Let's Discuss God: Now Kid Friendly and Mother Approved

[Solstis]

Title Now Accurately Matches The Post. :)

Atheism holds that God/god/deities in general does not/do not exist.

Agnostics believe that God may or may not exist.

There are many permutations there-of.

For the sake of discussion, let us assume that God is an infinite "something." "Something" cannot be accurately defined because it is infinite.

Under the above assumption, God must then be everything in existence, and everything not held to be existent (concepts, ideas, etc). When people say that the physical Universe is infinite, it is because the boundaries of the Universe cannot be defined, not that the Universe contains or is everything. A table, if you wanted to be the annoying person at the dinner party, can be claimed to be infinite since the edge is not definite; it can be seen to some degrees, but atoms have a funny habit of moving (and there are smaller bits than atoms).

If God is everything, it is somewhat correct to say that God did "such and such." As in, God saved Narnia. This is because God is Narnia. God is also Aslan. God is also a poor family of talking badgers.

Disbelief in God, then, is irrelevant. You might as well not believe in yourself. It is nothing to be proud of, not any more than achieving a High Score in the latest video game (and yet everything to be proud of). If God is everything, than everything in the whole general mish-mash is the same. You can look at it from a scientific perspective if you want to, but I don't feel like bumbling around quantum physics more than I already have. Sciencey people get annoyed when you start talking too much about theoretical and philosophical implications.

But Solstis! The Narnia example doesn't make sense! Narnia isn't real! Well, Hypotheticus, I already accounted for that, read again.

But Solstis! If God is everything and everything is equivalent, is there a point to life? No Hypotheticus, no there isn't. There is also no point to not living and not having fun, so do it anyway.

But Solstis, X point you posed doesn't make any sense or lacks enough support! Well, that doesn't matter, does it?

But Solstis, I read the first three lines and these last two because I'm lazy! Okay.

But Solstis! Yes, I did do that on purpose. No, not that. Yes, that.

[Nitro Vordex]

So if God is everything, then we are God?

[Solstis]

So if God is everything, then we are God?

Part of, but to such a small degree that begs me to use the word "irrelevant." But totally relevant at the same time. But the relevancy isn't important.

I'm getting tired and I'm having a hard time constructing the spiral in my mind.

[Nitro Vordex]

Oh well. I suppose I'm agnostic. Or something.

I believe it's not the power of God; it's the power of faith.

[Shadowpawn]

So whenever someone is arguing with another person, God is arguing with itself. Therefore God has MPD.

[Solstis]

Oh well. I suppose I'm agnostic. Or something.

I believe it's not the power of God; it's the power of faith.

What you said basically denies the existence of God. My whole point was to prove the existence of God. Then again, God needs no proof, nor my approval.

Also, I read a lot of manga, can I assume that you do too?

The power of faith assumes much not only on the part of God, but on the believer. It falls into the ideal that humanity is the apex of creation, because not only can we believe, but if we believe strongly enough, we can access a hidden mode of evolution or something (laser beams, magic, etc).

Erm, Shadowpawn, since God is and does everything simultaneously, yes, but it's not a disorder. God is every personality.

[Shadowpawn]

But if God is everything and everyone and therefore has our collective knowledge of disorders then how can God NOT classify it as an disorder?

[Solstis]

But if God is everything and everyone and therefore has our collective knowledge of disorders then how can God NOT classify it as an disorder?

Nothing is a disorder because everything is relative. Since God is infinite, the label of disorder is relative to infinity, so multiple personality disorder is a disorder and every other possible label at the same time. Also, multiple personality disorder describes an infinite set of conditions with no definite start-point or end. The term "multiple personality disorder" then describes so many attributes that if infinity is taken in to account, describes nothing.

It is also a label that humans invented, and thus, is by necessity flawed and limited. And don't pull the "but Humans are God, so what we do is perfect card." I'll just pull the irrelevant card again.

[Magus_84]

One could make the case that the concept of God is a label that humans invented, and thus by necessity flawed and limited.

Or that, since your original premise started out with an assumption, that the assumption is also flawed and limited.

With such a broad concept of God as the one you're introducing, doesn't it get a bit past the point where flawed and limited humans are even able of conceptualizing? Leading to an ever-increasing spiral of errors, until you get to the point where even imagining the basic concept is subject to a thousand different divergences that could each be completely wrong?

Or, in other terms...doesn't it get to the point where the standard images of the standard Judeo-Christian deity become as flawed a label as you've mentioned, and that the distinctions between that religious tradition and any other become equally flawed? And that the usual actions of people who follow those traditions tend to quickly invalidate any sense of their being guided by a benign higher power?

Since worshippers of that particular deific tradition are usually the ones who tend to spend their time on message boards dreaming up thought experiments to somehow cover every possible contingency against their being wrong?

