[Thelomen Toblerone]

But that's not free will. If you're pre-programmed to be of a "nicer disposition", then your free will is actually limited. Of course, and I dont mean to sound Heidegger-esque, we're all influenced by and a product of the culture, time and society of where we're born. #aside from nice being a relative and vague term, who's to say that we're not naturally "better" people, but the greed-driven selfish society into which we're born moulds us from birth into having an increased to propensity to become utter bastards?

[Lisheo]

Free will is having an undominated choice. If God gave us something other than free will, we wouldn't even know of free will. People are one hundred percent bastard, but despite that, i will argue 1)That it is humanity and we need to change.
2) That free will is not unchained will, we are still constrained by human ideals, even if God doesn't exist.

Bubba, I'm a mod, so I already have access to the Higher Powered Forum, but I won't comment yet. However could I be granted honorary membership and maybe a thread for those divided in faith?

[Grief]

Ah, but it is free will, because it is all comparitive.

For example, we are naturally pre-programmed to be nicer than something worse than us.
Whereas, we are naturally pre-programmed to be nastier than something better than us.

Therefore, we are pre-programmed anyhow, so it matters little to free will at what level of niceness/nastiness we are programmed at.

[Lisheo]

I've been nice to someone worse than me. That example means nothing Free will is the only reason I would vote for the existence f God, as it is, cus in my mind it offers irreputable proof of God, or something in his place.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

@ Grief:

If "niceness" is merely comparative then that's a statement that ethics are relative, in which case whatever we believe to be nice or good is purely defined by society or our cultural norms. This is inconsistent with belief in God as according to most theistic tradition, morals have been laid down by God (murder is wrong, etc) as opposed to any social contract, evolutionary ethics, etc.

Aside from that, society judges normal according to good and bad, and the levels thereof. Even had we all been created "nicer," we wouldnt know and we'd still be having this debate. Sure there'd be less crime etc, but that would be "normal" and so we wouldnt note or appreciate the difference anyway.

[Grief]

Not to. Than. For example, humans are pretty nasty. Some are worse than others, some are better. Thats free will.
But since we are generally quite nasty. We are pre-programmed at that level of nastiness.
But we still have free will.If we were pre-programmed nicer, it changes nothing.
Some people would still be nicer than others, some nastier. Thats still free will.

In fact, there is no way of proving that this hasnt already happened, that we were once worse, and have been changed. Made better, on average.
In fact, God is said to have wiped out all the bastards, and replaced them with Noahs replacements(the nice people).
This is a replacement. It is an improvement, and increase in the general niceness.
We still have free will dont we? Free will survives the change.

Toblerone: Just because we dont appreciate something, does that stop it making our lives better? No, because without it, they would be worse, and, in that circumstance, we would know that it could have been better.
I hold that an omnipotent being shouldn't need to be appreciated to do a good turn.
Not even people do that, and many of them do nice things without any wish of appreciation.
Why should god care that we know how much better he has made it.

[Lisheo]

Nastiness doesn't necessarily come from people, you should remember that. Most horrible bastard-ness comes from the capitalist system, a human invention, imo.

[Terez]

Thelomen Toblerone, on Oct 23 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

So if noone disagrees, why the hell are you people arguing the point?

I don't think anyone is arguing it. The point of the OP seems to be more about the logic that's used to support the existence of god, rather than trying to "prove" that god exists. Your point was specifically about the fact that you can't prove or disprove the existence of god, and I don't think anyone has claimed that. Saying, "My belief is logical because of X" isn't an attempt to prove anything other than that your beliefs are logical. That probably seems convoluted, but it's I think an important distinction.

[Cold Iron]

May I draw attention to the poignancy of the fact that a bunch of unbelievers are discussing this? The point, or perhaps the efficacy, I would say, is not in the facts of the universe's origin but in the belief in the nature of god.

Most believers would have no problem with marrying a perfectly valid and logical scientific cause of the universe (were one to exist) and their belief that it was god. Read that as you will, but if your first reaction is "all religious people are stupid" remember it may just be you, not them.

(mellow post for a mellow topic, someone start something more flamable please)

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

In all honesty this is the first time I've ever seen somebody complain that the topic is not flame-ish enough.

And yes it's only natural for religious people to put more though into why the world is what it is and how does that project on our lives rather than how it happened to be that way. I think that's one of the reasons the creation story in the Bible is quite simple in itself. You've got seven days in each of the first six there's a basic necessity for life that blossoms up under God's will and on the seventh it's time to rest. I think the point in the Bible was that we should move on to the other stuff once that was over with.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 24 October 2008 - 11:05 AM

[Terez]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Oct 24 2008, 06:01 AM, said:

And yes it's only natural for religious people to put more though into why the world is what it is and how does that project on our lives rather than how it happened to be that way.

