Religious and Spiritual Beliefs

[CommanderJohnson]

Ok, the "Life" topic I made caused me to post it. Read the Life topic to see some background.

We debate, discuss, and argue politics, so let's do the same with religion and religious beliefs. As far as any sort of taboo as to discussion religious issues, it wouldn't make much sense. If we can talk, discuss, and defend our political beliefs, we should certainly be able to do the same with religious beliefs. I also think, however, that the same standards should be applied. Just because someone on here may be a satanist is no reason to attack the PERSON. If we are going to question and be critical of other's religious beliefs and increase our understanding of them, we should always remember to attack and question the ARGUMENT/BELIEF and not the person.

Now, as for my religious/spiritual beliefs. I believe in God, and I believe in it because of a greater meaning and potential for human life. I don't think that it's possible that a being that can have the thoughts and beliefs and analysis and feelings that I do could be simply destined to reproducing and dying in an endless cycle until one day humans manage to wipe themselves out. I also believe in God because of the simple idea of creation. Sure, people can believe that the Big Bang's matter just existed and then the Big Bang happened, but there's no way that it can be claimed that the Big Bang existing and then just "happening" is MORE likely than God simply existing and causing the Big Bang. If you have faith in the Big Bang simply existing, there's no reason not to have faith in God simply existing. That, combined with the idea that huamns are great, combined with the idea that there's no point to ANY common morality if there is no God, and combined with the many beliefs/miracles of millions of people around the world gets me to the point where I choose to have faith in God existing over the idea of "The Big Bang Exists and there's nothing after death, so life doesn't matter". I also believe and have faith in Jesus. Although not to the extent I do of God (since God can be reasoned much easier), I have a belief in Jesus because of the sheer number of people (I know that they all could be wrong, but it's how I have faith), but also because of the miracles attributed to Him and His direct implication that humans are important and that they can be forgiven for wrongdoing and there is life after death. I would consider myself a non-denominational Christian due to my beliefs, but I do not believe in any "organized church organization", since they cause you and try to force you into a specific way of believing and a certain way of worshipping which seems to me to intrinsically contradict the concept of free will. "You have free will to make your own decisions, but you better do and believe what our church says or your wrong and going to hell". I think we can all have the possibility to find God on our own, and priests/bishops/reverends have no greater "connection" to God than anyone else. They may devote their lives to God, but that doesn't make them necessarily more right or gifted than anyone else. I have some more specific beliefs, but that is enough for now.

[Epsilon 5]

quoting myself form the other topic ...

quote:

---

I'm a christian, and catholic over it. I believe in god, I believe there is a superior being overseeing the universe, and that he has granted me life (of course, my parents did too, but not in the same way) . however, I don't go to church, and seldomly pray, so I guess that makes me an agnostic. I have little belief in miracles, but yet there are some things that I won't deny. For the rest, science does good enough for me.

---

[CommanderJohnson]

If you believe in God, you aren't agnostic. From what you said, your what some would call a "non-practicing christian". I'm pretty sure your only agnostic if you dont know if there is a God or not and don't have belief either way. Atheists simply don't believe in a God. (Always used to get atheist and agnostic mixed up)

[Raven]

Oh, this is going to be good!

As I have said in previous topics, IÔÇÖm an atheist. Specifically a scientific materialist. What does this mean? Basically that I believe what is most logical to believe based on empirical evidence, that is to say I believe in science. Does this mean I have faith in science? Sure, but my faith is anything but blind. I donÔÇÖt think anyone here will argue that, despite all of its flaws, science and scientific reasoning has a very long history of working. Both insofar as science produces a series of more and more accurate models of the world around us, not perfect models, thatÔÇÖs impossible, simply a succession of models that become better and better at predicting events.

What about phenomena not explained by science? What about photographs of ghosts, statues drinking milk, and all those other ÔÇ£supernaturalÔÇØ phenomena that seam to defy science? Simple, those are phenomena that simply havenÔÇÖt been explain by science yet, but (assuming we donÔÇÖt kill ourselves off or some similarly unpleasant happenstance) they will be explained by science. And how do I reason this? It stands to reason that science has been steadily generating explanations for so called miracles and supernatural phenomena since the beginning of history, and subsequently proving religious theories wrong. The sun doesnÔÇÖt circle the earth, it is not being chased by the moon, and itÔÇÖs most certainly not a fiery chariot. We know that eclipses and comets are simply natural phenomena and thus donÔÇÖt foretell doom, and no one ever blames earthquakes or lighting strikes on angry gods any more. It is a logical extrapolation that because science has been explaining the unknown successfully for all of these centuries, it will continue to explain the unknown. Similarly, religious theories have been successively proven wrong for so many centuries there is little reason to believe that they wonÔÇÖt continue to be proven wrong.

Ok, so a lot of you are going to try to punch holes in my arguments by pointing out the flaws of various scientific theories. DonÔÇÖt bother, you will note that there are no references to specific theories in my argument, and that is most certainly not because I donÔÇÖt know any, but because I know them all to be suspect. Because science uses inductive reasoning to generate models that explain events these models can never be proven 100% sure, because all possibilities cannot be tested. Furthermore, ever so many theories are attempts to explain phenomena that are very poorly understood, and for which no experiments are possible. Dredd brought up the big bang, a theory that most people (myself included) have only a marginal understanding of, and which is a rather inadequate explanation of what MAY have happened. Another classic theory to trash on is evolution. Many people are aware that evolution doesnÔÇÖt explain the rate at which species have evolved, and it is often taken to mean that god is somehow responsible for the process. Ok, letÔÇÖs look at this again, evolution doesnÔÇÖt sufficiently explain how species evolved to what they are now, and therefore god must have had a hand in it. Yea, sure, like anyone would ever buy that if they didnÔÇÖt have blind faith in religion. So, anyway, the great thing about science is that you donÔÇÖt have to have an explanation for everything, and even the explanations you do have donÔÇÖt have to be perfect, and saying ÔÇ£I donÔÇÖt knowÔÇØ is always a viable response.