Yeah. >_>

I tend to have trouble believing what people tell me to believe when their entire belief structure can be traced back to someone telling someone else or many someone elses to believe part of a a series of scriptures but not the parts that disagree with what they believe.

Especially the parts that tend to take out the "do unto others as they would do unto you" messages for those that can be twisted to empower one group at the expense of another, in the name of a holy conviction.

Your mileage, obviously, will vary.

[CelestialBlade]

But can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, he can't eat it?

Stupid arguments like this are a big part of why I'm an Agnostic. Maybe a "god" exists, maybe multiple exist, maybe none exist. If it does exist, surely a deity that created this universe would be far, far beyond the comprehension of the human mind, making arguments like these completely moot. Us humans love to think we understand everything in the universe and we love to bring "God" to our level, because we're a self-important species. I'm of the belief that if something exists, our minds couldn't comprehend it and I'm sure it doesn't give a shit about one little species on one little planet.

God exists because humans are self-important. True story.

[Shadowpawn]

@ Solstis: So what you're saying is there must be two sets of logic, those of the mortal and those of the divine and somehow God having MPD is flawed logic because God is beyond all comprehension of mortal logic. Given that how is it possible to have God be apart of everyone and be the encompassing collective of are knowledge and not be subject to our modes of reasoning? The idea of defending God whilst placing God on a plateau so high that God can not subject to our labels despite the fact that God is itself a label invented by humans to describe perfection is somewhat perplexing.

Is your argument not subject to fallacy?

[Solstis]

Or that, since your original premise started out with an assumption, that the assumption is also flawed and limited.

With such a broad concept of God as the one you're introducing, doesn't it get a bit past the point where flawed and limited humans are even able of conceptualizing? Leading to an ever-increasing spiral of errors, until you get to the point where even imagining the basic concept is subject to a thousand different divergences that could each be completely wrong?


Absolutely. The spiral is the most exciting part. My initial assumption is possibly incorrect, correct, or a combination of the two. The fun part of the spiral is that my initial assumption is not the start-point. It didn't even begin in my childhood. It came from elsewhere, societal influences that go back so far, that tracing them begins to stink of folly.



Or, in other terms...doesn't it get to the point where the standard images of the standard Judeo-Christian deity become as flawed a label as you've mentioned, and that the distinctions between that religious tradition and any other become equally flawed? And that the usual actions of people who follow those traditions tend to quickly invalidate any sense of their being guided by a benign higher power?


Hm.



Since worshippers of that particular deific tradition are usually the ones who tend to spend their time on message boards dreaming up thought experiments to somehow cover every possible contingency against their being wrong?

Yeah. >_>

I tend to have trouble believing what people tell me to believe when their entire belief structure can be traced back to someone telling someone else or many someone elses to believe part of a a series of scriptures but not the parts that disagree with what they believe.

Your mileage, obviously, will vary.

Here, I am unsure as to whether or not you are painting me as a Jesus-freak gone crazy or not. I certainly did create a thought experiment, though it's been rolling in my head in various forms or another for quite a while. I'm not substantiating my Judeo-Christian beliefs. I'm substantiating my Post-Structuralist fascination with how fragments connect and, yet, my inability to find or understand the source of the connections.

I am challenging the Judeo-Christian format, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Probably some other formats I'm unaware of as well. To clear things up, I'm not a deist, and though I do hold on to some shreds of my Judeo-Christian upbringing, I do realize what they are. Sorta.

@Shadow: My argument is definitely subject to fallacy. It's an argument. If it weren't, I would be omniscient. The only thing I can do is continuously hedge and alter.

[Darkly]

this being told by my physics teacher, but the stores a little old in my memory, anyway the whole God business creating the universe, well i heard to disprove God they wanted to prove that the universe expanding and eventually retracting again in an infinite cycle.

However the problem arose that examining the current energy in the system, it's not enough to make the universe retract - or something like that - which means that the big bang theory is a linear process which accidently proves the eistence of God.

So i suppose im an agnostic, i would rather belive that i have some kind of free will and that there isn't a kind of human God who amde me just to life a life for him for his amusement.
If anything i think i reject the idea of heaven more than anything - living forever? boring.

I put any talk of faith and religion at the back of my mind, i suppose i have a weak opinion on the subject but it doesnt matter in todays place so i just accept how things are and enjoy it.

[Magus_84]

I was saying that it's possible you're a "Jesus-freak gone crazy". And that if you degenerated into ranting and raving, it's very likely that you were.

But you seem to be approaching this as more a thought experiment, and trying to discard the trappings of what you've been taught to visualize what may be impossible to visualize. The topic title and the posting in rants threw me off.

I accept that I don't know everything, or even a substantial portion of anything. I take issue when people discard logic and reason to do things that harm themselves or others, in the process of assuming they understand that which is, by definition, impossible to fully understand.

It's much the same as comparing two different hypothetical career paths, at least to my mind.

