Religion?

[PatrickJameson]

sorry I forgot the link, Patrick... I posted it before. there is more to that text than what I copied and pasted. scroll down to article three, unless you want to read everything else. http://newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

I'll read that in a bit. To be honest everything written in that style is quite the mouthful to read.

what else could it be? a thing? a self existent thing? O.o even if it is a self existent thing, or an energy, you should understand that THIS thing is what people worship and consider to be "God". (except some people who worship God have an idea of Him as being this man with a big long beard sitting in a cloud watching everybody on earth. *cough cough*)

what natural events which were attributed to God were proven not to be? can you give an example? say the parting of the red sea, they say it was a large wind. thats a big possibility, but what is the cause of that wind? ultimately everything goes back to cause.

Lightning, thunder, rain, the sun rising and setting, earthquakes; I could go on and on. Many religions have had gods whom the followers believe controlled each of these events I listed. All of them can be explained without a need for anything supernatural.

Also, this is a very good question, "what else could it be?". This is a flawed reason to believe that god exists. We can't just stick in, "god did it" in place for everything that we don't yet understand. One, it makes us satisfied with what we know thus far, making us lack the desire to further science and our understanding of the universe. Two, over time, more and more of what was once attributed to a god has been proven to be of natural causes, not supernatural.

As for an initial cause, we basically just need to figure how how the matter initially got here. Basically everything from the creation of matter to present can be explained without supernatural involvement. But scientists are working on it. Maybe we'll figure it out, maybe we won't. But we can't just say, "god did it," as there's no tangible evidence that a god was actually involved. By saying, "god did it," it seems as though we are giving up in our search for the truth.

And hey, maybe your god will show up and prove us wrong once he realizes that it would not be against free will to actually tell us he exists. Free will exists in this context for us to decide subjective matters, not objective. Either a god exists or a god doesn't exist. There's nothing subjective about it.

Oh, and I give the most civilized, the most polite, and ultimately the most CONVINCING atheist award to Patrick Jameson! (if my opinion even means anything anymore...) haha

 

[anders]

My view on religion is that it is, or at least has been, evolutionary advantageous to belive in a god or gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion).

 

[Nestor]

My view on religion is that it is, or at least has been, evolutionary advantageous to belive in a god or gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion).

Just as body hair once was.

 

[zmikecuber]

Lightning, thunder, rain, the sun rising and setting, earthquakes; I could go on and on. Many religions have had gods whom the followers believe controlled each of these events I listed. All of them can be explained without a need for anything supernatural.

Also, this is a very good question, "what else could it be?". This is a flawed reason to believe that god exists. We can't just stick in, "god did it" in place for everything that we don't yet understand. One, it makes us satisfied with what we know thus far, making us lack the desire to further science and our understanding of the universe. Two, over time, more and more of what was once attributed to a god has been proven to be of natural causes, not supernatural.

As for an initial cause, we basically just need to figure how how the matter initially got here. Basically everything from the creation of matter to present can be explained without supernatural involvement. But scientists are working on it. Maybe we'll figure it out, maybe we won't. But we can't just say, "god did it," as there's no tangible evidence that a god was actually involved. By saying, "god did it," it seems as though we are giving up in our search for the truth.

And hey, maybe your god will show up and prove us wrong once he realizes that it would not be against free will to actually tell us he exists. Free will exists in this context for us to decide subjective matters, not objective. Either a god exists or a god doesn't exist. There's nothing subjective about it.

Im not saying that I believe this, but proving that something has a "natural cause" does not disprove God, or any "gods".

For example Zeus. (I think I've gone into this before..) People thought he threw lightning out of the sky, but now we know the real reason for lightning. Does this disprove Zeus? Of course not. If Zeus was really God, and was almighty, he could use natural means to do what he wanted.

