Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[hardon]

What's more far fetched? A quark exists by of an accident or quark exists because there is a power beyond our comprehension?

damnit Boston, enough with the false dichotomy. and the obsession with everything being "by" something else. you're so fixated on everything being "by" something else. and you think that you've narrowed it down to God or accident, and it's obvious that there wasn't some "whoopsie" that somehow built a universe. so God.

not long ago we were swinging in the trees, grunting and screeching at each-other. we come down and eventually started talking and our vocabulary has been added to to handle all the things we do. like, get food, court females, dispose of s**t and whatever else we needed language to do. is it in you to comprehend that this vocabulary and the logic we invented just isn't enough to cover all of existence and whatever else existence is? is it in you to accept that your tired, two-choice "god or accident" question may not cut it? that our blunt tools and our smart, monkey-speak just won't get you anywhere? that perhaps we just don't have words and concepts to explain what this existence is?

You could start humanity a zillion billion times and at any point along its evolution journey and you would still have have the God question.

we may be like dogs and go through an evolutionary stage where we eat our own s**t and publicly try to hump each-other, but you'd hope we'd grow out of these stages.

If someone says they saw a ghost? What are you going to do? Call them a liar?

no, write about it 50-80 years afterwards and start a religion. accounts of the ghost MUST differ though. if we record the story exactly the same in each gosp... i mean chronicle, then everybody will think we just copied each-other. so the accounts must differ on who saw the ghost, how many ghosts there were and what the ghosts said.

 

[Boston tiger]

damnit Boston, enough with the false dichotomy. and the obsession with everything being "by" something else. you're so fixated on everything being "by" something else. and you think that you've narrowed it down to God or accident, and it's obvious that there wasn't some "whoopsie" that somehow built a universe. so God.

not long ago we were swinging in the trees, grunting and screeching at each-other. we come down and eventually started talking and our vocabulary has been added to to handle all the things we do. like, get food, court females, dispose of s**t and whatever else we needed language to do. is it in you to comprehend that this vocabulary and the logic we invented just isn't enough to cover all of existence and whatever else existence is? is it in you to accept that your tired, two-choice "god or accident" question may not cut it? that our blunt tools and our smart, monkey-speak just won't get you anywhere? that perhaps we just don't have words and concepts to explain what this existence is?



we may be like dogs and go through an evolutionary stage where we eat our own s**t and publicly try to hump each-other, but you'd hope we'd grow out of these stages.



no, write about it 50-80 years afterwards and start a religion. accounts of the ghost MUST differ though. if we record the story exactly the same in each gosp... i mean chronicle, then everybody will think we just copied each-other. so the accounts must differ on who saw the ghost, how many ghosts there were and what the ghosts said.

Damm you and your Bible

Well are you saying there may be a something beyond our comprehension involved in all this?

 

[hardon]

Well are you saying there may be a something beyond our comprehension involved in all this?

not as you understand it, or want to understand it.

you problem is that "beyond our comprehension" is a loaded term for you; you actually understand something by this, which is completely at odds with the meaning of the sentence "beyond our comprehension". for you: "beyond our comprehension" = God did it, but don't ask how." and throw in an "involved" and your language blows your cover. you are personal, involved, sentient creator 'till the cows come home. you aren't searching for answers; you're really searching for validation of the answer you already have pencilled-in, no... inked-in.

you are too far prejudiced to meaningfully take on any concepts in this discussion that leave you stranded in a cold, godless, eternal existence with no neat magical beginnings. that is why you always present your arguments in the same tired old binary choice, where one of the choices is, for you, always obviously not possible (accident).

 

[Boston tiger]

not as you understand it, or want to understand it.

you problem is that "beyond our comprehension" is a loaded term for you; you actually understand something by this, which is completely at odds with the meaning of the sentence "beyond our comprehension". for you: "beyond our comprehension" = God did it, but don't ask how." and throw in an "involved" and your language blows your cover. you are personal, involved, sentient creator 'till the cows come home. you aren't searching for answers; you're really searching for validation of the answer you already have pencilled-in, no... inked-in.

you are too far prejudiced to meaningfully take on any concepts in this discussion that leave you stranded in a cold, godless, eternal existence with no neat magical beginnings. that is why you always present your arguments in the same tired old binary choice, where one of the choices is, for you, always obviously not possible (accident).