I've been participating in a discussion on another forum on the difference between the theist and the atheist concepts of "why" or "reason" - the atheist concept of "why" generally tends to be one of observable or systematically deducible causal relationships; the theist concept has this too, but it also tends to include notions of something like karma, yin/yang, opposing elemental powers that keep each other in check, or providence (the #1 "reason" for Christian faith in particular tends to be that the Christian sees evidence of providence in his or her life, whether it's a belief that god answers prayers, or that god has a plan for the lives of those who pray according to Jesus' template, or that human incomprehension of concepts like infinity creates a logical need for a deity, such as the OP discussed). For the atheist, the one concept is sufficient; for some theists, these two concepts of "why" and "reason" are fairly compatible, but there's an essentially parallel relationship between the continua of how compatible those concepts are and how literally the religious texts are believed.

And of course you're correct that the issue of the beginning of the universe as we know it is not nearly as important an issue to atheists in general. It's just another one of those things that we don't know much about and would like to know more about.

CI said:

May I draw attention to the poignancy of the fact that a bunch of unbelievers are discussing this?

There's a good reason for that. Those who believe generally feel that there is nothing (or at most not much) to discuss on topics like this one. The thread was started by an atheist, and the OP was delivered through the lens of an atheist eye, citing one of the many common theist talking points that makes little sense to atheists. I think that the reason why most theists would see no point in having a discussion on the topic of the OP is that their reasons for believing in god tend to stem from evidence that means something only to them, and is not observable by anyone else.

CI said:

The point, or perhaps the efficacy, I would say, is not in the facts of the universe's origin but in the belief in the nature of god.

There are as many ideas about the nature of god as there are theists. I'm not sure how it why you think that a belief in god that's watered down to the point of being unrecognizable to most theists is more effective than atheism (despite having discussed it with you and having a pretty good idea what you would say in response), but I think we already have a thread or two on the nature of god...

[Cause]

Just to go back to the point that you cant prove or dissprove the existance of god. I just want to say that it seems to me that its quite plausible to disprove the truth of religeons. And to me god without religeon makes most arguments meaningless. His existance or lack thereof does not matter when he does not want anthing

[Gem Windcaster]

Knock yourself out Cause.

But as interesting as such a proof would be, it would always turn out WIFOM, as us mafia nerds would call it.

[Cause]

no idea what wifom means but I stand by point that religeons are easy to disprove. Just look at how many religoens are no longer taken seriously. They outnumber the ones that are by a fair margin and their leed keeps growing with time.

[Gem Windcaster]

If you don't mean disproving God, then I have no idea what you mean by "disproving a religion".

[frookenhauer]

Well actually you probably can disprove religion if you try hard enough...But you probably have to be talking to people who haven't got a lot invested in religion itself to get a fair hearing, but that's by the bye .

If we start with the idea that only one of the religions that exist today is correct, then we can use that as a starting point. The other option would lead to a pantheon of gods and the heavens would be somewhat cramped, They can't all be right can they? The second assumption would be to assume that the god(s) actually exit(s). Then, instead of trying to disprove the religion, try to prove the religion is correct....

Nah probably won't work

Okay..I'll try again...Hmm how about Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They all worship the same God and have a similar theme with regards to heaven and hell and sinning. Are they all right? The answer is a resounding NO! Ask any of the above named whether they think the others have got it wrong and the answer is YES! I probably needed to add more exclamation marks, but I'm feeling parsimonious today

Using the above information I put forward the hypothesis that ONLY one of these three religions is correct. Therefore 2 of the religions are incorrect and hence disproved

[Darkwatch]

lisheoreallyrawks, on Oct 24 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

Well actually you probably can disprove religion if you try hard enough...But you probably have to be talking to people who haven't got a lot invested in religion itself to get a fair hearing, but that's by the bye .

If we start with the idea that only one of the religions that exist today is correct, then we can use that as a starting point. The other option would lead to a pantheon of gods and the heavens would be somewhat cramped, They can't all be right can they? The second assumption would be to assume that the god(s) actually exit(s). Then, instead of trying to disprove the religion, try to prove the religion is correct....

Nah probably won't work

Okay..I'll try again...Hmm how about Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They all worship the same God and have a similar theme with regards to heaven and hell and sinning. Are they all right? The answer is a resounding NO! Ask any of the above named whether they think the others have got it wrong and the answer is YES! I probably needed to add more exclamation marks, but I'm feeling parsimonious today

Using the above information I put forward the hypothesis that ONLY one of these three religions is correct. Therefore 2 of the religions are incorrect and hence disproved

So in essence your disproving traditions rather than the organizational structure?


The main problem I see here is th following.

We need to know whether God is the Primary cause or part of an infinite causal regression. This is why I suggested Aristotle on the subject since his musings on A god (not God) are based around this.

If we stick to a more theological christian god, then God is the Primary cause. He is first, he has always been and pre-existed. The difference with Aristotle's Primary Motor is that the christian God has an interest in the universe as he created it. He also created matter.

Aristotle, following Xenophane, posited a distant alien god(in the sense of completly different from us in all things but the fact that it exists) having no interest or even knowledge of the universe. This god did not create matter, matter always existed, but this god is perfect form, thus matter trying to emulate it takes shape, but never attains perfection because matter is ever changing and unstable. Thus this Motor is what set the universe in motion, it is the First Cause.