One kid goes to school, studies hard and applies himself. He ends up in a job that, though it may have its downsides, is steady work in an environment he can stand. His life will be boring, and he won't have everything.

The other kid doesn't pay attention in class, beats up other kids for their lunch money and scrounges all the change he can find. When he turns 18, he spends all the money he's collected, along with all the money he can steal from his parents, on lottery tickets.

The second kid may very well become rich enough to pay back all the people he's crossed for all the harm he's caused, and could end up living in the lap of luxury.

But the first kid will likely be a lot more fun to be around, and 99% of the time will end up better off in the end.

The other 1% of the time, the lotto kid will be vindicated.

We (depending on who you ask) only get one, a few, or infinite chances at these two "career paths". Problem is, you don't know which of those is correct until you're already at the end of a chance.

People who forgo logic, reason and the rights of others for a chance at salvation if their imprecise human minds have somehow picked the "right" belief system are the second kid. People who, though they may have faith in some path, endeavor to do what they believe is the right thing here and now are the first.

All major faith (and major non-faith) traditions are composed of both types. I have no problem with the first. It's the second, the ones who kill, ridicule, steal, lie, cheat or belittle others in the course of reaffirming their beliefs that bother me.

This is why I'd probably be classified as an agnostic. My admittedly limited knowledge of Buddhism states that karma follows you throughout all your incarnations. My somewhat limited knowledge of some forms of Christianity state that salvation through good works alone is impossible. The problem lies in that the second part of that, the "Be Christ-like and good to your fellow man" is not as often pushed as a "rule", more as a 'suggestion'. So it tends to get lost in the crush of "damn the heathens!", "imprison the atheists!", "impose our rules on others" and "make war on the *insert other religious group here*".

With all this uncertainty, and all the horrible things that are done both in the name of and in the name of being against religion, I tend to forget that sometimes simply thinking about something this big can be enlightening, even if there's no way to ever get an answer.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic about people's ability to not be a dick to others, or too pessimistic about the human ability to comprehend the infinite. Probably both.

[Shadowpawn]

Okay, given that you openly admitted that an argument is subject to fallacy and your argument seems to thrive on the fact that God is Infinite, may I present to you my rebuttal. Suppose God is in fact infinity as we know it. Infinity is an abstract term for something that is simply not known. Of all the terms we humans have created there is one that fits infinity quite well, nothingness. Like Infinity, Nothing can not be held, it is not tangent and has no bounds. In fact one might even go as far as to Nothing is the twin sibling of Infinity. If God is everywhere and everyone at the same time, and in turn every abstract and concrete idea thought of than God is both everything and Nothing. Such a paradoxical state exist beyond the realms of logic. Our arguments are constructed by logic. Since God is out of bounds in this case, God falls into the realm of nothingness, which is Infinity. Which means that God is not defined and/or does not exist.

To go even further with this idea; since an argument, by nature, is subject to fallacy then the idea of even discussing the existence and or non-existence of God can be boiled down to pre-existing basis within the parties of the argument affecting the debate. Since the sides are already slighted to a personal basis then how can one even discuss something which is universally seen as perfection with precision? The two can not do so and the debate is moot.

[Eihwaz]

But can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, he can't eat it?

Stupid arguments like this are a big part of why I'm an Agnostic. Maybe a "god" exists, maybe multiple exist, maybe none exist. If it does exist, surely a deity that created this universe would be far, far beyond the comprehension of the human mind, making arguments like these completely moot. Us humans love to think we understand everything in the universe and we love to bring "God" to our level, because we're a self-important species. I'm of the belief that if something exists, our minds couldn't comprehend it and I'm sure it doesn't give a shit about one little species on one little planet.

God exists because humans are self-important. True story.I'd like to thank Typheros for typing out my exact feelings about this thread in concise, logical prose, and thus save me the trouble of having to type it out myself.

[Toadthroat]

I was gunna argue Solstis' points but it seems people are already doing it 10x better than I could ever dream to.

Also I agree with Typheros and Eihwaz.

[Nitro Vordex]

So wait, if I read that right, does that mean that God killed his own son? >_o

[redcell]

My thoughts exactly, Typheros.

In the end, all I need to know is that God is seven.

[Toadthroat]

So wait, if I read that right, does that mean that God killed his own son? >_o


Correct me if I'm wrong, but God pretty much KNEW Jesus was going to die, and I'm pretty sure Jesus had an idea as well.
According to Christian doctrine, Man cannot enter the gates of heaven on his own. He needs some sort of mediator, a middle man to sacrifice himself so that others may enter the gates.
Jesus was that dude.

[Nitro Vordex]

Ah. I don't know too much about General Christianity(I call it that, because Roman Catholics and other stuff is pretty much the same), because I'm planning on studying many religions, and I wanted to compare and contrast religions. Also, find the similarities and possibilities of each one.