So god might exist, right, I mean he could be perfectly explainable by science, just another one of these phenomena that havenÔÇÖt yet been explained, but eventually will be? Well, sure, theoretically god could exist, but why? There is simply no good reason to believe in god. Nothing points to there being a god, there is no empirical evidence that necessitates the existence of a divine being, or even strongly suggests it. Lets look at the existence of god as any other scientific theory. There is not solid empirical evidence, only a long tradition of belief and a number of poorly understood phenomena that are attributed to god. I donÔÇÖt know about anyone else, but that doesnÔÇÖt seem like very inspiring evidence.

[Cruis.In]

dragon lady's point of view can hit home...basically refering to what she said in the

"Life" thread.

When I look at t.v and see hundreds of people walking through a street in a big city...so many people...how do I my one little by myself feel that I can do any good in this world?

You can say that..don't look at the individual look at the whole...the world just works as a whole. Everybody needs everybody.

Simple example...Need pilots to fly...need engineers...build airplanes...need air traffic controllers to direct airplanes...need customs agents...etc etc...goes on and on.

But knowing this still doesn't help...how insignificant sometimes one feels. Know I do.

[IceCold]

Ah... the naivety of the Newtonian scientist.

(Warning, this post goes deeply into the principles of quantum theory, chaos theory, and relativity)

The Newtonian view of the universe is as follows:

The universe in infinite: there is no beginning nor an end to time and space.

The universe is determinate: Every effect is created by one cause and can be predicted through a series of equations.

The universe is reductive: The further something is taken apart the more we understand it.

Time is absolute: it will continue foreword in one direction to infinity without variation.

Basically we are nothing more than the sum of our parts and everything around us is predictable through various equations.

-Enter Relativity

In short-the universe once existed in one extremely small point of nothing surrounded by nothing. Not a point surrounded by the vacuum of space, but surrounded by nothing at all. Eventually this point expanded at a rate many times the speed of light commonly known as the "Big Bang" in which the universe was formed.

Time is not a constant for the passage of time is relative to you position to a gravity well and your proximity to the speed of light.

-The Universe is not infinite and has a starting point for both time and space.

-The speed of light is the only constant in the universe and time is relative.

-Quantum theory

The basic concept I wish to explain to you all is that nothing happens at all on the quantum level by itself. One must observe the quantum before it will resolve itself into something.

Example: Shroddiger's cat

A cat is in a box that contains an alpha particle that will or will not decay at some indeterminate point in its half-life. A Geiger counter is rigged so when the particle decays a hammer is triggered to release poison and kill the cat.

Until you look into the box the alpha particle has neither decayed nor not decayed and the cat is neither dead nor not dead. Let's say you come back to the box a week after the experiment was set up and look into the box. Once you look into the box the alpha particle then decides that it has already decayed a week ago and the cat had been dead for that same time but until you looked into the box the cat was neither alive nor dead.

-Nothing happens unless someone is there to observe it

-The more we take things apart the less we understand them (in fact we don't understand them at all)

-The quantum cannot be predicted for the very act of observing it changes its qualities.

This raises an interesting question for if the universe began as nothing, who observed the quantum particles to cause the "Big Bang?"

This raises an interesting question for if the universe began as nothing, who observed the quantum particles to cause the "Big Bang?"

-Chaos theory

-There are infinite variations on the answer to the same problem.

-all distances are infinite for they can be measured to an infinite number of decimal places.

-Universe spontaneously directs itself to order

The problem with evolution is that there has not been enough time since the formation of the universe to form one amino acid by random chance.

The odds of our present universe arriving to its present state by random chance is:

10^10^30 : 1 against

This number is so large that a supercomputer writing a million zeros a second would not have finished writing this number if it had worked from the beginning of time to the present day.

_______

Enter the G word, God. There is scientific room for God to exist for something had to view the origin of the universe for the big bang to happen, the universe has a natural tendency to organize itself, and there is not enough time for our universe to form by random chance.

*Questions, Comments, Observations?

[Epsilon 5]

The one question that makes me believe in god no matter what science says.

Where does the universe come from?

[IceCold]

Nothing,

That is the conceptual leap, The universe was nothing surrounded by nothing until something observed it.

[ 09-12-2002, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: IceCold ]

[Raven]

First, wouldnÔÇÖt the cat observe itself getting poisoned? Assuming that you have to be human to make an observation seams a little conceited.

I read IceColdÔÇÖs post knowing nothing about Quantum Theory, and I nearly gagged. It didnÔÇÖt make any sense, why does an event need to be observed before it happens, itÔÇÖs like the damn tree that falls in the woods when no one is around to hear it. Whether it makes a sound is determined by the definition of sound, whether you define it as a wave phenomena or as the electrical impulses such a phenomena generates in the human brain. Except now were saying that for the way phenomena to happen to begin with, for the tree to even fall, the proper electrochemical reaction must happen in someoneÔÇÖs brain. Gack! It makes no sense.