We can't just stick in, "god did it" in place for everything that we don't yet understand. One, it makes us satisfied with what we know thus far, making us lack the desire to further science and our understanding of the universe.

well I think we can to some extent stick "god did it". However, that doesnt make us undesired to find further scientific understanding of the universe. (at least definitely not for me personally. I still love watching NOVA ) But, HOW did he do it? thats the question that I would love to know. because things cant simply be their own cause, can they?

How can we find out scientifically if at one point scientific laws did not exist? Does science have a beginning?

Perhaps the cause for the universe wasnt god. maybe it was a type of mathematical function.. but if that is the case, then this mathematical function must be eternal. sounds a bit more like god now, doesnt it? (anything you put here for the first cause can be defined as God philosophically. or impossible.) and what caused this scientific mathematical function? can we ever know?

I think the answer is no. we cant really comprehend how the universe was caused into existence. (I might be wrong!!). much like Thomas Aquinas says we cant comprehend what God IS, but we can comprehend what He's not, and then draw conclusions as to what He must be.

another thing to remember is that if all this is true, then God is more of a being than a person. If you know what I mean, more defined as "the uncaused cause" rather than "the man in the sky".

I'll read that in a bit. To be honest everything written in that style is quite the mouthful to read.

there I agree with you completely. imagine if it was the original version in latin... I would love to translate that sometime... but even if you disagree with him, I find it amazing how much he says CLEARLY in such few words. such as his definition of motion being simply the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.

By saying, "god did it," it seems as though we are giving up in our search for the truth.

not really. I think people believe we're finding the truth by saying that, but yeah. religion does not discourage science or encourage blind belief in God. many famous scientists have been Catholic or religious people, or have believed in God. apparently their religion did not discourage them from their scientific discoveries.

 

[Godmil]

...I think we can to some extent stick "god did it". However, that doesnt make us undesired to find further scientific understanding of the universe.... religion does not discourage science or encourage blind belief in God....

Well I'm afraid there is an easy way of finding out. There was a time that the Church ruled the western world, which we call the dark ages. It lasted many hundred of years in which time the development of human knowledge pretty much stopped dead. There was some progress in the arts/crafts and agriculture but that was it. What the church did was take the work of Aristotle (who for his sins tried too hard to catagorise everything) and realised with some chopping and changing they could have a seemingly complete system for understanding the physical world. And that was it! No more thinking needed to be done, we had all the answers. It wasn't until the age of enlightment that people started developing new knowledge inspite of (and so punished by) the church. The current method of aquiring and testing knowledge (the scientific method) deliberatly doesn't presuppose there is a god... the motivations of the people doing the work are entirely personal (may be atheistic, could be theistic and 'trying to understand god'), and has no influence on the system.

Does science have a beginning?

Yes of course, Science isn't a physical thing, it's a method for doing something, so it started with Humans testing/exploring ideas and developing an understanding of the natural world.

How can we find out scientifically if at one point scientific laws did not exist?

By scientific laws, I pressume you mean natural laws. Then yes, it's well known that the closer you get to the beginning of the big bang the more the laws of the current universe break down.

Also I should point out that there is a lot of talk of before the big bang... but that isn't an obvious statement to make. Remember time itself started at the big bang. It may be possible that the big bang was always starting and didn't have an actual origin.

If Zeus was really God, and was almighty, he could use natural means to do what he wanted.

And if every 'act of god' is manifest though natural means, then how can it be distiguished from just natural means, it kinda breaks down any pretense of a logical reason for the existance of a god.

 

[zmikecuber]

Also I should point out that there is a lot of talk of before the big bang... but that isn't an obvious statement to make. Remember time itself started at the big bang. It may be possible that the big bang was always starting and didn't have an actual origin.

look up "actual infinite". you are essentially here denying a first cause of the universe, and affirming the existence of an "actual infinite", which is impossible. perhaps the big bang started itself? but there MUST be a beginning, otherwise... there is no beginning, and thus could be no middle, etc. etc. how can there be anything if there is no beginning? once again, look up "actual infinite".