Not for a major or anything, this is just a personal interest.

[Blitzkommando]

The best way to do that would be to read the texts of the religions you wish to study. With Christianity though you should probably read different translations of the Bible since translations do have different meanings from each other. And, really, that probably goes for any religion and its texts.

As a bit of a rebuttal here, let us say that since God is nothing and thus doesn't exist, nor do we since the universe itself at some point didn't exist. To elaborate, with the big bang theory the universe and everything, and at the same time nothing, all existed at one point as a single object and then without any known reason suddenly expanded into everything. Before that explosion to put to shame all explosions, there was nothing. Thus, we are nothing as is everything. My point? Calling nothing infinite is a non sequitur.

A: Infinity cannot be measured B: Thus infinity is both nothing and everything.

Therefore God is nothing. But for the argument to be consistent He must therefore also be everything. Therein lies your non sequitur.

Also, infinity is not simply an undefined figure. It has a specific meaning with its Latin roots. The meaning is that it is "unbounded" or "lacks any boundary". Thus, it doesn't mean "uncomprehendible" it means "lacking ends or limits". If you then believe that God has such traits, he would thus be infinite because He lacks ends or limits. Simply, infinity as a logical construct is a known and easily defined set. For something not known we use the term "unknown" or "undiscovered" or "uncharted" or any number of other proper terms.

Perhaps incomprehensible is what you were looking to use. For, we find the idea of an infinite, omnipresent being as incomprehensible. Partly because we attribute time to every action. While, with God, if he is infinite and everywhere at once time still exists but has no purpose for Him because all time to him is relative to being all time, no time, both and neither at the same time. With Him he would then be like Schrödingers Katze in respect to time due to relativity because He would exist here, there, nowhere, and everywhere at the same instant.

[Iduno]

Looking at it from a scientific viewpoint wouldn't let this last very long since a good scientist tries to DISPROVE his or her theorys until they find one they can't.

There simply isn't enough physical hard evidence to prove god exists and this argument seems to rely on taking for granted that god exists.

The OP may make the ones who believe feel happy with this post but he's not converting any atheists or agnostics with it.

[astuarlen]

Semi-OT reply to remind me to look for this in the morning and/or invite comment (and because I am much too tired to write something more relevant): I wonder why the dominant Western religions seem to have shifted from very limited, super-anthropomorphic conceptions of deity to an embrace (if not in fact but in discourse only) of ideas of deity as ineffable, limitless, etc. Or maybe it's more accurate to say religions/spiritualities supporting the latter have become dominant. Or maybe it just looks that way because we don't have a lot of authentic followers of the Greek pantheon, for instance. Or maybe it is just way too late for astuarlen to be making sense, and I should probably go to bed.

[Iduno]

Semi-OT reply to remind me to look for this in the morning and/or invite comment (and because I am much too tired to write something more relevant): I wonder why the dominant Western religions seem to have shifted from very limited, super-anthropomorphic conceptions of deity to an embrace (if not in fact but in discourse only) of ideas of deity as ineffable, limitless, etc. Or maybe it's more accurate to say religions/spiritualities supporting the latter have become dominant. Or maybe it just looks that way because we don't have a lot of authentic followers of the Greek pantheon, for instance. Or maybe it is just way too late for astuarlen to be making sense, and I should probably go to bed.

Now they are just trying to cover their collective asses as technology and science moves on

Before it was a pretty safe bet to stick heaven in the sky, but then planes came along and no-one bumped into heaven

They use to be certain the sun revolved around the earth until it was disproven

The less certain and more abstract you are about something the easier it is to avoid the difficult questions, (like how god can be omnipotent without us noticing him/her/it)

According to some biblical chronology the world is 4004 years old so its probably best for the religions themselves to be more abstract unless they want to be completely ridiculed

(btw im an atheist if you cant tell already :P )

[Solstis]

Blitz said:
Perhaps incomprehensible is what you were looking to use. For, we find the idea of an infinite, omnipresent being as incomprehensible. Partly because we attribute time to every action. While, with God, if he is infinite and everywhere at once time still exists but has no purpose for Him because all time to him is relative to being all time, no time, both and neither at the same time. With Him he would then be like Schrödingers Katze in respect to time due to relativity because He would exist here, there, nowhere, and everywhere at the same instant.

Yes, I think that probably fits better. I had an engineer yell at me about infinity before, but I forgot what he said, so thanks.

@Shadowpawn: But you discussed it anyway, didn't you? The mootness of the subject is hardly apparent if people feel the need to do it over and over again. Or does that prove exactly how interesting it is? I'm sure our egos can answer that question.

I'm actually surprised that I got coherent and relevant answers out of the topic, thanks to everyone that didn't pull a tl:dr response.

Yeah, thought experiments are exercises of vanity, but, hey, I get bored and lonely once in a while. Nice to hear my own thoughts and those of others.

