Religion The God Question - part 2

[Admiral Byng]

I reject biblical literalism of course, but I also reject the allegorical meaning behind the stories of Eden and Noah's Flood. That there is some higher authority that sets the rules we humans have to follow or suffer the consequences. So much easier and more logical to reject the supernatural and come up with a set of rules based on reason - i.e. secular humanism. It's never a case of everyone doing as they please individually.

 

[Boston tiger]

I could sit here and explain my reasoning all day, but I've found an article which explains exactly how I, along with most other atheists, feel regarding your comment. I urge you to read it when you have the time and try to understand my perspective on this.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/a-cosmic-accident/

Perhaps you thought I was referring to the term accident as negative event eg car accident.

But I was referring to this blokes second meaning.

"A second possible meaning of the word “accident” is something unforeseen or unplanned, a chance event, one that could have turned out otherwise. The outcome of a dice roll, for example, would be classified as an accident in this sense. By this meaning, I acknowledge that a consistent atheist would have to admit that life is an accident. After all, an atheist by definition does not believe in a cosmic planner that prearranges the course of events."

The article talks about accident in relation to life ..I was referring to accident regarding to the event of the Big Bang. A difference in that with life you already have the building blocks and they come together by accident to form life.

I guess an atheist believes that what went bang was there by accident, what made it go Bang was there by accident and when it went bang was by accident.
Absolutely nothing wrong with this or atheism I m just trying to nail down their thoughts.

So from the article an atheists believes that the natural world created itself by accident.

 

[Boston tiger]

I'm not having trouble with anything. I started learning about the Bible, God and everything to do with Cathlocism and Christianity at age five. We recited Hail Mary and The Lord's Prayer from Prep. I bought into and genuinely believed in everything I was told to the point that almost thirty years on I can still remember every word in those prayers without strain. I even clasped my hands together in front of my chest and prayed before I went to bed until the age of about nine.

Why do I think the Genesis story came to print? For starters, 3,000+ years ago when Genesis was first written, people believed in such superstition unquestionably. The fact that the story and religion continues to transcend time is due to the result of a combination of factors. Through generational indoctrination and the gullibility of the low-hanging fruit who've continued to cling to messages contained within a factually devoid book - this has ensured religion's survival.

The last bit of your post is asking me to basically ignore the uncomfortable aspects of religion and focus on the aspects which aren't factually or morally devoid. I am sorry, but I cannot do that. Unlike people in my life who I do obviously choose to accept their weaknesses along with their strengths, I have higher expectations from a book which is apparently inspired by the words of God. In other words; people are human and no one is perfect - the Bible is God's work so I expect it to be infallible.

You as brought as Catholic should know more than anyone that the Bible was never meant to be a stand alone document.. it was to be used in conjunction with the teaching of the Church. So I don't know where you are getting all this from but good luck I'm sure you will work it all out.

 

[Boston tiger]

The problem is any story of creation is just an attempt to explain the unknowable. I am not an atheist, but i know plenty of religions (mostly pantheistic ones) that dont attempt to explain creation but talks about life in general. Take buddhism for example, buddhism is not about who and what created the world cause according to buddha that is less important, its all about what you are doing with your life that matters most! i can respect that and i know plenty of atheists who do it as well

But you've explained creation in that God has manifested itself physically as the universe.
All Christians are saying in their creation story is that God created the universe. Much difference.?
The rest is about life.

 

[Boston tiger]

Surely Dawkins does the opposite of that. He argues that it is ludicrous to take Genesis literally. He is skeptical of the Christian fundamentalist view.

Scientists are skeptics by definition. They form hypothesis and then proceed to prove or disprove it.

I doubted he would bother attacking the Bible on a literalistic level but people do.

 

[Total Power]

But you've explained creation in that God has manifested itself physically as the universe.
All Christians are saying in their creation story is that God created the universe. Much difference.?
The rest is about life.

The difference being Gensis viewing creation "separate" to God, but as i told you, in parts of the bible Yehwah and also in NT jesus states he is "everything". That is contradictory IMO.

 

[Boston tiger]

The difference being Gensis viewing creation "separate" to God, but as i told you, in parts of the bible Yehwah and also in NT jesus states he is "everything". That is contradictory IMO.

It's a difference but where are you getting your info that God is the universe and not separate from the universe. Both as good as each other. My read is that my God could be the universe if it wanted to be. God creating existence from nothing .. I suppose alot of things could be read into that.
God is everything ? Yes but I think we say God is omnipresent and is everywhere but can be outside time space etcetc. Not totally sure how we have nailed God other than an all powerful creator.