Now, assuming this ghastly theory is correct, it proves nothing about god. I already conceded the point that science has room for god to exist, it simply is insanely unlikely, and even more unlikely that he just happens to fit in without our ideas of him. As far as proving god exists because he has to witness the big bang, it only proves that something was there to witness it, that it is god as depicted in the modern Christian mythos is an unwarranted conclusion.

This is all irrelevant, however. I donÔÇÖt know where you got your idea about quantum theory, but I did a wee bit of research and you got it dead wrong.

quote:

---

The basic concept I wish to explain to you all is that nothing happens at all on the quantum level by itself. One must observe the quantum before it will resolve itself into something.

---

A quantum, for those of us who know, is an inadvisably small particle. ItÔÇÖs not something that resolves itself into something, it just is.

quote:

---

-Nothing happens unless someone is there to observe it

---

You got it wrong. The properties of a particle is considered to exist as a fuzzy probability, itÔÇÖs location (or itÔÇÖs spin, or itÔÇÖs momentum, or whatever your measuring) is unknown, but the likelihood of the particle being in a given location (at a given time if the quanta is moving) can be determined. In effect the particle doesnÔÇÖt have an exact location until measured. This doesnÔÇÖt mean it doesnÔÇÖt exist though, or that itÔÇÖs not somewhere, because it is, it simply is indeterminate where it is.

quote:

---

-The more we take things apart the less we understand them (in fact we don't understand them at all)

---

This is a dreadful misinterpretation, it would be more accurate to say that the more take things apart the more we know about them, including knowing that we know only a very little. Your statement implies that by taking things apart we loose knowledge, which is clearly untrue.

quote:

---

-The quantum cannot be predicted for the very act of observing it changes its qualities.

---

IÔÇÖm assuming your referring to HeisenbergÔÇÖs Uncertainty Principle. First of all, this is applicable only in extremely small applications where the act of measuring the position of a particle will significantly alter its momentum. Quantum theory does, however, deal in predicting where particle will be based on probability. Not very accurate for predicting the properties of a single particle, it becomes more accurate as the numbers of particle increase.

To prove that I did the research, here is my source

quote:

---

The problem with evolution is that there has not been enough time since the formation of the universe to form one amino acid by random chance.

---

Actually there has been, it may be unlikely but not impossible. Furthermore, attempting to disprove an individual theory doesnÔÇÖt disprove science as a whole, as I believe I already covered.

quote:

---

The odds of our present universe arriving to its present state by random chance is:

10^10^30 : 1 against

---

So what? The probability of the universe arriving at any other exact arrangement is equally improbable. Just because all possibilities are dreadfully improbable doesnÔÇÖt mean that none of the possibilities will occur. ItÔÇÖs like picking a number between one and one million. ItÔÇÖs unlikely that you will pick any one number (say 5,243) but you do pick a number, and so however improbable it is it none the less is the number you pick.

[scorchedearth]

Here here, Dragon Lady. Though I am curious about the dual slit experiment, where unobserved single electrons pass through two seperate slits simultaneously.

I believe in the multiverse. Perhaps that cat exists dead in some universes and alive in others and we choose which universe we ... "follow" when we "take a look." Perhaps universes are not so rigidly seperated. For example, in the dual slit experiment, we can somehow "see" more than one universe at the same time.

I believe God is bound by the same laws of physics that we are. To say that God is all-powerful does not imply God is immune to the laws of existence. You or I can turn blood into wine, too, but we just don't know how is all. God knows all the laws of physics, the unifying theorem... and has a plan. I believe God's creation takes time.

We are all simply part of a stage of God's grand opus.

Physics has taught me that everything has an opposite. Perhaps God is building something that has no opposite, no antithesis, no mirror image. God is creating something that has meaning while the absence of this something does not.

To say, "My mother did NOT die from torture" does not mean anything unless somewhere, at some time, one can say, "My mother DID die from torture." People who stop believing in God because a loved one dies, do not understand God, IMHO.

[ 09-12-2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Blerm ]

[Raven]

IÔÇÖm not all that familiar with the many worlds theory (and I believe thatÔÇÖs what your referring to with your mention of the multiverse) but I donÔÇÖt see how that relates even in the least to the dual slit experiment. Some explanation of that would be nice.

Now, as far as god being bound by the laws of physics, I agree, on the infinitesimally small chance there is a god he would be bound by physics. However, assuming that he has mastery of all of the laws of physics and complete understanding is unsupported, rather he would simply have a grater understanding of physics. I believe the point is moot anyway, as I donÔÇÖt believe in god, but thatÔÇÖs no reason not to argue about him.

[LordDavid]

Dragon Lady, from everything you said, I take it that you do not believe the Bible to be true? I'm curious on what your thoughts are on the Bible; what do you think it is: fiction, non fiction, just a good story, some of it is true but some isn't...etc?

[CommanderJohnson]

The main reason why a God of some sort has to exist is because something had to start it all. Sure, lets say an alien existed and caused the Big Bang, but how did the alien come into existance? Every effect has a cause of some sort, so there has to be one entity that is all powerful and everlasting, tangibly seperate from the reality/universe as we know it that started it all.

Then the multitude of secondary reasons, such as how hard it would be that we would be created by chance, the intrinsic order of the universe that had to have put in place, the multitude of miracles that can't even be partially explained by science, the extreme uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds, etc.

[Raven]

Right, the bible, forgot about that.

Ever read The Iliad or The Odyssey? Are they works of fiction or true? I think itÔÇÖs safe to say that they are not based entirely in fact, but there is still speculation on how much may be true. Was there ever a Troy? Was there a king named Odysseus? ItÔÇÖs an interesting question to ponder, but not something I worry too much about.