I'm really more of an agnostic than anything, and am amused that agnostics and atheists tended to react more violently to the topic than others. I may have tried to make that happen on purpose? Who knows?

@Iduno

If I believe that existence is meaningless (which I do), how does that tie in with Judeo-Christianity at all? I have rejected the whole point of worship. Read closer next time. Not just the replies, but the original post.

[Shadowpawn]

@Solstis: Just because it was moot doesn't mean it wasn't worth discussing. I'm just saying no concrete point and conclusion will arise from it. However we both came into the topic knowing that.

@Blitz: I'll get back to you a little later.

Note: Just to clear up something, I'm not an atheist or agnostic, I just wanted to argue the counterpoint.

[Iduno]

Yes, I think that probably fits better. I had an engineer yell at me about infinity before, but I forgot what he said, so thanks.

@Shadowpawn: But you discussed it anyway, didn't you? The mootness of the subject is hardly apparent if people feel the need to do it over and over again. Or does that prove exactly how interesting it is? I'm sure our egos can answer that question.

I'm actually surprised that I got coherent and relevant answers out of the topic, thanks to everyone that didn't pull a tl:dr response.

Yeah, thought experiments are exercises of vanity, but, hey, I get bored and lonely once in a while. Nice to hear my own thoughts and those of others.

I'm really more of an agnostic than anything, and am amused that agnostics and atheists tended to react more violently to the topic than others. I may have tried to make that happen on purpose? Who knows?

@Iduno

If I believe that existence is meaningless (which I do), how does that tie in with Judeo-Christianity at all? I have rejected the whole point of worship. Read closer next time. Not just the replies, but the original post.

On my 2nd post I was responding to the person I quoted and not you

And on the 1st one I never mentioned a specific religion just believers in general

[MetaZedlen]

Hmm, should I open my mouth and tell you what I think about God?

I guess, being that opinions aren't being eaten alive yet by trolls...

Anyway, I was baptised Catholic as a baby, but as I got older, I noticed on how my family went to church for only a few times my entire life...

Now on to what I want to say, my beliefs in dear God himself have never changed, but my other views, if that is what anybody would want to call them, have dramatically changed over the last couple of years in high-school. For instance, one day in my Sociology class, we had a pastor (Christian) come in to share his opinion on the death penalty (which we pretty much never discussed...) and being that his was a religious individual, my class somehow got him to speak about what we all must do to go to heaven the day we die. Now him being what he is, he stated that is must accept Jesus as our savior, or we will never go through the gates. Now one of my friends is a deist (if that's spelled correctly...) and he asked what will happen when that day comes, but the pastor just said that if he doesn't believe in Jesus, then he is going to hell.

Now, the people like this are the ones I CANNOT stand, being that they treat themselves as an elite, just because they have such heavy beliefs in their religion. But the one odd thing that he said was that religion is purely man-made, and this just completely contradicted what he stated earlier about where we go when that day comes... When he said this, my thoughts came crashing down faster than anyone could ever think about, being that this genius actually had some influence on my views: and that is the fact that religion is all man-made.

Now, on our last day of school, me and another good friend of mine where driving back up to the college we go to to take care of some unfinished business at the admissions office, and on our way, the topics like this came up. So we are talking and talking about what we think, and the amazing thing is that neither of us disagree on what we are saying, for example: for those people that say God controls our every action, then explain why we were given a brain? That could be an easy excuse for the lazy people on the face of the Earth, just for them to say: "my life is a failure, and it is God's fault" People like that I just want to punch. Also, he has a girlfriend that is very heavily into Christianity, but the cool thing is that she does not force it on him in any way possible, and he is agnostic.

Lastly, I would have to consider myself a "Catholic-Agnostic" being that most of my views on life or any other big concept pretty much goes against what the Catholics believe, such as holy power into one person (the Pope), I find that to be very stupid, being that one person is higher than the others just because they have strong faith in belief...
I think the purgatory is pretty much evil, and it is just a way for the Catholic church to get money out of anybody who believes the garbage the church states...
I am very pro-death penalty, but I don't want this topic to shift in that direction...

Now some of you may want to jump through your computer screens and kill me, but remember this is all what I have to say, and I so not think of myself as better in any which way.

[Neith]

Forgive me if I go off on a tangent here. Points are not aimed at OP, but reflect my opinion on Christianity in general.

This is why I'm atheist (though not strict- I am still willing to listen to other people's beliefs). I still think God is an invention of the human race, I'd even go so far as to say he is an invention so that we have something to blame world problems on, and for someone to listen to their own problems too. This is MY opinion though, so I'd rather not be flamed over it. See below.