 

[Total Power]

It's a difference but where are you getting your info that God is the universe and not separate from the universe. Both as good as each other. My read is that my God could be the universe if it wanted to be. God creating existence from nothing .. I suppose alot of things could be read into that.
God is everything ? Yes but I think we say God is omnipresent and is everywhere but can be outside time space etcetc. Not totally sure how we have nailed God other than an all powerful creator.

Where am i getting my information from? we discussed this already, thats what pantheism is about. As i said you dont have to believe it but all eastern religions say the same thing.

We have gone through this already, omnipresence must mean presence inside you as well! otherwise he is not omnipresent. You cannot be present everywhere outside of his creation,, thats not omnipresence. For example:
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. Jeremiah 23:24
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:21

There are tens of other verses which point towards that, but there are other verses points towards creation being separate. IMO this is the problem with the creation story. If Bible is indeed the word of god, god could have made it a lot less confusing than what it is all the moment, the thing is you are free to look at it the way you want to and both you and i would be correct on it. To be Genesis makes no sense if its not literal, it doesnt serve any purpose other than saying "i created you but i refuse you give you the details on how i did it"

 

[Pie eyed]

But you've explained creation in that God has manifested itself physically as the universe.
All Christians are saying in their creation story is that God created the universe. Much difference.?
The rest is about life.

Which Christians, The Church of England or the Catholics?
If they stopped there I would be stunned.
I think you'll find that Christians are claiming just a little bit more than just that.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Yes people do but the people who gave us the Bible and decided what was God inspired don't.
We have been down this road before.. fundamentalism is the child of the reformation. The Bible had to fill the void of authority once you broke away from the church.

Yes there are lots of Christians who will tell you the earth is 6000 years old etc.

Agreed

 

[The Unforgiven]

Perhaps you thought I was referring to the term accident as negative event eg car accident.

But I was referring to this blokes second meaning.

"A second possible meaning of the word “accident” is something unforeseen or unplanned, a chance event, one that could have turned out otherwise. The outcome of a dice roll, for example, would be classified as an accident in this sense. By this meaning, I acknowledge that a consistent atheist would have to admit that life is an accident. After all, an atheist by definition does not believe in a cosmic planner that prearranges the course of events."

The article talks about accident in relation to life ..I was referring to accident regarding to the event of the Big Bang. A difference in that with life you already have the building blocks and they come together by accident to form life.

I guess an atheist believes that what went bang was there by accident, what made it go Bang was there by accident and when it went bang was by accident.
Absolutely nothing wrong with this or atheism I m just trying to nail down their thoughts.

So from the article an atheists believes that the natural world created itself by accident.

Jeez, it wouldn't be unlike you to take the only phrase out of that article and twist it out of context.

Despite the fact that, as I have argued, only the latter two senses of the word “accident” might be applicable to an atheist’s outlook on life, theists who use that word against us persistently use it in the first sense, or at least with the first sense’s undesirable connotations. This fallacious tactic of equivocation should be recognized for what it is and rejected.

An accident, by definition, is to assume that a misfortunate event occured resulting in a situation which we now are currently faced with. An accident would be something that circumvents what was otherwise planned or intended.

Even if you define an accident as mere chance, I believe that the deeper you delve into the science behind the Big Bang Theory, the more you realise that the terms "accident" or "chance" are ones which do a great disservice to the laws of science which give credence to the cosmic activity that resulted in the Big Bang eventuating.

According to Professor Stephen Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." The term spontaneous is key here.

 

[The Unforgiven]

You as brought as Catholic should know more than anyone that the Bible was never meant to be a stand alone document.. it was to be used in conjunction with the teaching of the Church. So I don't know where you are getting all this from but good luck I'm sure you will work it all out.

My High School text books were also never intended to be a stand alone means for one's education. They were intended to be used in conjunction with the classroom teachings. However, unlike the Bible, High School text books also have to be factually sound.

 

[Present Not Past]

My High School text books were also never intended to be a stand alone means for one's education. They were intended to be used in conjunction with the classroom teachings. However, unlike the Bible, High School text books also have to be factually sound.

You fail because High School text books change according to the times, and at the whim of bureaucrats. The bureaucrats determine what is sound. The fact that you can't see this happening right now, today, leads me to believe that you have no idea about this subject.