Similarly we can look at the legend of King Arthur. There is ongoing debate as to how much of the legend is true, or if any of it is at all.

I think itÔÇÖs safe to view the bible in the same context as any other legend. It may be partially based in fact, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that itÔÇÖs all fact. I donÔÇÖt think anyone is going to try to argue that Beowulf is entirely accurate, so why should we think that the bible is.

Now, to DreddÔÇÖs argument.

quote:

---

The main reason why a God of some sort has to exist is because something had to start it all. Sure, lets say an alien existed and caused the Big Bang, but how did the alien come into existance? Every effect has a cause of some sort, so there has to be one entity that is all powerful and everlasting, tangibly seperate from the reality/universe as we know it that started it all.

---

Ok, so we canÔÇÖt explain a phenomenon and thus it must be god. Typical religious thinking. LetÔÇÖs assume that you are correct, and that some entity has to have caused the big bang (never mind that there is no evidence to suggest this). Since that entity had to come from somewhere, which is supposedly impossible before the big bang, then it has to be god. There is simply no basis for making that jump, just because itÔÇÖs something we donÔÇÖt understand DOESNÔÇÖT necessitate it being god.

quote:

---

Then the multitude of secondary reasons, such as how hard it would be that we would be created by chance, the intrinsic order of the universe that had to have put in place, the multitude of miracles that can't even be partially explained by science, the extreme uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds, etc.

---

Again, those are not reasons to believe in god, they are simple stipulations of the unknown. Maybe, just maybe, you could build an argument that suggests that agnostics are correct, but nothing points to the Christian god.

As far as the improbability of us being created by chance, unlikely things happen. That only proves that either A: we got really lucky, B: we donÔÇÖt understand all of what went on in the process that created life, or C: all of the above.

Intrinsic order to the universe? Compared, pray tell to what? You canÔÇÖt say our universe is orderly unless you have a different universe that you can say is disorderly. Where, pray tell, did you find a second universe?

As for miracles that cannot be explained by science, that is unsupported. There is no reason to believe that they cannot be explained by science, simply that they cannot be explained by MODERN science. A few thousand years ago a comet, the movement of the sun and mood, the planets, these could not be explained by the current level of science, but now they are. If you were to show a laser pointer to a scientist of the 14th century (or whatever passed for scientists back then) he would assure you that it was indeed magic. But that doesnÔÇÖt mean it is magic, only that it was beyond the scope of science at the time.

And what exactly do you mean when you say the uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds. Humanity is unique in the since it is the most evolved species on earth, but genetically were are very similar to apes (I think itÔÇÖs about a 98% match with certain species). As for the power of our minds, IÔÇÖm not sure I understand. If your referring to so called psychic powers, we need to start a whole new argument, if your referring to something else kindly explain.

[goaliejerry]

I'd just like to add my two cents in response to what dredd said in his last post. And please don't mistake what I say as a re-hash of Dragon Lady's comments!

The question of whether or not there is a god or not is not what I mean to comment on. However I must ask the question, how was god created then? For if you claim that he has always exsited even before the big bang, then your claim about the existance of a god being nessecary to start the process goes down the tubes.

For if it is possible to assume that god is perpetual in nature, that he is never ending and without begining or end, then that means it is possible for things to be perpetual. And if things are perpetual, then one could justifiably claim that so too is the universe, or any substance for that matter, for there is no evidence to the contrary. And if the universe is perpetual, then there is no need for a god, because the universe is without beggining or end. By this logic it seems all things are perpetual and without begining or end and therefore god is not nessecary to explain its origins.

Or in other words, if we take a leap of faith that there is a perpetual god, one could just as easily claim that there is a perpetual universe and no need for a god, for both claims have the same value of truth.

As for your secondary reasons, mankind likes to assign the unknown into the catagory of "gods work." Around 2000 years ago thunder was attributed to Zeus throwing bolts in anger, but as time progresses we gain further understanding of the universe. We are still blind children feeling our way in the dark, however we learn more and more as time goes on and seem to continually dispell old and outdated mystisism.

As for the difficulty or our being created by chance, well chance is independent of difficulty. While the chances may be extremely small and incomprehesible, so too is the vastness of the universe. And even if the odds are 1:1000000000000000000000, that one time could happen on the first roll.

NOW BEFORE you reactionarys jump at me here, listen to this last point. While scientific discovery does indeed dispell the unknown, and even if the "multitude of miricles" that can't be explained now are someday explained, IT PROVES ABSOLUTLY NOTHING . For if there is no god, then discovering the natural order of the universe may well explain its origins. However, it is also conceievable that science is simply the cataloging of God's methodology. SO any scientist who thinks he's disproving the exsitance of god by discovering the workings of nature may only be explaining how god did his work.

These questions are now and will for millenia be beyond the grasp of our feable minds, and while we can work towards a better understanding of the universe and all of its intricacies, you nor I nor anyone of our time will ever know the truth.

[ 09-12-2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

[goaliejerry]

Oh and Dragon Lady, when dredd talks about the uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds, he's talking about language, and civilization. Biologically we are not unique, however we think, reason, articulate, and understand. We build, and study, and imagine, and love. Your claim that we are not unique or that our minds are not powerful is pish-posh, aren't we fathoming the nature of god and existance here? Get a monkey to do that...

Put a scientific value on love...