Like said above too, religious fanatics annoy the hell (pardon the pun) out of me. If I wanted to believe in God, or go to church, I would have done so of my OWN free will. I don't need someone forcing Bible passages/teachings down my throat, and I certainly don't need someone telling me that because of my beliefs I'm going to Hell. To be blunt, those fanatics put me off ever wanting to show myself as part of a Religion. Now I just choose to believe what I want, and if these idiots want to pressure me into converting, they're wasting their time.

I can understand people who do believe in God, and that's their right to believe that- I just wish the same shit about 'non-believers are going to Hell' and such wasn't regurgitated every time one of these fanatics decides to approach me.

As I said, I'm an atheist, but I do wonder sometimes just exactly how life started. My personal opinion is that it isn't worth getting too involved over, whether you're adamant the Big Bang started it, or share a religious point of view. Talk over it all you want, and believe whatever the hell you want, but don't start trying to force beliefs down on other people.

I'm not against people who have a religious view and believe in God, I guess I'm just sick of hearing about it, and the implications religion has on certain groups which could be seen as persecution (in particular, Homosexuals. I don't really care what's written in whatever book- if people want to be homosexual, let them for crying out loud. Before anyone asks, no, I'm heterosexual. I just think it's disgraceful how the gay community gets backlash from the church and aforementioned fanatics).

As I said, tangent, gone off on, etc. :disapprove:

[Solstis]

@Zedlen. Yeah Determinism and Fatalism can lead to a denial of accountability, which is pretty much a selfish interpretation.

@Iduno. I'm cranky when I wake up in the morning. :???:

And, yeah, I don't like how religion is often used as a tool for hate, but do like it when it's used as a tool for peace. Problem is, those facets seem to come in the same basket.

[Seority]

Looking at it from a scientifical point of veiw, nothing can be solid as to why we are here, and that God is the X factor. Since we don't know how/why everything came into existance in the first place, there for an unknown factor might be a possiblity.
I tend to believe tha things are have a purpose instead of just declining the possiblity. Could there really be a scientific conclution to why things became? Possibly, but since there isn't anything yet, I'll take my chances with that X factor.

Said X factor (aka 'a God', 'gods', etc) is undefinable. We do not know much to anything about this X factor, except the fact that it made everything. By accident or purpose, who can know?

Does X factor exist? That's up to you. If you want a reason to life, then there has to be an X factor (for now) and if you don't want a reason then there is no X factor.

Weither the X factor exists to be evertything and nothing is slightly irrelivant. We can not know completely about something we have made up to believe exist. All we know is what we believe it to be here for. That is the existance of everything. I suppose if the big bang was God just rippin one, then we are all his shit, but made from him. Are we God? Hell no, lol, but we came from God, if that's what you believe.


Now they are just trying to cover their collective asses as technology and science moves on

Before it was a pretty safe bet to stick heaven in the sky, but then planes came along and no-one bumped into heaven

They use to be certain the sun revolved around the earth until it was disproven

The less certain and more abstract you are about something the easier it is to avoid the difficult questions, (like how god can be omnipotent without us noticing him/her/it)


According to some biblical chronology the world is 4004 years old so its probably best for the religions themselves to be more abstract unless they want to be completely ridiculed

(btw im an atheist if you cant tell already :P )

Most religions have more then just our relm of existance. The popular one is the spiritual world. Heaven, to whomever, is part of that relm and not this one.
All religions are all about trying to explain / believe to know all about the unknown. That's how things work. If one way doesn't work, you find another. Yet there is a fluid that can be a solid and a liquid at the same time, which scientists can't figure out why this is completly possible because it disproves the ideal of viscosity as a remaining state. Stuff like this just happens and that's how we as a species grows and adapts by finding out and understanding the new.
I also wondered why people always take the Bible so seriously. There are metaphors, symbolism and also the factor of badly translated scriptures. Unfortunately, too many Christians of this day think that the word is so holy that everything in it is as it stands. Sure, in six time periods their God changed and altered things to his liking but I'm sure as hell that the time period is not what we think to be is 24 hours. If God made this world, he made the physics in such that science proves that this earth is a lot older then that. Science states that it took millions of years to create, so every million years God may have done something different. What is time to him anyway? He's supposed to be infinant. Saying that though, would go against sciences assumption that we came from monkeys stating that God made humans seperatly from animals. Anyway.

As far as I believe, I think there is such X factor and that he gave us life to have us live in free-will. He isn't restraining us from having it, otherwise he'd be a hypacrite to me. As for the heaven/hell business, I believe showing a "God-like" love is all you need. Pretty much putting others before yourself, doing acts of kindness, or eve just respecting those around you. If you attempted to be selfless in your life time you should be about to go to heaven, but hey, I'm not God so I can't tell you what's what. Only what I believe. I also believe that God did alter things seperatly, meaning we did not decend from apes, and that we are living in his seventh day. He is resting, meaning he isn't doing jack. Just sitting back and letting what he knows will happen, happen. If anything, he made all of this because he was bored by himself, which I can understand and I would say I'd do the same. Yes I also believe in heaven and hell. I guess thinking that I won't exist is to hard to grasp, but I'm still going to enjoy life here on earth and I will express my "God-like" love to others by being respectful of their ways of living.
I understand the gule that some have thinking they know all of God, yet being such hypacrites to their own religion. Right now, my parents tell me that they don't wish to "punish" me for what I do, but that God says they have to. This punishment is getting kicked out for not believing in their ways. I know they are just pushing the blame to God because they are just pissed that I'm not the perfect Christian girl they wanted, yet I stand for what makes most sence to me and what just plain makes damn sence. They tell me they accept who I am because it's the "Christian way", but in the same sentence tell me they won't support me because I am different to them.