 

[The Unforgiven]

You fail because High School text books change according to the times, and at the whim of bureaucrats. The bureaucrats determine what is sound. The fact that you can't see this happening right now, today, leads me to believe that you have no idea about this subject.

And the Bible has never changed? There's only one Bible between how many denominations of Christianity? LOL! But even if the Bible didn't change, is this somehow a claim to its authenticity and therefore factual validy?

High School text books change according to the times and to stay relevant. Bureaucrats determine what is sound... yes, and? What's your point? There's some kind of conspiracy going on? I think your tinfoil hat fell off, you better scurry off and collect it...

 

[Boston tiger]

Jeez, it wouldn't be unlike you to take the only phrase out of that article and twist it out of context.



An accident, by definition, is to assume that a misfortunate event occured resulting in a situation which we now are currently faced with. An accident would be something that circumvents what was otherwise planned or intended.

Even if you define an accident as mere chance, I believe that the deeper you delve into the science behind the Big Bang Theory, the more you realise that the terms "accident" or "chance" are ones which do a great disservice to the laws of science which give credence to the cosmic activity that resulted in the Big Bang eventuating.

According to Professor Stephen Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." The term spontaneous is key here.

So spontaneous creation is working within parameters ?

 

[Total Power]

So spontaneous creation is working within parameters ?

Have you considered maybe we are just lower dimensional beings having NFI about anything about the universe? if there are 11 dimensions as string theory says then our understanding of the universe/laws/physics etc are totally irrelevant. Maybe time doesnt exist, which means big bang and big bust been going on forever. If that is true, maybe things been here forever? not saying thats the case but plenty of eastern religions point towards "no beginning and no end".

 

[The Unforgiven]

Have you considered maybe we are just lower dimensional beings having NFI about anything about the universe? if there are 11 dimensions as string theory says then our understanding of the universe/laws/physics etc are totally irrelevant. Maybe time doesnt exist, which means big bang and big bust been going on forever. If that is true, maybe things been here forever? not saying thats the case but plenty of eastern religions point towards "no beginning and no end".

I got three words into your post and thought "of course he hasn't". If the Bible or the Pope didn't say it, it didn't happen.

 

[Boston tiger]

Have you considered maybe we are just lower dimensional beings having NFI about anything about the universe? if there are 11 dimensions as string theory says then our understanding of the universe/laws/physics etc are totally irrelevant. Maybe time doesnt exist, which means big bang and big bust been going on forever. If that is true, maybe things been here forever? not saying thats the case but plenty of eastern religions point towards "no beginning and no end".

I've consider everything to a point but I get stumped on atheism.
I'm just trying to gather the atheists position in that i think the corner stone is that... nothing has ever been brought into existence to have a purpose nor anything purposely bought into existence.

An atheists though can believe in the supernatural just that the supernatural has had no purpose or control over our natural world. Is that right?

 

[evo]

Maybe time doesnt exist,

Time doesn't exist, per se. It is just a method devised by man to measure events in the same way we use kilograms or centimeters.

Scientists have tried to convince us it is a thing-itself. It isn't.

 

[The Unforgiven]

So spontaneous creation is working within parameters ?

Who set the parameters would be your follow-up question? I suppose you could put it that way. Have you done any reading of anything from Stephen Hawking or Lawrence M. Kraus? The science behind a lot of the theories (yes, theories) is easy to comprehend but nigh on impossible to prove.

The beauty of science is that for a theory to be accepted as fact, it must pass through the scientific method (reproducibility). Some of these theories haven't come even close to even being observed, let alone be reproducible in a lab, so it's impossible for anyone in our lifetime to say anything with athority. We simply do not know enough currently.

From the spontaneous appearance of subatomic particles from a vacuum which is referred to as quantum fluctuations, the fluctuations themselves cannot be directly observed, but their effects have been detected.

With space being part of the known universe, what was it that enabled the space which allowed the particle/antiparticle pairs to be formed out of energy? Once again, this is all unknown. And if the answer, as Stephen Hawking suggests, is that the total energy of the universe is zero, then what is really going on?

Zero energy claims are based on a preexisting understanding and acceptance of the Big Bang, so that's something where both creationists and sceptics must agree upon before proceeding. Assuming, for this discussion that we're at a point where the expanding universe model is accepted by all, where does that leave us?

Quantum gravity is one way to suggest that space could come into existence by nothing, and it's a key argument which Lawrence M. Kraus goes with in his book titled A Universe from Nothing. The problem is we don't currently have a workable theory on quantum gravity, so that poses an issue.