[ 09-12-2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Ok, so we canÔÇÖt explain a phenomenon and thus it must be god. Typical religious thinking. LetÔÇÖs assume that you are correct, and that some entity has to have caused the big bang (never mind that there is no evidence to suggest this). Since that entity had to come from somewhere, which is supposedly impossible before the big bang, then it has to be god. There is simply no basis for making that jump, just because itÔÇÖs something we donÔÇÖt understand DOESNÔÇÖT necessitate it being god.

---

There are two possibilities here that both cannot be true.

Option 1:

The universe has always existed, the big bang just existed and happened. By chance the Earth was created, by chance humans evolved to the level we are now, by chance there is an extremely strong belief in religion or a higher power throughout the world which people die for, and by chance miracles happen.

Of course, if we exist by chance, human life isn't notably valuable and there is no need for any sort of morality or law. At that point, we are simply animals, who do not have any value other than efficiency and ability to bring pleasure. If you are not useful, you should be destroyed, since under the idea that all human life is by chance, then human life has not been made higher by a God, thus morality is meaningless. The majority and groups and power should be able to do whatever they want and oppress whoever they want since, in the end, none of it matters.

Basically, that idea of creation that denies the existance of God justifies people doing whatever they want that makes them feel good while lowering humanity to the level of animals. It also says that somehow, we beat the largest odds possible, and exist without any outside help. If we find some other sentient life in the universe, that theory becomes less and less likely. If you take the current odds however, and look at all the very, very, very, very, very, very, very miniscule chance that we were created by chance, and compare it to the current scientific thinking that everything has to have a CAUSE of some sort, then it is much more likely that God exists.

Option 2:

The first step was God, who caused this to all happen or started the chain of events. Explains morality, raises humanity to a sacred level, and explains just about every objection to the idea that the universe existed by chance. Maintains that the universe was deliberate and planned.

Just because science can't prove definitively that God exists, it certainly can't disprove it, and never will be able too, since as far back as science ever determines causes, it will never be able to prove that the first cause was not God.

Sure, it's religious thinking, but it's also much more likely than the impossibility of the existance of God. I agree with you totally that much that is attributed to God can probably and will probably be explained by science, but there is absolutely no way that science can ever prove the very first step ever.

quote:

---

As far as the improbability of us being created by chance, unlikely things happen. That only proves that either A: we got really lucky, B: we donÔÇÖt understand all of what went on in the process that created life, or C: all of the above.

---

It's probably more likely, statistically, that if I jump into the air i'll float into space and then live without oxygen than we were created by chance.

quote:

---

Intrinsic order to the universe? Compared, pray tell to what? You canÔÇÖt say our universe is orderly unless you have a different universe that you can say is disorderly. Where, pray tell, did you find a second universe?

---

If we were created by chance, so was every other being, and all of the laws of science, and every other thing that science has proven to have order. Even if humanity was created by chance, there had to be some sort of plan or order or logic behind it all, and "chance" doesn't cut it, at least not at the level we know about chance. Sure, one day science may be able to explain most of it away, but it'll never be able to disprove the idea of God doing it.

quote:

---

As for miracles that cannot be explained by science, that is unsupported. There is no reason to believe that they cannot be explained by science, simply that they cannot be explained by MODERN science. A few thousand years ago a comet, the movement of the sun and mood, the planets, these could not be explained by the current level of science, but now they are. If you were to show a laser pointer to a scientist of the 14th century (or whatever passed for scientists back then) he would assure you that it was indeed magic. But that doesnÔÇÖt mean it is magic, only that it was beyond the scope of science at the time.

---

You fail to realize the inherent contradiction. If you have faith in science because it works, and then "miracles" happen now that directly contradict science and do things that science SHOULD be able to explain currently (blood coming out of statues eyes even when the statue is moved?, imprints of faces staying on cloth for years, visions?), then don't those miracles prove that the science that you believe in is flawed? At that point, having faith that God exists is just as logical as having faith that science will eventually be able to explain everything.

quote:

---

And what exactly do you mean when you say the uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds. Humanity is unique in the since it is the most evolved species on earth, but genetically were are very similar to apes (I think itÔÇÖs about a 98% match with certain species). As for the power of our minds, IÔÇÖm not sure I understand. If your referring to so called psychic powers, we need to start a whole new argument, if your referring to something else kindly explain.

---

Not talking about psychic powers. I'm talking about the fact that humans are the only species that even grasp the concept of religion, and life, and meaning of life, etc. I don't see any apes even questioning or considering the idea of God.

And to respond to Goaliejerry:

If it comes down to choosing between the universe always simply existed, and God always existed, it is much more logical to assume that God always existed, since it:

1. Is supported by science that everything has some sort of cause.

2. It takes away the concept that we somehow beat the very, very, very, very smallest odds imaginable.

3. Explains and justifies the concepts of morality and miracles.

I think I may have been incoherent toward the beginning, but i'm half asleep.

[Raven]

quote:

---

As for the difficulty or our being created by chance, well chance is independent of difficulty. While the chances may be extremely small and incomprehesible, so too is the vastness of the universe. And even if the odds are 1:1000000000000000000000, that one time could happen on the first roll.

---

Might I also add a couple of theories that suggest that there is more then simply one roll as you put it. First of all, my understanding is that the universe follows a cycle of collapse and expansion and has followed such a cycle for an unknown span of time, perhaps all eternity if indeed the universe is perpetual. This being the case, there would be an infinite number of ÔÇ£rollsÔÇØ and thus a guarantee of an infinite number of successes. Furthermore, I would like to bring up the multiple worlds theory, in which (as I understand it) all possibilities come to exist in separate universes.

quote:

---

NOW BEFORE you reactionarys jump at me here, listen to this last point. While scientific discovery does indeed dispell the unknown, and even if the "multitude of miricles" that can't be explained now are someday explained, IT PROVES ABSOLUTLY NOTHING . For if there is no god, then discovering the natural order of the universe may well explain its origins. However, it is also conceievable that science is simply the cataloging of God's methodology. SO any scientist who thinks he's disproving the exsitance of god by discovering the workings of nature may only be explaining how god did his work.