[astuarlen]

Now they are just trying to cover their collective asses as technology and science moves on

Before it was a pretty safe bet to stick heaven in the sky, but then planes came along and no-one bumped into heaven

They use to be certain the sun revolved around the earth until it was disproven

The less certain and more abstract you are about something the easier it is to avoid the difficult questions, (like how god can be omnipotent without us noticing him/her/it)

According to some biblical chronology the world is 4004 years old so its probably best for the religions themselves to be more abstract unless they want to be completely ridiculed

(btw im an atheist if you cant tell already :P )

Warning: This post is kind of a ramble and basically serves as thinking-in-words to prove how very, very deep and awesome and good at gardening I am and isn't entirely a reply to the previous.

To put a less negative spin on it, we could also say it's not about covering up but reevaluating faith in terms of new understanding or applying faith to the new questions we face about how things work.
Religion isn't the only area that has tended towards abstraction, theory, etc. Science--if you'll allow me to use that in a loose sense which incorporates ideas and investigations not based in the modern scientific method--too seems to have followed in some respects. IANAP, but as I understand, contemporary ideas in physics are terrifyingly complex and inclusive of uncertainty, fluidity, and seeming paradox.

(Not being an expert in religious theory and its history, either, I couldn't say how these transformations line up, though I think the abstraction of deity precedes airplanes. ;3 Certainly, mystery, ineffability, eternity, etc show up in current accounts of ancient Judaism, for example. I guess the questions are how did/does popular interpretation of religion relate to philosophical/academic interpretations; and what's the point of invoking omnipresence/omniscience/etc for humans given our own constraints; and what function does
that serve, anyway: is it just about shoring up our self-importance, keeping the peasants in line, making us Better People, avoiding existentialist meltdown, saving us from the terrors of the night, etc? Has faith's function changed in an appreciable way over the millennia? Regular, decaf, or unleaded?

Of course, one could say that religion has to move to keep pace with (or ahead of potentially disastrous) theories in science etc. I'm neither discounting nor fully embracing that, though it looks sensible enough--if overly simple--to me. Indeed, how much power does technology and knowledge hold over religion (and it's likely different depending on whose religion we're talking about--the average person, the intellectual, etc), particularly considering the fact that a lot of modern science is beyond most people's opportunity and/or ability to understand.

One interesting thing, I think, is how much some strains of religious thought have repudiated the idea that religion can--or should--explain the natural world, while others (many Fundamentalist Christians, to take a very visible example) consider this essential to their faith. Personal experience ahead: I was raised almost completely nonreligious (insofar as that is possible in our society; I say "nonreligious" in respect to my immediate family's input) but attended a Catholic high school. Some might be surprised that Creationism was given as much credence as little green Martians, scientific inquiry was acknowledged as the only source of knowledge about the workings of the physical world (okay, of course you still get to have Virgin Births and so on, which leads to potentially problematic questions), and there were no dancing, singing, flying, or frowning nuns. So I wonder: is this is merely a defense mechanism--a way to make one's religion impervious to current methods of proof? Possibly. I do have to take issue with the idea that this allows them to weasel out of the "tough questions", because I personally think the tough questions deal with intangibles such as responsibility, justice, personal growth, bridging an inner spirituality with outer actions, etc.

Wow, so this didn't really go anywhere fun like Disneyworld, but I'm posting anyway. Nothing like a bit of pointless(?) musing in the morning--oop, afternoon.

[Kylie]

I'm Agnostic, and this thread doesn't change my views. :) I'd voice my argument, but it seems people already have. These discussions about religion can go on and on, and they're never solved by factual information or anything before personal faith, belief, and perspective. Live and let live!

[Shadowpawn]

The best way to do that would be to read the texts of the religions you wish to study. With Christianity though you should probably read different translations of the Bible since translations do have different meanings from each other. And, really, that probably goes for any religion and its texts.

As a bit of a rebuttal here, let us say that since God is nothing and thus doesn't exist, nor do we since the universe itself at some point didn't exist. To elaborate, with the big bang theory the universe and everything, and at the same time nothing, all existed at one point as a single object and then without any known reason suddenly expanded into everything. Before that explosion to put to shame all explosions, there was nothing. Thus, we are nothing as is everything. My point? Calling nothing infinite is a non sequitur.