Other theories suggest that we don't live in just one single universe, but rather our universe forms the basis of an infinite amount of universes; or a multiverse. This would explain how our universe, having been created 13.7 billion years ago, merely forms merely an infinitesimal speck in a not-yet observed multiverse which we form a part of.

There are so many things we don't yet know, only have theories of, and many theories don't have workable models to even try to prove or disprove. Scientific theories come about due to the evolution of aquired knowledge. They aren't fabricated from nothing. No scientific theory suggests our existence is all an accident, but at the same we're still only scratching the surface of explaining the age old questions which mankind harbours.

If it's more comfortable to argue from a position of creationism, where everything fits into a rigid narrative; it demands that science prove it wrong, but it does not care for proving scientific theories wrong because religion is based on faith and not fact. If that's what you want to beleive, fine. But just don't go talking out of school by using provocative or ignorant terms for subjects you have little idea on.

 

[M Malice]

Time doesn't exist, per se. It is just a method devised by man to measure events in the same way we use kilograms or centimeters.

Scientists have tried to convince us it is a thing-itself. It isn't.

interesting question, if time doesn't exist how do we explain- decomposition, ageing, erosion, the seasons, cause and effect?

the fact is we perceive time so it exists for us. it's the old tree falling in the forest argument ie. observer effect.

 

[evo]

interesting question, if time doesn't exist how do we explain- decomposition, ageing, erosion, the seasons, cause and effect?

Ageing, erosion etc are manifestations of cause and effect. Cause and effect is the way reality unfolds; it's a process. Time is the way we measure it unfolding.

the fact is we perceive time so it exists for us. it's the old tree falling in the forest argument ie. observer effect.

That's a fair enough position and quite a nuanced understanding of ontology . If something appears to exist, then it does.

However I'm arguing you've mislabeled it - you haven't observed 'time', you observed cause and effect. A tree falling in a forest is an event; a result of cause and effect. Time wasn't the cause. It's just the way we measured it.


-Thus Spake Evo

 

[Eliteflyboy]

I know in a society that is entirely secular, it's hard to believe anything exists beyond the physical realm. I've witnessed the manifestation of good and evil before I turned 18. You can call me whatever names that came to mind, I've probably heard them a hundred times over. All I can say is that if you are faithless, want nothing to do with religion, you won't have to worry about opposition in terms of the forces of darkness (spiritual). They know you are unlikely to find the truth due to your stubbornness to your beliefs or non-beliefs if you wish. There's no point of oppression to a person who willingly accepts their agenda.

Hence in secular countries where people openly renounce God and anything supernatural, you are less likely to find people who testify to these things. Even most Christians you meet will not have experienced the supernatural, they are more carnal (physically) minded. People in secular societies already do the work (knowingly or unknowingly) for these forces of darkness which past generations of my family have come to face.

That being said, those of you that follow global news and events will be aware of the push to form a one world government, religion, and currency. We became more accustomed to this after the event of 9/11, before that it was the "conspiracy theorists" and "bible thumpers" who were crazy for suggesting this agenda. This agenda that is being presented is now the physical manifestation of the plans for the forces of darkness. Their spiritual agenda is subservient devotion to only one being who I'm sure most of you will be familiar with as Lucifer or Satan.

Yes, you may suggest God is no different, however God is worshipped 24/7 by willing beings both in heaven and on earth, both human and spiritual beings. God won't force you to worship and obey Him and nor will I. Lucifer on the other hand, in his quest to be God will go at lengths to deceive many to worship him. The implementation of the one world order will be his last play. The world may seem calm to many especially in secular societies, but there is a war raging on in the heavens which will and is slowly making it's way into the physical world.

I've also see the Pope pop up in the discussion here. He is one of many pushing the forces of darkness agenda, calling for all religions to come as one for "peace and security". The practices that goes on behind closed doors at the Vatican is the main reason for the breakaway of Protestants and Evangelicals. Unfortunately, the forces of darkness have slowly infiltrated those as well to taint the truth and hide it from people. Prove of this is the way "Christians" behave today. I'm sure some of you atheists have lots of experiences in calling out the hypocritical behaviour by some of them.

In summary, the only chance you have of experiencing the world beyond the physical realm is one through the forces of good those obedient to a Creator like no other. However this chance diminishes really quickly once you dismiss the existence of God. Remember, you currently have no opposition in the forces of darkness because of your current stance and non-belief.

