophy or theology. Christianization was largely a matter of economical and territorial benefits, Christ was just the title used for it, and religion itself had very little to do with it. Christianization took place in the name of religion, but not for the actual purpose of it.
I know, you will say that what theists say about God is extraneous: I say that a philosophical/logical definition of God is extraneous to the nature of the debate about God if we see God as a matter of values, preferences and norms.
I see the concept of God as a certain set of values, preferences and norms; as such, God is a matter of ethics.
Bringing God into the philosophical debate on the level of logic was the mistake of early philosophers/theologians and the rulers they worked for who used God and religion as a weapon for pursuing their economical and territorial interests.
I can understand that the set of values, preferences and norms of a tribe states "Kill everyone who doesn't want to think the way you do". But what is wrong is trying to *logically* justify such values, preferences and norms -- yet this has been frequently done in history, and it still is.
I think it is an act of mental cowardice, or a great mistake, trying to logically justify a norm that one finds hard to believe in. Logic is known for its strength of persuasion, but I think that the way some religions use it is an abuse of logic.
"Believe that snow is black, if you must; but do not do the violent cowardice in trying to use logic to convince me of its blackness" -- that's something one could say to those who go with swords against those who don't hold the same values, preferences and norms as they.
Faith is not a virtue... Faith is pushed because religion is a social construct for controlling people.
Uh, care to elaborate what you mean?
Was that rhetorical (if so what's your point?)? If not, then I've already stated my position in the quote you're replying to. Everything is limited in some way. Anything unlimited is unlimited in one way, but limited in some other way(s).
LOL.
Explain. Inductive reasoning is used to form hypothesis sometimes, but deduction is used to determine it's truth. One may observe white swans and conclude all swans are white, but that's not necessarily true. One has not determined whether or not swans can be any other colour. Once one determines how swans get their colour one can see that swans can be coloured differently. Deductive reasoning is used to accomplish this.
I think my current theory is quite satisfactory: Religion is a social construct used to control people.
It fits all the facts. It satisfies certain needs in people by positing answers to the questions you mentioned. Comforts people by positing an afterlife, and gives them an emotional dependancy on it. It preaches the importance of faith -- taking things at face value, and not questioning, which is just the mindset you want in people you're controling: that of "sheeple."
Don't know where you got that assumption from. It may have been created by intelligent people with the desire to control people, and it would be a rather logical method given a certain level of understanding of people.
The only difference between the gods of religion and the gods in philosophy are that the ones of religion are "determined" to be true based on faith, while the one's of philosophy are determined using logic, which is the means for determining truth.
Not necessarily. The only difference is the subjective beliefs in the truth of the matter.
The thing about logic and philosophy is that everyone uses the same "language" because the definitions are well defined and layed out so each party knows what's being discussed. If a theist wants to change the definition of God, they can do so.
It's not about logic. Logic is simply how truth is determined.
One of the reasons I used a definition of God independant from religion.
Not at all. There is a tremendous difference that you ought to be made well aware of. The preference of apples and peaches, or anything else is a subjective thing. It's an opinion, and opinions can't be wrong. The existence of God is an objective thing which is either true or false. It's not a matter of opinion.
I'm not aware of any religions where the definition of God posited in the proof would be considered false...
:bugeye: Uh... OK...
Not sure where you got that from, or your reasoning behind it.
I doubt that.
That is not what God is. It may be what religion is about, but that is irrelevant. I am only debating the truth or falsity of the existence of God. So claiming that the existence of God is extraneous to some other debate is wrong. That debate is extraneous.
Ethics is irrelevant to this debate, and I believe religion is irrelevant to ethics as well.
Alpha said:
I am taking the diachronical perspective on this, and you seem to be taking the synchronical perspective. As such, we are bound to collide with our findings.
Here's a little something on holism. And here.
Okay, I just needed a clarification.
Our observations are limited; we want explanations, we want theories, but for this, we must choose a limited number of phenomena of the kind we are observing. It can happen that a certain characteristic is typical for the greater part of all of the observed phenomena, or even all, but this doesn't mean yet that this characteristic is true for the whole kind of these phenomena. Like your example with the swans.
But what if the observed phenomena is more elusive than swans? What if what we are observing are phenomena in society, human behaviour? Then, it is possible to make grave mistakes due to the use of inductive thinking.
(Think for example of frenology -- a murderer can be recognized by the shape of the skull. Nowadays, we laugh at that, but back then, this theory was regarded as true. Maybe those who come after us will, due to other technology, negate or re-define our theories.)
This is a description of the present state, and you are trying to make connections between the individual phenomena taking part in the frame of religion. You are viewing the matter from the synchronical perspective.
Like I said before, and in the language debate in the other thread, I am taking the diachronical perspective. I am trying to explain the phenomenon of religion from a historical position; I am looking at it from the developmental POV. Religion wasn't simply invented or created for a certain reason. If anything, it was a natural consequence of people living in a society.