---

That is true, but we can disprove evidence that is used to claim the existence of god. The fossil record, for example, proves that there has been life on earth for a hell of a lot longer then the bible claims, and the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer then that.

Furthermore, there is no need to disprove the existence of god; rather the existence of god must be proven. Would you accept any scientific theory as truth if it was unproven and supported only by circumstantial evidence that at best proves that a lot of things are still unknown? No, and neither would anyone else, but many people would never even consider the need to prove god exists, they simply take it on faith.

quote:

---

Put a scientific value on love...

---

Neurochemistry hasnÔÇÖt gotten that far darling, but give it a couple of centuries.

quote:

---

Option 1:

The universe has always existed, the big bang just existed and happened. By chance the Earth was created, by chance humans evolved to the level we are now, by chance there is an extremely strong belief in religion or a higher power throughout the world which people die for, and by chance miracles happen.

Of course, if we exist by chance, human life isn't notably valuable and there is no need for any sort of morality or law. At that point, we are simply animals, who do not have any value other than efficiency and ability to bring pleasure. If you are not useful, you should be destroyed, since under the idea that all human life is by chance, then human life has not been made higher by a God, thus morality is meaningless. The majority and groups and power should be able to do whatever they want and oppress whoever they want since, in the end, none of it matters.

---

Thank you ever so much for vindicating my moral philosophy

First, humanities belief in a higher power isnÔÇÖt the result of chance, rather a logical conclusion of our biology. We seek to know the unknown, and for primitive civilizations that have no way to determine why things happen they make up stories explaining them. Nothing random at all about that.

And of cource, human life doesnÔÇÖt have any intrinsic value, nothing does. However, we can value human life, or anything else for that matter, as much as we choose too. We are, however, limited by our biology because it is good for a species if members of said species value the life of other members of said species as it increases to chances of reproduction and thus species survival. Thus, we tend to value human life because of our biology.

ItÔÇÖs the same with the rest of morality. Morals tend to be the kind of rules that, if followed, allow a group of humans to successfully live together and thus to thrive (that is, to reproduce). I have belabored the point of biological morality endlessly in previous threads so I shanÔÇÖt go into any greater detail unless asked to.

quote:

---

If you take the current odds however, and look at all the very, very, very, very, very, very, very miniscule chance that we were created by chance, and compare it to the current scientific thinking that everything has to have a CAUSE of some sort, then it is much more likely that God exists.

---

I believe I have made my point about that earlier in this post, consider this argument invalidated.

Furthermore, consider the probability against a being such as god existing. I canÔÇÖt calculate it, can you?

You canÔÇÖt any more prove god exists by disproving CURRENT scientific theories then you can disprove his existence by proving scientific theories. Instead, the theory of god must stand on its own, or fall, because simply saying that MODERN science canÔÇÖt explain something does NOT prove that there must be a god, or that it is unexplainable. All of the arguments given so far that claim to support god prove only that not everything is known. I know not everything is known, you donÔÇÖt need to prove that to me. I would like to see one shred of evidence that proves god exists, not simply that there is an unknown factor involved, but that there is in fact a god.

IÔÇÖm expecting this particular paragraph to be thoroughly ignored by people who are arguing for the existence of god.

quote:

---

It's probably more likely, statistically, that if I jump into the air i'll float into space and then live without oxygen than we were created by chance.

---

So your saying that the probability of you standing on an object in low earth orbit in a space suit and jumping is greater then the probability of life somewhere in the universe (or multiverse, if you believe the many worlds theory) at some point during its existence, ever. Just make sure youÔÇÖre tethered when you jump, it would be a shame if someone had to go after you.

quote:

---

If we were created by chance, so was every other being, and all of the laws of science, and every other thing that science has proven to have order. Even if humanity was created by chance, there had to be some sort of plan or order or logic behind it all, and "chance" doesn't cut it, at least not at the level we know about chance. Sure, one day science may be able to explain most of it away, but it'll never be able to disprove the idea of God doing it.

---

Again, proves nothing, the theory of god needs to be able to stand on its own, simply saying that I canÔÇÖt prove it false with inductive reasoning says nothing. You can never prove something 100% false (or 100% true) with inductive reasoning.

Your argument goes something like this, ÔÇ£well god could exist, so he does.ÔÇØ

quote:

---

You fail to realize the inherent contradiction. If you have faith in science because it works, and then "miracles" happen now that directly contradict science and do things that science SHOULD be able to explain currently (blood coming out of statues eyes even when the statue is moved?, imprints of faces staying on cloth for years, visions?), then don't those miracles prove that the science that you believe in is flawed? At that point, having faith that God exists is just as logical as having faith that science will eventually be able to explain everything.

---

Your right darling, science doesnÔÇÖt work, it doesnÔÇÖt offer increasingly more accurate explanations for phenomena, it doesnÔÇÖt provide increasingly more accurate models of how our world works (after all, we know that classical physics is more accurate then quantum physics) and it most certainly didnÔÇÖt provide the framework for the technology which allows us to have this argument.