 

[Boston tiger]

Who set the parameters would be your follow-up question? I suppose you could put it that way. Have you done any reading of anything from Stephen Hawking or Lawrence M. Kraus? The science behind a lot of the theories (yes, theories) is easy to comprehend but nigh on impossible to prove.

The beauty of science is that for a theory to be accepted as fact, it must pass through the scientific method (reproducibility). Some of these theories haven't come even close to even being observed, let alone be reproducible in a lab, so it's impossible for anyone in our lifetime to say anything with athority. We simply do not know enough currently.

From the spontaneous appearance of subatomic particles from a vacuum which is referred to as quantum fluctuations, the fluctuations themselves cannot be directly observed, but their effects have been detected.

With space being part of the known universe, what was it that enabled the space which allowed the particle/antiparticle pairs to be formed out of energy? Once again, this is all unknown. And if the answer, as Stephen Hawking suggests, is that the total energy of the universe is zero, then what is really going on?

Zero energy claims are based on a preexisting understanding and acceptance of the Big Bang, so that's something where both creationists and sceptics must agree upon before proceeding. Assuming, for this discussion that we're at a point where the expanding universe model is accepted by all, where does that leave us?

Quantum gravity is one way to suggest that space could come into existence by nothing, and it's a key argument which Lawrence M. Kraus goes with in his book titled A Universe from Nothing. The problem is we don't currently have a workable theory on quantum gravity, so that poses an issue.

Other theories suggest that we don't live in just one single universe, but rather our universe forms the basis of an infinite amount of universes; or a multiverse. This would explain how our universe, having been created 13.7 billion years ago, merely forms merely an infinitesimal speck in a not-yet observed multiverse which we form a part of.

There are so many things we don't yet know, only have theories of, and many theories don't have workable models to even try to prove or disprove. Scientific theories come about due to the evolution of aquired knowledge. They aren't fabricated from nothing. No scientific theory suggests our existence is all an accident, but at the same we're still only scratching the surface of explaining the age old questions which mankind harbours.

If it's more comfortable to argue from a position of creationism, where everything fits into a rigid narrative; it demands that science prove it wrong, but it does not care for proving scientific theories wrong because religion is based on faith and not fact. If that's what you want to beleive, fine. But just don't go talking out of school by using provocative or ignorant terms for subjects you have little idea on.

My follow up question would be more " Hasn't the table already been set and atheism just sits amongst a set table...just as science does.

Don't talk about proactive terms or ignorant terms .You told me to read an essay where it said exactly what I was saying about accident eg no planning no purpose. Go read that essay and take it up with that guy. After all your tough talk about making people question God your getting all defensive about Atheism .

I don't give a crap what you think but I think I am talking in turn regarding atheism if your not atheists don't reply.
Maybe someone else can give an essay to read that doesn't completely agree with my view.

Perhaps you are a panthiest ?

 

[The Unforgiven]

I've consider everything to a point but I get stumped on atheism.
I'm just trying to gather the atheists position in that i think the corner stone is that... nothing has ever been brought into existence to have a purpose nor anything purposely bought into existence.

An atheists though can believe in the supernatural just that the supernatural has had no purpose or control over our natural world. Is that right?

You're asking the wrong bloke; Total Power isn't an atheist. I am, and I don't believe that anything in existence was created with a purpose or intention. The very idea then suggests a creator. TP, from my understanding subscribes to god being everything and everything being god. TP's beliefs seem to me, putting it simply, as lying somehwere between polytheism and agnosticism.

I understand that to you, the mere thought of there being no purpose is a terrifyingly mind-blowing one. Everything you've been taught, everything you beleive - it all revolves around the idea that there's one divine creator who is responsible for everything.

I agree that the idea of there being an afterlife is a nice thought. Being reacquainted with loved ones is such a comforting thought and helps people rationalise eternity after they're gone. The adoption of a religion comes down to many factors. How do you handle uncomfortable truths?

I'm a very blunt person by nature; I'd rather know an uncomfortable truth than a comfortable lie. As a result, I can put noses out of joint when I expect others to suck up uncomfortable truths if diplomacy ragarding an issue will result in a detrimental delusion. I've even been called a prick by my wife one more than one occasion. But us married blokes probably know that can sometimes not be hard to achieve. I digress...

Your last point about "supernatural" is unequivocally wrong. Supernatural is anything which is incapable of being explained by scientific knowledge. Supernatural doesn't denote theories which are yet to be explained; supernatural inherently assumes that anything being categorised as such which is incompatible with naturalism.