Well tell me what you think? I seem to be the only one having a go here.

 

[Boston tiger]

not as you understand it, or want to understand it.

you problem is that "beyond our comprehension" is a loaded term for you; you actually understand something by this, which is completely at odds with the meaning of the sentence "beyond our comprehension". for you: "beyond our comprehension" = God did it, but don't ask how." and throw in an "involved" and your language blows your cover. you are personal, involved, sentient creator 'till the cows come home. you aren't searching for answers; you're really searching for validation of the answer you already have pencilled-in, no... inked-in.

you are too far prejudiced to meaningfully take on any concepts in this discussion that leave you stranded in a cold, godless, eternal existence with no neat magical beginnings. that is why you always present your arguments in the same tired old binary choice, where one of the choices is, for you, always obviously not possible (accident).

Actually I got one think out of that. You think this existence is eternal. At least that's something.

 

[hardon]

Well tell me what you think? I seem to be the only one having a go here.

ok, i'll have a go. firstly i'll state that i think man-made concepts, conceived within our framework of language, knowledge and concepts can be endorsed or dismissed using the same tools we used to create them. so i have no problem ruling out ideas that i see as bad, such as those put forth by the christian religion even in the absence of a competing explanation. hence why i can essentially say "that is bollocks, but i can't possibly tell you what the 'truth' is." that may by quite unsatisfying to you as you seek something, and coming up empty-handed is not a satisfactory outcome.

my 'big picture' feelings in point form. this list may not be complete:
-the superstitions of religions are pure, 100% fiction.
-the fundamental 'stuff' of existence, if there is even such a thing, is always here.
-our universe is only part of the totality (whatever that means) of 'stuff'.
-that 'eternal' doesn't describe existence properly as i don't believe there is anything but the present.
-the last point would preclude time-travel as a possibility as 'the past' is not 'stored' somewhere and is not distinct from 'here'.
-that the likelihood is that, being a product or derivation of 'existence' means, that for us it is impossible to actually describe 'existence'.
-that our language doesn't, nor couldn't ever, contain words that could explain the reality of existence.
-that if you say "how the hell could i possibly know" you are in a 'better' position than a follower of a religion as they've gone backwards.

 

[Boston tiger]

ok, i'll have a go. firstly i'll state that i think man-made concepts, conceived within our framework of language, knowledge and concepts can be endorsed or dismissed using the same tools we used to create them. so i have no problem ruling out ideas that i see as bad, such as those put forth by the christian religion even in the absence of a competing explanation. hence why i can essentially say "that is bollocks, but i can't possibly tell you what the 'truth' is." that may by quite unsatisfying to you as you seek something, and coming up empty-handed is not a satisfactory outcome.

my 'big picture' feelings in point form. this list may not be complete:
-the superstitions of religions are pure, 100% fiction.
-the fundamental 'stuff' of existence, if there is even such a thing, is always here.
-our universe is only part of the totality (whatever that means) of 'stuff'.
-that 'eternal' doesn't describe existence properly as i don't believe there is anything but the present.
-the last point would preclude time-travel as a possibility as 'the past' is not 'stored' somewhere and is not distinct from 'here'.
-that the likelihood is that, being a product or derivation of 'existence' means, that for us it is impossible to actually describe 'existence'.
-that our language doesn't, nor couldn't ever, contain words that could explain the reality of existence.
-that if you say "how the hell could i possibly know" you are in a 'better' position than a follower of a religion as they've gone backwards.

There's some good stuff there. I'll have a mull over your language angle.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It is what it is..
How about ..humans have the ability for abstract thought...that's why we have a God.

Or maybe we are logical thinkers and the odds that anything exists by accident let alone a being with abstract thought are just too astronomical.

What's more far fetched? A quark exists by of an accident or quark exists because there is a power beyond our comprehension?