Think back: We are facing a society of early humans. As soon as we are dealing with a group of organisms, living together and being inter-dependent, we are encountering rules and regulations that keep this group together and alive. These rules and regulations are the social control needed for a viable society. However, these rules and regulations can be conceptualized and verbalized in many different ways. Be it religion (animistic, monotheistic, polytheistic), political or economical ideology (capitalism, communism), or even something else. All have one thing in common: social control.
I will take what you said about religion and replace a few words: and the thinking remains valid:
Capitalism is a social construct used to control people.
It fits all the facts. It satisfies certain needs in people by positing answers to the questions you mentioned. Comforts people by positing a comfortable life as the highest value, and gives them an emotional dependancy on it. It preaches the importance of choice -- taking things at face value, and not questioning, which is just the mindset you want in people you're controling: that of "sheeple." People in capitalism are no less sheeple than people in a religious system. Just the names and the ways are different.
What good does it do to have a god of philosophy?!
But those gods of historic religions are there in a manner that the individual has a subjective relationship with that god.
But what is the point of talking about God independant from religion?!
This is a present description. Once more, we need to think back to the origins of religious thought. Then, a society had certain values, preferences and norms, shared by the most of their members. Why were those values, preferences and norms the way they were and not some other? Those rules and regulations that control a society (the values, preferences and norms) are set by the opinion of the most powerful members of the group.
I am trying to explain religion from the practical POV, while you are in taking the philosophical POV. But eventually, societies behave by some guidelines of practicality, feasibility, and not by what consequent logical thought would say. Or are we to discard reality in favor of philosophy? :bugeye:
EDIT: I used the comparison between apples and peaches in the sense that there is no logical reason or justification why one prefers apples over peaches. But there is the reason that to someone apples taste better.
Similar with religions: There is no logical reason or justification why prefer Christianity over Islam, for example, or why prefer the God of one religion to that of another. But there are plenty of historical, social, economical, and territorial reasons for such a preference.
I am thinking in terms of actual historical development. I think that the debate about God became a part of the philosophical debate for reasons of justifying the values, preferences and norms a certain society had. At some point, in Europe, the Christian church felt the need to justify their Christian values, preferences and norms (as pursuing them is not self-evident), and for this justification, it used logic to prove the truthfulness of those values, preferences and norms.
This is where the thing went wrong. One cannot logically justify why, for example, you shouldn't steal, or why you must believe in only one God, and it has to be the Christian God. Justifying ethical values is impossible to do with logic. How are you supposed to logically justify that it is not right to jut go and kill people?
(As for the tactic in "when you get lost situations": Another practical example: So Moses was pictured with horns on his head for many years. One wonders why. And some brave minds went back to the Bible translation and found out that a verse was mistranslated, and it was due to this mistranslation that Moses got horns.
I take it is possible that there are more of such examples, not just of mistranslations, but of misconceptions and misinterpretations throughout history -- and this is why some phenomena in the present seem odd -- as if they had "horns".)
The God of philosophy indeed is irrelevant to ethics; but religion is a certain brand of ethics.
And you can debate the truth or falsity of the existence of God *only* in the realm of philosophy. Religions have no doubt that God is.
This debate should actually be in the philosophy section, and theists have no part in it, not even agnostics.
The God you are debating is the god of philosophy, a philosophical construct, no different than any other philosophical construct.
As such, the only use of a God in philosophy would be to "cover the issues of inexplicability, uncertainty and spontaneousness".
Last edited:
“[E]volution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers…” - Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.Alpha said:
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” ~ Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History
“Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.” - Pierre Grasse , Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.6, and editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University
How can you conclude God did not create time from the inference that God created time? The conclusion is illogical.Jenyar said:
According to the Bible, every man has some degree of knowledge of God. IMHO, how man has expressed that degree of knowledge depends on whether he wants to explain his thoughts on God (which results in the different views of God in the many religions) or if he wants to expand his knowledge and seek God (which means if there is a God, God must show more of Himself to the person who is seeking Him). For those who do not want more knowledge about God they will suppress the urge to seek Him (using an argument why search for something that does not exist). IMHO, God will let you find Him if you seek for Him as He has promised in the Bible.s0meguy said:
De 4:29 - But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find {Him} if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.
Well I'm not saying that God is the Universe but rather your theories on it. No matter how far up you go, the question will always be asked "but what created it", whether it's God or the Universe, whatever the top of our discovery is, we'll always have that question. What happens if we find out that the Universe is surrounded by a bigger Universe in relation to how our Earth is surrounded by the Universe? We'll then again ask "but what created the new Universe that holds our Universe". No matter what, there is always going to be a barrier to our highest physical discovery and it'll be an endless loop of questions of what came first, the chicken or the egg. What came first, God or the Universe?