A: Infinity cannot be measured B: Thus infinity is both nothing and everything.

Therefore God is nothing. But for the argument to be consistent He must therefore also be everything. Therein lies your non sequitur.

Okay, this point is understood. However I wasn't looking to equate nothing and everything so much so as really exposing it as non-sense. In a logical argument you can't have nonsense as a core point lest you lose all credibility. Given that it was best to equate the notion God existing or non-existing as nonsense, thus removing God from the equation...which is nearly the same as nonexistence. Perhaps it would have been better left as undefined.

[Nitro Vordex]

This is slightly off topic, but I think evolution had taken place with humans, though they didn't directly come from monkeys(as many uneducated idiots people believe due to a misleading book cover). Using the phrase"If there is a God", don't you think He would have wanted us humans to learn and grow? And also, wouldn't God want a break every now and then? Sure he's a god(or the god :wacko: ), but he doesn't want to be watching us 24/7. Unless we're like TV to him of course.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say, is that humans did evolve from, listen carefully, something RELATED to monkeys BUT NOT EXACTLY MONKEYS. Also, if God wanted to rest for a while, he could have implemented evolution, right? ;)

[Toadthroat]

Thing is Nitro, you're thinking of god in purely human terms, which is understandable. Its hard for people to wrap their heads around a being that doesn't tire, get bored, get angry, yaddayaddyadda. But if a God DOES exist, it probably is one that doesn't go "Fuck this, you guys are on your own for a while, I'm watching the Lakers game."

[EphekZ]

This is why I'm atheist (though not strict- I am still willing to listen to other people's beliefs). I still think God is an invention of the human race, I'd even go so far as to say he is an invention so that we have something to blame world problems on, and for someone to listen to their own problems too.

ah Neith, that was pretty much what I came here to say.
I can't have a belief in G-d, knowing that G-d is an invention of humans made after discovering their own mortality. Death is a scary thing, and realizing you are going to die is a scary thought. I don't think other organisms have advanced far enough to realize their own mortality, and if they have...well then they're a lot braver than humans are.

It makes me sick knowing how often people are taken advantage of just because people make it out to be an amazing religious endeavor. I.E- The Holy Crusades, or to be more modern, Islamic extremists feeding people "the will of G-d". That being said, sometimes I'm rather envious of religion or religious people. I really do admire how this ideal can give one person so much hope for the future. There have been times in my life where I wished I had something so magnificent to turn to, just so I could think that tomorrow would be a better day.


I'm rambling now, but I don't know, I felt like I had to add something. Even though I am a bit late.

[Sinue_v2]

I tend to lean more towards the Deist side of these matters. I have a faith in a creator god, and that's it. Nothing more than that. A god, by it's very definition, is so far beyond our frail and mortal selves that trying to project your own interpretations and bias conjecture on such a being or beings is rather silly. This goes for the authors of the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Urantia Book as well the other Holy texts. If you believe in god, I think you'd be best served knowing your creator by studying his creation. Not the words of men telling fables.


Anyways, what I'm trying to say, is that humans did evolve from, listen carefully, something RELATED to monkeys BUT NOT EXACTLY MONKEYS.

That would be a common ancestor.

As far as descent goes, there really is no debate on this issue anymore. We have the fossil evidence. We have the genetic evidence (fused chromosome, retroviral markers, etc). And we have even been taxonomically identified as primates since the 1700's, well before Darwin's time.

[Inazuma]

God = santa claus = spiderman = homer simpson = ethan waber


all of the above fictional characters were created for the same purpose: to MAKE MONEY!

despite how much you may love homer simpson or enjoy the spiderman comics, they are made up characters who do not actually exist in the real world.

fools who believe in god lack ability to think logically, and also lack responsibility. instead of praying to god for a raise at your job, how bout you go out there and get it yourself.

for those few out there who are able to use logical thinking, its beyond obvious that god and all the other made up cartoon chars are completely fake and there is no way they could actually exist in the real world.

just think for a moment. if god is actually real, he does jack shit. he justs sits up there on his chocolate coated clouds and watches the world turn to shit w/o a care in the world. honestly if god really existed, we should be kicking his ass for being the most negligent person of all time.

[DreXxiN]

if god really existed, we should be kicking his ass for being the most negligent person of all time.

God is SOA!


And everything that Sinue said.

[Nitro Vordex]

despite how much you may love homer simpson or enjoy the spiderman comics, they are made up characters who do not actually exist in the real world.
THANK YOU CAPTIAN OBVIOUS.

[Inazuma]

THANK YOU CAPTIAN OBVIOUS.

its obvious to you and me but 80% of the population believes that god actually exists in the real world. pretty sickening really.

[Ryna]

Locked before this degenerates into childish name-calling.