Either way it is what it is.

You could start humanity a zillion billion times and at any point along its evolution journey and you would still have have the God question.


Is there a power out there beyond our comprehension ? I'm going to say yes and I'm comfortable with that and there will be a lot of other humans that are comfortable with that aswell. They are intuitive thinkers and there are a lot if us.

Some will be adamant about it ,some will be will OK with it , some couldn't give a rats and other will say we don't know .

Without thinking about too much about it " God questions and superstitions are in the same area but a fair way apart.

If someone says they saw a ghost? What are you going to do? Call them a liar?

Same thing i call the vast majority of superstitious people, fools, idiots, nutters.
The few who attempt to profit from it, charltons, thieves, campaigners.

as for the rest of your post, this falsehood that the "odds" are too high is nonsense.
We only have one dataset, unless your odd's a based on whimsy. The probability of an occurrence is based on the + or - minus of it not happening. You must be able to demonstrate how else it could have occurred differently or that something could have stopped it from occurring.
You want to bring odds into it:

We don't know of anything other than this universe, We don't know of other universes, We don't know about anything which isn't the universe and we know we have this universe. If you're going to say well it must have been an accident (an assumption but let's go with it) the odd's are not what you think. If you posit that without a higher being then the creation of the universe is an accident is 1/2. That's 50% chance of an accident 50% chance a higher being. Problem is of course, As we don't have any evidence for that higher being, We only have the one dataset. This universe, Meaning that if you're going to suggest that without god the universe is an accident, You must concede that the odds of that occurring are 1/1. Not an astronomical number but 100% because we only have the one dataset and no where does it show evidence for a god.

Attempting to separate god from any other superstition is dishonest you've illustrated the point yourself with your cliche remark about the odds of the universe existing. You don't know or understand how the universe came to be = equals god. Every superstition is based around trying to explain something we don't understand with nothing more than abstract thought.

its what leads people to believe in luck and omens and a whole host of beliefs for which there is nothing to support it. The simple fact is the only difference between gods and most other superstitions is society as whole still largely accepts this one. 700 years ago the world took magic very, very, seriously. Today it's treated as a childish indulgence in western society. Many parts of the world it is very much still part of everyday life its as real to them as your god is to you and there's the same amount of evidence for both.

Can you seriously suggest your beliefs are real and there's are nonsense when both of you have the same evidence? unless you're being dishonest with yourself the answer is no you must concede both belief systems are valid. Logically you would have to concede the belief in sharman and wards is entirely plausible. Logically you would have to believe any other god is possible and ghosts and the same premise extends to every other superstition.

But you can't because you don't believe in them. You have no reason to believe in them, Because you haven't been raised to believe in them. You have no evidence and no reason to believe in them which is why you reject them. It is only your emotional attachment to your god which prevents you from doing the same with the god superstition. And this is because you're beliefs are shaped by your cultural and upbringing. You were taught to believe and so you do. I was never pushed to believe in a god it was never a large part of my upbringing and so i don't believe, Because of this i've had no reason to believe. I'm not so arrogant as to think i'm some masterful thinker, If my parents were actually religious catholics/Anglicans instead of cultural catholics/anglicans the odds of me believing would increase. Likewise if i was raised in the middle east the odds of me believing in exorcism would increase.

I can say this because the datasets exist, We know people who take their religion seriously are more likely to raise children who also take faith seriously. We also know that exorcism is a widely accepted practice in the middle east regardless of religion. I can't put a figure on what the odds would be of course, I simply don't have that information, But a net increase is likely in both cases.

its the same with your quark question. you've jumped the gun and set up a false premise. Before you even reach the question about how a quark came to be, with a higher being as a factor. We have to consider the odds of that higher being existing in the first. The problem is when we try to look at that the answer we get is: no data available.

the answer to why a quark should exist the way it exists, is quite simply: "We don't know" some people are ok with this, some people want to find out, other people are uncomfortable with being uncertain and so enters god. Its the reason why when religious people start asking questions about their god which can't be answered satisfactorily its called a crisis of faith. Uncertainty cause them emotional stress.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Exactly as opposed to having a conversation on the origin of quarks.