The christian God, is aware of the universe, it is his opus. He is, he exists eternally (thus outside of time) and by will alone brought matter into existence and shaped it.

Though even theologians usually affirm that God pre-existed, in most cases they also agree that matter did as well. In some versions of the Koran Allah at the beginning floats over the primordial waters (this could be matter) which suggest that something else was there. Something shapeless, without form.
This story also exist in Genesis, where god's breath glides over the waters, which he does not seem to create since he just made earth and sky, yet the waters are there.

Anyway I'll come back to this later, I need to go out and meet some friends for booze.

[Darts]

I haven't read all the posts thoroghly since i'm new to this forum, if you think i don't have anything posting on this topic please skip, my post regards the OP...

If you consider Big Bang as THE event that started the Universe that we live in, then before big bang isn't relevant because its not of our universe. According to the laws of our universe we have 4 dimenions: X Y Z (the rooms 3d part... hope you understand) and TIME. For Big Bang to happen everything has to be in one infinately small point, all that contains our Universe including TIME, and then explode into what will eventually be our Universe. Now since TIME is manipulated(bent) by gravity (as for instance in a black hole) all time will be bent towards infinity the closer you get to the point of Big Bang and hence there will be the big NOTHING before big bang....

This might be hard to grasp, but a lot easier than the whole god thing I think(and this story haven't had 2k years to evolve). I'm not saying I don't believe in God, but atleast this is a logical reasoning rather than all out faith.... (By which I mean God could fit in this theory)

edit : I just read this trough and Im not sure if I understand what I mean.... Ask if you really want to know...

This post has been edited by Darts: 26 October 2008 - 04:14 AM

[frookenhauer]

okay...right now I'm waaaaay too drunk to be able to make a decent contribution, but its all very interesting, I assure you

[frookenhauer]

@ Cause, I'd like to hear more about the primordial waters. I'm only a little hung over now, so I can wrap my head around, cause and effect and infinity ...sort of. I just had a look at genesis and the story of how it all really began. Its fascinating reading and its worth having a good look at it:

Quote

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P}"

(An excerpt from 1917 translation of the Torah)

It looks as if the water was always there according to Genesis, even before the earth was formed. An interesting concept and not one I'm sure I'd subscribe to, but anyway...Another interesting thing is the reference to heaven and Earth. In terms of weighting I reckon that Earth is given far too much of a mention to be credible, because Earth is an infinitesimal speck in the vastness of the universe. Moving On...

Quote

"6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}"

Ah! It seems that the heavens are not actually a reference to the universe, my bad. So heaven is a place which separates the waters into above and below. Interesting, does that mean the earth was created in the waters that are below the firmament, I ask this because we always refer to heaven being above us looking down, hmm. Okay this is starting to make sense, day one is light and day and night over the water. day two is heaven which seperates the waters.

Quote

"9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}"

Aha, so the hypothesis was correct Earth is in the waters under heaven, great stuff, but now I think we may have lost the ability to use the term waters as a way of describing space and the universe itself, because the gathered waters are called seas, I'm sure all will be revealed...And it may that this is where the whole idea of a flat Earth came from, the whole separating of waters conjures the image of a huge pool in my mind.

Quote

"14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P}"

Okay things are getting a little trickier now...Enter the sun and the moon and the stars and they rule the day and night respectively. Its interesting how we get day and night even before we get the sun and moon and stars. Also the lights are within the firmament of heaven...what about the waters above the firmament? Have I missed something? I'm sure all will be revealed.

Quote

"20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. {P}"

And now we get the birds and the bees and the sea monsters and...Hold on, sea monsters? Haha, you've got to admire the authors and their ability to add humour to such an important part of the the whole creation thingy.

Quote

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. {P}

And the sixth day we get created, its a bit of a bugger that he first created the animals and sea monsters first. Or is it a kind of practice session to see if he can do it, but that can't be correct because we are created in his image and the blueprint is already there. Oh yeah the sixth day! That Arnie movie was about the sixth day, or some such. Okay so we have got dominion over the animals and he created man and woman to rule over all. So earth is the Garden of Eden, right? But it looks like we didn't actually get kicked out cos we are doing our level best to destroy it as we speak...interesting. I'm sure the Eden story will be explained in due course...

Quote

1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God in creating had made. {P}

Awesome! 7 days and the earth and heavens are created. Opps, six days and then a day of rest, which is funny, because for god a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like day. That shows a level of relaxation that I'm not sure I could match, chilling for a thousand years would drive me up the wall.

So the water WAS always there, no point trying to turn it into matter, because he gathered the water to form the seas. Okay for arguments sake lets call it matter and it was always there, and the question remains, what was god doing for all that time before forming the earth and heavens? Also what about the water above the heavens? Where has it gone? and whats it doing? Also if the stars and sun are in the heavens, have we not entered heaven by rocketing into space?

I used the Torah rather than an interpretation of the bible, because the Jewish people have attempted to keep it in its original form for a long, long time and have not attempted to adjust the words to fit the facts as they come to light.

@ Darts, I think I get you, but if there is nothing before the big bang, how did the big bang occur from nothing?