We have hard empirical evidence that science works and that it has disproved innumerable miracles over the centuries, and we donÔÇÖt even have a scrap of empirical evidence that solidly supports the existence of god. I donÔÇÖt really think the two are comparable, and with anything but religion neither would you.

quote:

---

I'm talking about the fact that humans are the only species that even grasp the concept of religion, and life, and meaning of life, etc. I don't see any apes even questioning or considering the idea of God.

---

Yes, we are exceptionally good at self deception.

Seriously though, IÔÇÖm not arguing that we are the most advanced species on the planet, and I donÔÇÖt think anyone will, but that proves nothing.

quote:

---

If it comes down to choosing between the universe always simply existed, and God always existed, it is much more logical to assume that God always existed, since it:

1. Is supported by science that everything has some sort of cause.

2. It takes away the concept that we somehow beat the very, very, very, very smallest odds imaginable.

3. Explains and justifies the concepts of morality and miracles.

---

1. 1. Yes, everything has a cause, but only religion is so presumptuous to believe that the cause is always known. The lack of a known cause does not prove that it must be god, only that the cause is unknown.

2. I have already addressed the probability of life, consider this point invalidated.

3. Morality is explained by evolutionary biology and psychology, no need for religion. Miracles prove only that not everything is known, a concept that science most certainly accepts, but which religion (which likes everything explained) tends to reject.

Now, if anyone has any evidence that god exists, please present it, but IÔÇÖm tired of hearing evidence that proves only that some things are unknown.

[goaliejerry]

My friend before I retort let me just say I fully apreciate a good natured debate on the rationality of existance, and also fully enjoy debate that does not degrade to the "personal" level which you initially alluded to.

Because of the convention that is presented on this board, I will address your points in the order in which they were given.

I must first address the two "options" which you raise in defense of your claim of a Goddly responsibility for the formation of the universe as it currently exists.

Humans create religion to explain the unexplainable, the strong belief in god may stem from a refusal to accept that all we are is an accident or chance, people may die for it because they simply know no better. Are those that slammed into the world trade centers nobel, for they died for their fervent belief in thier god? Or could it not also be argued that this happening goes to show that belief in god is completely relitive, that one persons complete faith in a god or belief and a willingness to die for it shows nothing of the truth of such faith or belief?

I feel that your initial tie of morality to God is too presumptuous, and that you completely disregard the benefit to mankind offered by societal justice and morality. For if a society is lawfull and just, does not every memeber benefit? I'm going to have to disagree with you that morality could not exist save a higher governing being. While it is wholley possible that morality and justice, (justice being the foundation of law, which I hope you agree with) are driving mechanisms behind human existance and order, I don't think you can offer conclusive evidence that such just motivations are completely the work of God, and not the result of mutual benefaction by all parties involved.

No my friend, I must also disagree with you that a godless existance means life without morality, a sort of survival of the stongest if you will. For does morality and justice not serve the greator good of mankind, and therefore benefit the individual, who thereby might benefit from the exhibition of justice himself? Why does a god need to come into play when living the moral life is seemingly better for all of mankind? (Granted a truly and completely moral life is non-existant on this earth, and the imposition of such a life would not bide well with the populace at large!)

You state this in one line,

"Basically, that idea of creation that denies the existance of God justifies people doing whatever they want that makes them feel good while lowering humanity to the level of animals."

How so? Elaborate. This claim of yours stems from your belief that non-believers are the unjust, and that they are not worthy of gods graces. You fail to offer support for this claim and quickly move onto your next point which is equally indefensible. I contend that morality in and of itself, seperate and disconnected from god, does not allow people to act unjustly, and those that do act unjust (disregarding the psycopathic) know that they are doing so out of understanding of what is just. You see god does not have to exsist for morality to be beneficial, morality can exist for the betterment of all man.

My friend, you are still gambling with the notion of god, placing your complete faith in it's exsistance, as opposed to allowing for chance. You say its more likely that an all powerful being whose presense and influence can be nothing but infered created all that we know and will know.

You grasp at straws, you use words like "likly" and "chance" when explaining you reasoning for god. Why is it not "there is a god" or "god willed it to be." You seem to be falling into the comfort of the probable (which I would contend is not so) and completely denying the possible.

"If we were created by chance, so was every other being, and all of the laws of science, and every other thing that science has proven to have order. Even if humanity was created by chance, there had to be some sort of plan or order or logic behind it all, and "chance" doesn't cut it, at least not at the level we know about chance. Sure, one day science may be able to explain most of it away, but it'll never be able to disprove the idea of God doing it."

Ahh very good, while I would change the wording where you say "chance doesn't cut it," for by the nature of chance, it very well might. But you are correct, science will not be able to disprove the existance of god. However, it won't be able to prove the existance either. And I'm sure you'll agree, a lack of disproof does not constitute proof. No evidence exists to prove I killed the poor girl, so does that mean I absolutly didn't?

And lastly, I will address your three reasons for the existance of god, and forgive me, but show that they are wholly inadequate.

"1. Is supported by science that everything has some sort of cause.

2. It takes away the concept that we somehow beat the very, very, very, very smallest odds imaginable.

3. Explains and justifies the concepts of morality and miracles."

1. True

2. Yes but this is wishful thinking, and when faith factors into the equation it diminishes all reliability. Just because somehthing is easier to grasp when thought of a certain way doesn't mean it's true.

If process A has 50 steps, and process B has 2, and both processes lead to the same outcome, and neither process is refutable, which is easier to understand? Which lends itself to more a more comfortable grasping of?