Your Dad tells you from a young age he sees ghosts. Fair chance you will go through life believing in ghosts.

The silly prick done the road tells you he sees ghosts .. You just think he's mad.

funny you should say that because when two old ladies knock on your door to tell you all about their personal all knowing all loving god.
most peoples reaction is is to politely end the conversation and said the crazy birds on their way.

 

[Boston tiger]

funny you should say that because when two old ladies knock on your door to tell you all about their personal all knowing all loving god.
most peoples reaction is is to politely end the conversation and said the crazy birds on their way.

Of course. But if your Dad told you from birth it would be different.

God concept is not the same as faith which you need for religion.

Which I have been banging on about.

We have Christianity because someone claimed that we made contact with God. That is faith

We have Islam because someone said God spoke to him. That is faith

We have leprechauns because someone rekon they saw a little green man.

Why we have the God concept eg forces beyond our comprehension is because of the situation we find our selves.

 

[Deliverance]

You claim to have a rounded education and spout that rubbish? scratch moderate find a fundie as always, must be depressing having to rely on conspiracy theories. "a lot of science is dodgy experiments suited to fit an expected hypothesis to make companies profits rise" i mean really? You understand the difference between peer reviewed studies and in house studies don't you? and as always you lot have to focus on the great satan, darwin a man who expanded upon previous ideas yes, But not through theft but actual research and he worked with many others including Richard Owen, John Gould, charles lyell and Joseph Hooker. He had his work reviewed several times and altered based on the criticisms and errors found within. the reason darwin is remembered is darwin is the first one to put together a proper accounting for the case of evolution. This was not a ground breaking theory what was ground breaking was the proofs he'd filled many of the holes in the existing ideas and came up with a proper workable theory.

If you do not trust science or like or you're just afraid of it. then congrats we agree, stay the **** away from it. Religion is not science and it should not be taught as such.

Heeheehee, sounds like your the fundie, of the scientific kind. I consider myself agnostic.
During my Bachelor of Applied Science, tutors at university were regularly telling undergrads to make up results if our experiments didn't fit traditional expectations. So I can guarantee you that teaching of science at the highest level is flawed and unethical. In High Schools I have worked in (all government) it is even worse where there is no free thinking from students and they are indoctrinated with mainstream ideologies.
Peer reviews border on a joke at times, especially when alrgw aims of money are involved. I'd you have blind faith in them you are more deluded than Gods followers.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

PS. I never said Darwin was wrong or right, just that he stole his work from others. Surely you know that Matthew predates the work that Darwin and Wallace "collaborated" on. The reason Darwin is remembered is because a lot if scientific teaching is lazy and indoctrinated.

I'm not afraid of Science, I just don't follow it blindly.

 

[Boston tiger]

I'm pretty sure I could have had the same conversation about God that I have been having recently 10000 years ago. Or well before Genesis was written.
( probably less people to argue with but they would have been around)

Likewise I reckon 10000 years into the future I could also have the same conversation.

Some people are pretty sure that the acquisition of knowledge can provide answers to everything. ( fair bet).

Others are still betting that the answers might be staring us in the face but we will never know ( fair bet) I think this not because of faith but because of my pea brain.

Right or wrong . Bets about a God, Gods higher powers are still on.

 

[evo]

Others are still betting that the answers might be staring us in the face but we will never know ( fair bet) I think this not because of faith but because of my pea brain.

Right or wrong . Bets about a God, Gods higher powers are still on.

"the answer is staring us in the face, therefore God."

That has to be one of the best non sequiturs in the thread thus far!

 

[Boston tiger]

"the answer is staring us in the face, therefore God."

That has to be one of the best non sequiturs in the thread thus far!

Yes it's just a matter of thinking things through and keeping your concept of God broad and it becomes very simple.

If you want to see tricky get someone to explain existence without getting weird.

 

[hardon]

Right or wrong . Bets about a God, Gods higher powers are still on.

you know, when god doesn't even show up for the race, the bookie will still have your money and has probably bolted down the lane.