Since everything we do and understand is in human terms we can relate with, isn't a God the most logical choice of where everything is coming from? We're creationists so certainly there has to be something that has created all. Where did all of these laws come from which makes different atoms and energies react with one another the way they do? Oh, it has just always existed? Well how is that any a better explanation than of a creating God? Both require faith of having the creator always having existed without a previous creator. A God that knows what it's doing to create sure makes a helluva lot more sense than everything in the Universe being created by billions upon billion years of chance. So much luck during those billions upon billions of years to have created all that we see now, yet no bad luck within those billions upon billions of years of the Universe destroying itself completely. Now THAT's some luck.
But in a sense, the Universe CAN be God. If the Universe were the thing to have always existed, and all this dark matter in space is a mere cell of God much-like how one looks in a microscope inside a cell and notices little molucles and bacteria floating around and zipping past with great spaces between them just how rotating planets in the Universe act but on a much smaller scale, then is all of creation happening by mere luck? Surely everything can't just be by chance. Is the Universe sentient and knows what it's doing? Would that not then make the Universe more akin towards being a God as opposed to what we currently define the Universe as? I mean hey, religious people have said since the very begining, God is inside us and all around us. Everything is made up of the same molucles if you trace it back far enough so we actually are all part of the same thing which would be the originator of all creation.
I'm pretty sure everything is infinite. Just as the nucleus is trapped inside a cell and a cell is trapped inside our body, and our body is trapped inside the Earth and our Earth is trapped inside the Universe, I'm pretty sure that the Universe will be trapped inside something and that will be trapped inside something as well. Everything is relative. Who knows, maybe one day if we can magnify things ungodly high, we may see people asking the same questions we are on their planet XYX that is inside one of the cells in our body. I just hope the little piece of salt I ate doesn't go crashing into their little cell planet and destroys it to smitherines.
So yeah, basically we'll never have all the answers. Our knowledge about God, or creation, will only be as good as our knowledge of our current exploration boundries. If we ever find a way to become immortal through medicine before we die, I'll bet ya $50 that we'll soon find out that the Universe isn't our only boundries. Oh, and I'll account for inflation in that time so that $50 will probably be a few trillion dollars, lol, unless we transcend into utopia and currency is no longer needed.
- N
And I'm sure you've heard the phrase "I saw something that I couldn't put into words". The reason for all the paradoxes, conflicts, and contradiction is because of things like that. It's like saying "I saw a dog.. but not" or "I was floating in space, but it wasn't floating, more like gliding, but I was going super slow yet it seemed so fast, and it wasn't space because everything was so far yet I could see everything in great detail. Everything was colorful yet I can't describe the colors as they were colors I've never seen". There are just some things that cannot be explained so we use what knowledge we have to describe it even if what we see isn't what we're describing. Kind of like calling UFO's "flying saucers" when they're not, but that's a bit simplistic to what I'm trying to describe. Heh, see, I can't describe what I wanna describe!
Be limited? There we go again, trying to define everything as we see and experience it. This is why we'll never know the answers to everything because we have such blinders on our eyes. I was gonna ask if a laser goes on forever but it's limited to power supply so here's an easier test for you to do that requires no energy. Stick to mirrors facing each other evenly and look into them. Will the images you see not go on forever to infinity? Oh but wait, because you can't totally see that far or experience the infinity completely for yourself, it must not be so or exist.
Because it's not inconsistent.. until..
I guess you must not know much about scientific theories, huh? What you're trying to do is answer all of the questions of creation which people have been wracking their brains over for centuries, using limited knowledge of what we know. Just wait until a new discovery is made about the Universe that blows your thinking out of the water and maybe one day you will be humbled in realizing that we humans do not know it all. It's funny how people can be so unsure about simple scientific things yet are able to claim we know the answer to all of creation, lol.
- N
Last edited:
Because all religion is is a widely accepted theory as to who and what God is. That theory can be completely wrong as to who and what God is but it wouldn't mean God doesn't exist. Religion is just trying to define that which they do not know.
Sorry, so much to read I didn't get to your other post. If that's all your theory is in that religion is a social construct to control people then you're mostly correct. Religion is USED to control people but it's primary purpose wasn't to control people. It became a tool due to some realizing the powerful effect it has on others. Fear is the key to control and the unknown is the greatest fear there is.
As to faith, faith exists EVERYWHERE. Faith IS a virtue. Look at science and see all the faith that exists in that. Scientists rely on faith all the time to try and explain the unknown to make theories here and there. The Universe is the best example, it's just like the faith required in God.
Now putting aside religion, the questions about creation as a whole and of there being a God/creator is still there. As Rosa said, religion and philosophy were/are the same thing. The only reason why religion is established as it is now is because it was once mere philosophy to each prophet and people believed their "theory".