Well I'm afraid there is an easy way of finding out. There was a time that the Church ruled the western world, which we call the dark ages. It lasted many hundred of years in which time the development of human knowledge pretty much stopped dead. There was some progress in the arts/crafts and agriculture but that was it. What the church did was take the work of Aristotle (who for his sins tried too hard to catagorise everything) and realised with some chopping and changing they could have a seemingly complete system for understanding the physical world. And that was it! No more thinking needed to be done, we had all the answers.

not saying I disagree, but can you provide some references?

the motivations of the people doing the work are entirely personal (may be atheistic, could be theistic and 'trying to understand god'), and has no influence on the system.

agreed. where did I say otherwise...?

And if every 'act of god' is manifest though natural means, then how can it be distiguished from just natural means, it kinda breaks down any pretense of a logical reason for the existance of a god.

I never said *every* act of god is manifest through natural means. where did I say that? please dont take me out of context. :rolleyes:

By scientific laws, I pressume you mean natural laws. Then yes, it's well known that the closer you get to the beginning of the big bang the more the laws of the current universe break down.

how far do they break down? do they break down to no laws whatsoever?

where does the ability to exist come from?

is there a first cause to the universe? If so, why isn't God a logical answer to assume could be very well correct, unless we find otherwise?

either God exists or He doesnt. either its true or false. like patrick said, theres nothing subjective about it.

 

[Godmil]

look up "actual infinite".

ok, will do.

not saying I disagree, but can you provide some references?

Not at the moment... though a quick looks leads me to think I may have generalised a bit too heavily, a few causes of the lack of human development were that they was a hellava lot of wars, and things like the black death. Though I'm sure the aristatilian tradition was cemented in the church, and that's why Gallileo's research which contradicted it went down so badly.

agreed. where did I say otherwise...?

oh, I guess I'm not arguing then

I never said *every* act of god is manifest through natural means.

Okie dokie, another mistake on my part.

how far do they break down?

Quite a lot, most of the laws of physics just go completely out of the window with the crazy amounts of concentrated energy the further into the big bang you go.
[edit] ok, looked it up, the Plank Epoch when the time was 0 to 10^-43 seconds is when everything was crazy and all our current physics goes out the window. Though I guess a unified Relativity/Quantum Mech theory would certainly help, but that's some way off.

where does the ability to exist come from? is there a first cause to the universe? If so, why isn't God a logical answer to assume could be very well correct, unless we find otherwise?

Because a lack of knowledge of something, is not the same as a reason to think another thing must be the case. It's a nonsequitor.

EDIT:

you are essentially here denying a first cause of the universe, and affirming the existence of an "actual infinite", which is impossible.....
.....this mathematical function must be eternal. sounds a bit more like god now, doesnt it?

So something that is infinite is impossible.... but you're totally happy with the idea that god is 'eternal'?

 

[zmikecuber]

about the galileo case... I will reply to that later. there was error on certain cardinals I believe, but I have heard that the reason that the Church did not want Galileo preaching his beliefs as fact was because it would have caused great disturbance to the people, and certain parts of Galileo's discoveries had not been proved yet. (please dont quote me on this just yet, like I said, I will reply later. gonna read up a little bit first.. )

Because a lack of knowledge of something, is not the same as a reason to think another thing must be the case. It's a nonsequitor.

how is it a non sequitor? (sorry if I dont understand your point. sometimes I really do believe I am dumb. oh and I see latin ) Is God a possibility for the first cause? we have found no other possibilities for the first cause, and I dont believe we will. why can't we assume that God is the only possibility with our present knowledge?

what about the theory of evolution? we believe that to be true, although I dont think we have completely proved it...? (correct me if Im wrong here)

ok, lets assume for the sake of argument that theres a first cause.