 

[Boston tiger]

you know, when god doesn't even show up for the race, the bookie will still have your money and has probably bolted down the lane.

And if I see a horse called Existor I'll put a few dollars on for you.

"We can't describe our existence because we come from it"
you could base half the catholic mass on that concept.

 

[hardon]

"We can't describe our existence because we come from it"
you could base half the catholic mass on that concept.

a further illustration of what i meant about our evolved primate grunts and screeches (talk) probably being inadequate to describe reality or existence. i'll modify part of a lecture from alan watts:

"Because when you're asking what is existence, you're asking me to describe in words what is existence, and there are no words which can do this. Words cannot tell you what is existence any more than I can drink the ocean with a fork."

 

[Boston tiger]

a further illustration of what i meant about our evolved primate grunts and screeches (talk) probably being inadequate to describe reality or existence. i'll modify part of a lecture from alan watts:

"Because when you're asking what is existence, you're asking me to describe in words what is existence, and there are no words which can do this. Words cannot tell you what is existence any more than I can drink the ocean with a fork."

"Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun."

I just googled him sounds like a real dude. Is he a Buddhist or something.

"You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself."

 

[hardon]

"Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun."

I just googled him sounds like a real dude. Is he a Buddhist or something.

"You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself."

I think he draws a little from everyone. Taoism Buddhism anglican(?). He explains how different philosophies view the same experiences often his talks. Very listenable is mr watts.

 

[evo]

Yeah, I've listened to many hours of Alan Watts lectures. I reckon he is fantastic.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Others are still betting that the answers might be staring us in the face but we will never know ( fair bet) I think this not because of faith but because of my pea brain.

Right or wrong . Bets about a God, Gods higher powers are still on.

We might be betting but there is no bookie. My biggest issue with Pascal's wager is why a God-like entity would give a s**t about whether some pea-brain consciousnesses believed in its existence.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Heeheehee, sounds like your the fundie, of the scientific kind. I consider myself agnostic.
During my Bachelor of Applied Science, tutors at university were regularly telling undergrads to make up results if our experiments didn't fit traditional expectations. So I can guarantee you that teaching of science at the highest level is flawed and unethical. In High Schools I have worked in (all government) it is even worse where there is no free thinking from students and they are indoctrinated with mainstream ideologies.
Peer reviews border on a joke at times, especially when alrgw aims of money are involved. I'd you have blind faith in them you are more deluded than Gods followers.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

PS. I never said Darwin was wrong or right, just that he stole his work from others. Surely you know that Matthew predates the work that Darwin and Wallace "collaborated" on. The reason Darwin is remembered is because a lot if scientific teaching is lazy and indoctrinated.

I'm not afraid of Science, I just don't follow it blindly.

ah, how did i know you'd be one of anti global warming types. personally i love how you site an article from behind a payroll as proof of systemic corruption (along with your oh so personal anecdotal evidence) then deliberately leave out the reason those retractions came about is that publications were considered horse s**t by most scientists in the field. it was looked into and exposed for its fraudulent nature by the very people you claim just go along with everything for ideological reasons.

as for Patrick Mathew, He never produced a working model his 1831 book never delved into workings of natural selection he merely sighted that natural selection was the most likely mechanism by which evolution followed. Yes he was correct in his reasoning, But what he printed was nowhere near detailed enough to be called an actual scientific theory. By that notion we may as well look at Maupertuis and say * it, he was robbed! Because as far as i can tell he was the first one propose the general notion of species changing over generations. Tell me do you also think Koch ripped off Pasteur?

apparently in your studies at the highest levels of science they never taught you the very basics, take no ones word for it. Its the very reason why the world remembers issac newton instead of robert hook, Because newton was able to demonstrate what hook had been arguing.

Attempting to argue darwin ripped mathew off is doing exactly what you've claimed as systemic within the "highest levels of the scientific community" you've glossed over the general issues in order to make it fit with your position.

and on top of all of this none of this has anything to do with the fact religion should not be taught as science. It's not science, it's theology and that is all it ever will be. The erosion of the separation of between theological teachings and historical and scientific study at numerous religious schools is dangerous and damages the career paths of students as they are being given false information.