3. No. As far as miricles, I don't want to address this, for we've already mentioned that such occurances may be simply misunderstood natural occurences. But your desire to require a god in your explaination of morality is simply an attempt to intertwine your faith with the nature of human existance. You fail completely to offer any compeling reason why morality must be tied to a god. Is it not possible for a human to act justly without any knowledge of the teaching of the lord? Isn't justice a situational reality that occurs in human interactions without any sort of devine intervention? We can't say "that man was unjust by moving that rock from it's resting place." No, justice exists between humans, and through its existance, benefits the "good" of all people.

Finally, since the main contenders in this debate have offered brief synapsis' of there backround, let me lay mine down.

Raised roman catholic, not strict, not confirmed, cannot say with certainty no god exists, however lean towards disbelief. Philosophy major, thinker, attempts to approch debates with nutrality, however also realizes that such an apporch is impossible. Not certain of anything, questioning anything, dismissive ONLY of those who are dismissive of others ideas. Live for discourse, enjoy informed debate, completely able to modify views if offered wholly compeling arguements.

Thats all friends, I will check back soon and look forward to the continuation of our discussion here.

[ 09-13-2002, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

[Cruis.In]

what about your mind...is your "mind" a physical part of you? I want to see a picture of a mind.

[goaliejerry]

GRRRR I am sleepy, however to address right quick Dragon Ladys first point on my rhetoric. It was my understanding that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, and that the current theroy of universal structure was one in which all expands into infinity and will not ever collapse on itself again, and as a result the universe is flat, and will not collapse on itself. There was quite the quiet uproar if I am not mistaken, and this news made the cover of time as well as extensive coverage in national geographic. Conclusive proof was presented that the universe will continue to expand into infinity, so everything seemingly happens once Now, you must give me some time to collect the articles I call into play, but things would be much easier if you at least acknowledged that I am not making this up. I will find them though, and point you towards them. They make for quite facinating reading!

And you contradict yourself quite blatently!

Here:

"That is true, but we can disprove evidence that is used to claim the existence of god. The fossil record, for example, proves that there has been life on earth for a hell of a lot longer then the bible claims, and the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer then that.

Furthermore, there is no need to disprove the existence of god; rather the existence of god must be proven. Would you accept any scientific theory as truth if it was unproven and supported only by circumstantial evidence that at best proves that a lot of things are still unknown? No, and neither would anyone else, but many people would never even consider the need to prove god exists, they simply take it on faith."

First you say that we can disprove the exsistance of god, but then you say that such an ability is pointless. I would just like to say that my considerations of God are not limited to the Christian sense, for if there is a god, no one as of yet has grasped its nature. So your referance to the fossil record is moot in my eyes, of course the earth wasn't created in seven days. But perhaps Genesis was all metaphorical?

AHHHH It is immensly satisfying to stretch my grey matter, regardless of the validity of anything I say!

[ 09-13-2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

[goaliejerry]

Cruis.In

Yes, great point, it seems to me that science can explain and deal with only the physical, but cannot touch the metaphysical, or rather the mind or the soul. I wanted to work this in somewhere but never did, damn its late!

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

what about your mind...is your "mind" a physical part of you? I want to see a picture of a mind.

---

Here's your mind

the brain, or the mind, is just a set of neurons that transmit or repel electrical pulses depending on the input, just like a computer, but far more complex. Seems simple, but the brain might be the most complex thing there is. And that's what makes us, us.

[Raven]

quote:

---

It was my understanding that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, and that the current theroy of universal structure was one in which all expands into infinity and will not ever collapse on itself again, and as a result the universe is flat, and will not collapse on itself. There was quite the quiet uproar if I am not mistaken, and this news made the cover of time as well as extensive coverage in national geographic. Conclusive proof was presented that the universe will continue to expand into infinity, so everything seemingly happens once

---

Just give it time; they will conclusively prove something else soon enough.

And no, before anyone tries to take this as a denial of my belief is science or some such, it isnÔÇÖt. One of the points I have belabored endlessly is that science progressively churns out more accurate models and theories, and that means that some theories are more evolved then others.

quote:

---

First you say that we can disprove the exsistance of god, but then you say that such an ability is pointless. I would just like to say that my considerations of God are not limited to the Christian sense, for if there is a god, no one as of yet has grasped its nature. So your referance to the fossil record is moot in my eyes, of course the earth wasn't created in seven days. But perhaps Genesis was all metaphorical?

---

Actually I was saying we can disprove evidence that is used to support the existence of god, such as the bible. Actually disproving god, as I mentioned in my post, is impossible. But even though we canÔÇÖt conclusively disprove god, we can still discredit the belief in him by disproving various bits of evidence that are said to support his existence.

quote:

---

the brain, or the mind, is just a set of neurons that transmit or repel electrical pulses depending on the input, just like a computer, but far more complex. Seems simple, but the brain might be the most complex thing there is. And that's what makes us, us.

---

Thank you Epsilon 5, that is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

[Guest]

I shall toss my 2 cents in here just for fun.

The bible can be disproven in a number of ways, I will not go into them here. The history of the bible itself is suspect. The question of Jesus, did he actually die on a cross? was he actually crucified?Did he actually rise from the dead? Why was he called Rabbi when the bible claims that he was NOT married, etc. etc. and the the true meaning of Messiah also puts Christianity on a very thin piece of ice.

The existence of god CANNOT be proven nor disproven. It is a metaphysical question.

To believe in god, you must have FAITH that he/she/it exists. Faith does not need proof in order to believe something, that is why it is called faith.

If any of you get the opportunity to see the movie "Dogma" rent it, I found it absolutely hilarious!!

[ 09-13-2002, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]