1. There is a first cause.
2. We do not know *what* this first cause is. (though I tend to disagree here. using logic and philosophy it can be proved that the only thing that could be a first cause is a free agent. I will post on that later.. I need to discuss this with one of my philosopher atheist aruguer friends. .)
3. The concept of God does work if placed as the first cause.
4. Therefore (with our present knowledge) God is the only possibility for the first cause at this point in time. (Im not asking you to say that God IS the first cause, but right now it's the only possibility we have)

can we agree on this?

oh and dont worry about taking some things I said wrong... I could have been more clear, and I've already done the same thing on this thread. heh heh

 

[Cube-Fu]

Any scientist saying that the universe started with a big-bang, might as well be saying it started with God, as there is no concrete definition for either, that can be proved. Any devout religion follower, should not ignore the scientific side of things, as the world very much exists here and now, and has certain laws which can describe it. For the scientific, I say, studying God, is like trying to study the dark, turning on the light to see by. And to the religious, if God created all things real and moral alike, then He, is responsible for all things, even atheists, so be gentle. Personally, I feel I'm extremely religious, as I believe God to be the founder of all things and ever present in everything and between; I also study survival skills, medicines, physics and the martial arts. I don't believe in an after-life, or the bible, but I do believe that Jesus was real, and that science will never be able to map and understand everything. And a good thing too, as it's no fun without the mystery; in other words, trust in God, to do whatever he deems fit, and don't be upset when it's time to go, as you were lucky enough to have a shot at it. In the name of the Fire, the Water and the bleedin' great big Stick.
Our Mum

 

[Muesli]

As I see it, the universe is a Web Browser, and God is one of those stupid yahoo search-bar toolbars.

It's man made, it's not needed, it's not useful and it's not meant to be there. They're often also pushed on you when you're not (computer) savvy enough to know what you're accepting However, some people might want it there.

Except the fact that there's solid evidence for the toolbars...




EDIT

Also,

Any scientist saying that the universe started with a big-bang, might as well be saying it started with God,

No.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

I'm curious how many atheists have done solid research into evidences for God. And I'm not talking research from the perspective of atheism. Just research.

 

[Muesli]

I'm curious how many atheists have done solid research into evidences for God. And I'm not talking research from the perspective of atheism. Just research.

As I see it an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnijaffacake God should be pretty easy to come across. Especially if he blames us for not being convinced by him and sends us to hell.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

As I see it an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnijaffacake God should be pretty easy to come across. Especially if he blames us for not being convinced by him and sends us to hell.

My apologies to whomever believes in that being, that sounds terrible. I'm glad the Bible doesn't describe a God like that.

Secondly, you didn't answer my question. You simply redirected it by trying to make me look foolish. That doesn't sound very objective to me. In all honesty, I'm just curious. How many atheist have objectively searched out evidences for the opposing side of the argument. If you don't legitimately (legit being the key word here) consider the opposing arguments, there is no objectivity in any decision.

 

[Specs112]

I didn't ask if any of you have read the Bible. I asked if any of you have legitimately researched evidences for God.

As far as I can tell, when your entire system is based off one book those two things are pretty much equivalent. Tell me, what would one do to "legitimately" research this?

I'm pretty much waiting for more of this thread's regulars to get back in here, since they probably have a good rebuttal for you. I'm just going to play along with what you're saying.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

As far as I can tell, when your entire system is based off one book those two things are pretty much equivalent. Tell me, what would one do to "legitimately" research this?

I'm pretty much waiting for more of this thread's regulars to get back in here, since they probably have a good rebuttal for you. I'm just going to play along with what you're saying.

Well I have two answers here, and then I have to leave for classes.

First, the Christian's system of worship and lifestyle is based off of the Bible, but the existence of God is not based off of the Bible. If that was the case, before the Bible was written and compiled we would have no way to acknowledge God's existence. To assume that researching the existence of God and researching the Bible are the same thing is misinformed.

Secondly, to research the existence of God you could read at least some of the volumes of books on the subject. That would be a good start, don't you think? To research the legitimacy of the Bible, you could do the same thing. Contrary to what is popularly presented, there is clash in the intelectual world on both those subjects.