I mean you really think kids should be taught that two of every single animal jumped on a boat to survive a global flood is an actual historical event?
Because thats the conversation being discussed when you reacted like a fundie, Getting all defensive and trying to shift the topic away from the influence the american evangelicals are currently exploiting in many christian schools in this country.

all over a topic you apparently give so little of a s**t about, that you can't decide where you sit in regards to it.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Of course. But if your Dad told you from birth it would be different.

God concept is not the same as faith which you need for religion.

Which I have been banging on about.

We have Christianity because someone claimed that we made contact with God. That is faith

We have Islam because someone said God spoke to him. That is faith

We have leprechauns because someone rekon they saw a little green man.

Why we have the God concept eg forces beyond our comprehension is because of the situation we find our selves.

you see the cognitive dissonance in your statements yet? Your arguing the exact same thing but your refusing to label it the same thing, Because you don't want connected to ideas and concepts you find silly.

someone claims to have spoken to god, they write a book about it. people believe and you call it faith.

Someone claims to have been abducted by aliens, they write a book about it, people believe and whatever ever you do don't you dare call it faith, even if the book argues that aliens created this universe and the human race and there's some great plan in action for us all.

you continue to repeat the same line "the situation we find ourselves in" i asked what you meant by this and you said words to the effect that its "because there are things we can't explain" but thats true for everything supernatural. We have ghosts because people see things they can't explain, they see an apparition out at sea or they catch a glimpse of something out of the corner of their eye. A book falls off a table despite the fact its a very sturdy table and the book was in the middle.

 

[skilts]

A book falls off a table despite the fact its a very sturdy table and the book was in the middle.

Hah! It was obviously an unstable table.

 

[Boston tiger]

you see the cognitive dissonance in your statements yet? Your arguing the exact same thing but your refusing to label it the same thing, Because you don't want connected to ideas and concepts you find silly.

someone claims to have spoken to god, they write a book about it. people believe and you call it faith.

Someone claims to have been abducted by aliens, they write a book about it, people believe and whatever ever you do don't you dare call it faith, even if the book argues that aliens created this universe and the human race and there's some great plan in action for us all.

you continue to repeat the same line "the situation we find ourselves in" i asked what you meant by this and you said words to the effect that its "because there are things we can't explain" but thats true for everything supernatural. We have ghosts because people see things they can't explain, they see an apparition out at sea or they catch a glimpse of something out of the corner of their eye. A book falls off a table despite the fact its a very sturdy table and the book was in the middle.

Sorry I meant to call them all faith. We believe in a certain God or leprechaun etc because we believe someone. ( I text away on my iPhone so sorry for the slackness )

I think this has come about from someone saying we have a God because we have a Bible or Koran etc. And I have gone down a.. which come first the chicken or the egg? path.

Somehow put humans in a box with no contact with the outside world ever and they will come up with a God concept. They won't need to believe anyone or make claim they felt God or saw an angel etc.
They won't come up with a leprechaun or a Lochness monster. You need to see a little flash of green to go past your back garden for a Leprechaun to come about. Or a big splash in a Lake for a Lochness monster etc. / or someone just taking the piss.
Likewise if someone in the box thinks deeply about the God and claims to be touched by this God and says somethings that resonate with in you then you are in a different area where you become influenced by others perception of God. You believe them likewise you believe someone who saw a ghost or leprechaun. And Bingo you have a religion.

I guess the situation that I keep talking about is that we have been created so the God question is always with us. If Im created then there must be a great unknown power involved etc. Even if we know that we are just changed energy states etc.We still need a creator

I'm sure too that others in the box would not come up with a creator type but would think of other ways we may have got here. Some of course would just say I don't know because I don't have enough info.

Superstitions come and go, different religions come and go.The God concept is here forever.
.... all the answers can't be found with in this universe so almost by definition the answer is going to be unnatural.
So me thinks.



(God )first then religion.