Science is the same as religion. What we see, we create theories, and what we can't yet see or understand, we create philosophical, err sorry, "theorhetical"
theories to try and explain the rest of the unknown. Those theories are then deemed true since as you said earlier, there are no "current" inconsistancies. Religion was no different than science in that they used the best evidence they had at the time and everything fit together.I believe most myths and religious texts to be absolutely true historical events; the only problem is that their perceptions and limited ways to describe it all were wrong. The difference is that when texts describe the events as being due to the Almighty Creator of All God, it's not actually due to him. I believe the Gods of various religions to in fact be real beings, they only appeared to have god-like powers much-like we have appeared to natives today and of the past. Since they seemed so powerful and could do awe-inspiring things, surely those people must have had the, and been the, answers to it all.
So here we are today, getting more knowledge if everything so it puts outdated theories to rest but springs forth new ones. One day we will find our theories to be outdated and they will once again be fixed. But at all times, current and past, there were no inconsistancies with their theories, but as you can see now, their theories were wrong just as I can guarantee ours will be too. Arrogance is the bane of everyone. To think we know it all is just asking for trouble.
And uh, I was gonna write more but just realized how much I wrote, not to mention the two previous posts so I think I'll finally call it a night and hit the hay and reply to the rest I read later. Damn I ramble non-stop when I'm up too late, lol.
- N
Last edited:
English please.
In that case, I'm neither. I think both ideas have merit.
There is disagreement as to whether social science and the like is really science...
*Phrenology.
The basic tenets of phrenology were:
1. The brain is the organ of the mind.
2. The mind is composed of multiple distinct, innate faculties.
3. Because they are distinct, each faculty must have a separate seat or "organ" in the brain.
4. The size of an organ, other things being equal, is a measure of its power.
5. The shape of the brain is determined by the development of the various organs.
6. As the skull takes its shape from the brain, the surface of the skull can be read as an accurate index of psychological aptitudes and tendencies.
Most of these basic premises are true. It was only the particulars of reading character from the skull that were false.
You seem to forget most people aren't linguists. Plain english please.
Well, frankly, it's irrelevant.
It's a natural consequence of society that some members will have and seek to gain more power than others. Religion being a natural consequence of an early society still fits with my theory.
What's your point? This doesn't seem to affect anything.
I didn't say god of philosophy.
Which is irrelevant to the definition.
Where have you been?
There are many who believe in God but do not subscribe to any particular religion, for one. Also, the fact that the definition posited is independant from religion is a good thing, it applies to any religion. It is the fundamental definition underlying all religions. Adding attributes posited in any religion would be extraneous as other religions wouldn't necessarily agree, and they're not really part of the definition.
In discussing God independantly from religion, one can come to some truth which is independant of any religion.
Truly, the origins of religious thought are irrelevant.
Likely true, but lets just discuss the existence of God for now, it is after all the purpose of this thread.
How do you come to that conclusion. I disagree.
Religion isn't a brand of ethics itself, but gives rise to a set of ethics due to it's nature. A set of ethics that is corrupt. Meanwhile, the debate about God is relevant to both philosophy and religion, and through religion in a roundabout way, ethics as well.
The debate concerns religion, so the religion forum is appropriate.
You seem to be attempting to put down philosophy. We're not debating "the god of philosophy" we're debating the existence of God, which is an act of philosophy which concerns religion.
LOL. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Evolution is observable (it has been), repeatable (duh), and refutable (it has been tested and proven). He's wrong on all counts, and obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Just because he does biomedical research doesn't mean he knows jack squat about evolution.
Your quotes mean nothing. They are not arguments, and they are flat out wrong. They are ignorant beliefs, nothing more.
Pay attention.
"From I2 & C1: God did not create time."
It is clearly labelled where the conclusion comes from: Inference 2 and Conclusion 1. Which are:
"I2 - From D3 & D1: Time & causality were created by God."
And
"C1 - From I1 & D1: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe."
The conclusion that God didn't create time comes from the fact that God required time to create time. It is inconsistent, thus the only conclusion is that it is false. Therefore, God did not create time.
This is well known, and only supports my argument.
Obviously not.
What? I'm no creationist!
God is unnecessary. God is no better in any way as an explanatory concept. In fact it's worse, because it's not consistent.
The rest of your post is so riddled with problems it would be too tedious to go through them all, and this post would be too long.
That's the other way around from what was said.
Wrong.
Perhaps you're the one with blinders.
It can't be experienced because it doesn't exist. There is a limit to how many times the image can be reflected, how many times the photons can bounce between the mirrors, etc.
I don't think any science will demonstrate the proof false, because it is pure logic, resting on definitions independant from any scientific theories, except perhaps causality, but it may have been proven logically.
I agree.
No, faith is not a virtue. Faith is accepting things without question, without a logical or reasonable basis.
BS.
Wrong.