::EDIT:: Also, here's a super-nutshelled version of what I mean by legitimate. I mean that you go into the research with the view that we don't know if there is or isn't a God. That should always be the starting point for both sides of the argument. You are claiming absolute knowledge on the subject as soon as you say He does or doesn't exist, and what's the point of research if you already know the answer, right?

 

[Specs112]

How would reading volumes of books on the subject qualify as legitimate research? All the books are going to do is push whatever view the author happens to have while ignoring valid points. Using the word "research" would indicate that some attempt at obtaining evidence of existence is being made.

 

[Muesli]

My apologies to whomever believes in that being, that sounds terrible. I'm glad the Bible doesn't describe a God like that.

Secondly, you didn't answer my question. You simply redirected it by trying to make me look foolish. That doesn't sound very objective to me. In all honesty, I'm just curious. How many atheist have objectively searched out evidences for the opposing side of the argument. If you don't legitimately (legit being the key word here) consider the opposing arguments, there is no objectivity in any decision.

There's no objectivity in any decision. But that's besides the point.

The point I made wasn't meant to show you to be foolish (although it seems it did). I could have been clearer, but you asked me if I had done any thorough research into whether a God exists or not. All I did was counter argue that, if God is as great and as glorious as you say he is, surely he should be apparent in all of 'his creation'?

If he really is as all loving and merciful as he is portrayed then he must want me to be saved. At the moment I'm damned because he's apparently too elusive for me and every other non-Christian on the planet to spot.

And as for Hell, what happens to me after I'm dead then? If you're going to ascend to heaven for an eternity of ass-kissing then what happens to me?

The bible is proof enough that god exists. How could a single book bring so many people together in harmony? It has to be given by god, or otherwise it would not have that kind of power. Man used to be in disarray, but because of Christianity the world is what it is today.

No, you should not need proof that god exists. He just does. If you don't accept it your going to hell.

trolololololooololololol

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

How would reading volumes of books on the subject qualify as legitimate research? All the books are going to do is push whatever view the author happens to have while ignoring valid points. Using the word "research" would indicate that some attempt at obtaining evidence of existence is being made.

I didn't say read volumes of books, I said that reading a few would be a good place to start. Also, you'd be surprised at how often Biblical scholars and apologists do NOT ignore valid points. You're making assumptions without having read any of the books you so readily bash. Also, if you're going to play a semantics game with the word research, how about I simply rephrase it as, attempt to gain knowledge. Does that satisfy you?

Some books I would suggest are: Mere Christianity, He is There and He is Not Silent, Beyond Opinion, Darwin's Black Box, and a few others that if you're interested you can ask about. I have a feeling however that you have no inclination to even consider the opposing arguments. If that is the case, there's no point in any further discussion.

 

[Muesli]

I didn't say read volumes of books, I said that reading a few would be a good place to start. Also, you'd be surprised at how often Biblical scholars and apologists do NOT ignore valid points. You're making assumptions without having read any of the books you so readily bash. Also, if you're going to play a semantics game with the word research, how about I simply rephrase it as, attempt to gain knowledge. Does that satisfy you?

Some books I would suggest are: Mere Christianity, He is There and He is Not Silent, Beyond Opinion, Darwin's Black Box, and a few others that if you're interested you can ask about. I have a feeling however that you have no inclination to even consider the opposing arguments. If that is the case, there's no point in any further discussion.

Or you could save us all the time and the money and just present the arguments here? If God is so obvious he should be possible to prove on a website. I don't have the time to waste on these charlatans. I have CoD to play.

 

[Specs112]

Or you could save us all the time and the money and just present the arguments here? If God is so obvious he should be possible to prove on a website. I don't have the time to waste on these charlatans. I have CoD to play.

This. (EDIT: This, except I have Skyrim to play.)

I only try to spread the word of god to the misinformed younger generation.

...