[frookenhauer]

I call it Nurofen because that's what it says on the cover. I call a coke a coke even though one of the main ingredients is sugar, lots of it. Its something to do with branding and all that jazz. Anyway, In terms of how I learned about religion, yup it all started with those Gideon bibles and the Koran and all that. Also television programs and the stuff they taught us in Religious Education is something that I still remember vividly. I'm a sponge for things that interest me, but don't ask me for verbatim cos I aint that good. Also regular 'teaching' after school added to my knowledge of the whole concept of God. The whole logic thingy above was just my way of saying god came first. Don't read into it too much. But if logic is my faith, then haven't you just insulted me? should I be offended, the short answer is no, the long answer is nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. My 'faith' in Logic is a little robust and I am quite aware that you cannot apply it everywhere .

BUT, It does not mean that you cannot try to apply it to the whole God concept. Here I am a poor agnostic trying to prove the existence of God with my simple flint tools of Logic, I was bound to fail, but I am berated for trying the most by those who believe he exist simply because HE IS, or I AM. Fair enough my argument is mostly a logic loop, but when you add infinity and omnipotence in to the mix, it ceases to become so purely for the fact that Logic finds it very difficult to grasp those particular concepts. It was just an idea that I had and a throwaway one at that and it was based upon the human god concept in Hyperion, unoriginal I know, but I'm flawed.

Hey Bent, I'm sorry I offended you. It was a common expression that fitted well with what I was saying. In terms of whether God is omnipotent and whether he can see your thoughts. If He is omnipotent then yes he can see your thoughts, actions and all the things you are going to do throughout your lifetime. You cannot put a limit on omnipotence, if you do so, it just becomes potent. Your father could also have just popped into the garden to check his magnolias at the right time and that too could have been the work of god.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

"Gem Windcaster" said:

...

Actually life did not appear randomly - you'll see that the laws of physics and chemistry are not static or random in any way. They're very much dynamic and allowing for complexity to arise in the form of better abiding specific laws. For example water is a very good environment for chemical processes because it dissolves a variety of chemicals due to the bipolar nature of it's molecule. The first cell was probably a non-polar molecule that naturally arranged itself in a fashion that would allow it to be out of contact with water just like lipids today form tiny spheres although of course lipids are much more complex in structure - yet they still arrange themselves autonomously based on affinity to water (what is essentially polarity or the lack of polarity thereof).

So the primal cell by excluding water allowed for chemical reactions that would not be achievable in an environment purely made of water - much like the modern-day cell cytoplasm is a form of universally best environment for the processes within the cell.

Just recently in laboratory conditions have been synthesized DNA and not simply by the method of forced transcription but molecule by molecule.

The fact that we don't know exactly how it happened doesn't necessarily require us to substitute that knowledge with a set of unprovable claims that are only our intuitive choice because they relieve us from the burden of having to prove them.

"frookenhauer" said:

...

Well perhaps the idea that fits my world-view the most is Nietzsche's idea of "A healthy spirit is that which is always asking - 'What is the greatest burden in this world - give it to me so that I can overcome it and then marvel at my own strength.'."

You see there's not much room left for an all-seeing all-governing God or for a God that brings peace and gentle reassuring.

There's room still for a God that manifests himself beyond the individual ego in everyone's combined actions - as a sort of trend or direction that each generation takes in this world. That's why I believe that each generation has it's own Gods and the general guidelines are only there to give a broad concept on the matter of what a God should be like (as in the Bible the Koran).

And from that naturally comes my idea that we created God when society evolved to the idea of the need for a God, and we continue to re-create Him.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 19 October 2008 - 04:26 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Oh come on, don't throw semantics at me.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 19 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

Oh come on, don't throw semantics at me.

Other than that I agree that it's futile to argue against creationism using Big-Bang-ism as a counter-thesis.

Involving life in the argument on the other hand is kinda counter-productive, because we can at this point synthesize organic compounds for the most part, although we haven't yet been able to lock a bunch of them in a jar turn on the heat and create a self-sustaining organism capable of procreation etc. etc.

I say give it a few more years.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 19 October 2008 - 04:38 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

It's not even half as futile as it is hilarious.

[frookenhauer]

I do agree in your idea that we created god, but only conceptually because how can something like that happen? If we were all psychic and our group conciousness one day awoke, and gained limitless power...But we aint psychic, unless our subconscious is not telling us everything...hmm.

We created the concept of God, but no more than that (I think). At first the sun gods and animal totems and then idols and then omni-ism, the purest form of belief filtered over generations. But how can you say it is true, for sure? I mean the last really big events happened 15 centuries ago. And why only one, because if there is one, why not others? Cheers Macros.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

But if for all we know God is unknowable - he cannot be seen or heard he cannot be touched. He can only be experienced by proxy of the 'falling tree' within our world - then what else is of value if not the concept.

The concept of God has been quite the driving force in the past what with all the Crusades and all.

And in the end the moral is greater than the mechanic of the story. When you read the Bible you don't think about How it happened but Why it happened in that particular way. And what is it that makes it a great story that's still relevant 2000 years after it was written.

I'm saying that the concept alone can be the driving force for change today even though God may be quite unfashionable within the younger generations.

And part of achieving that - harnessing that driving force is recreating God in our own image. In the world of today nobody can be made to conform to tradition anymore. We can't be given a God by force anymore (or could we ever). We simply have to embrace it on our own - find out what it means to us.

PP: You also ask how do we know if it's true. I'll tell you that it's irrelevant to the idea of the story if it's true or not. It's of no consequence to you whatsoever if a carpenter 2000 years ago could raise dead people or turn water into wine. It's of no consequence to the moral of those stories as well or to the concept of God in general.

You can use your faith to be a better human being. You can also wander in your disbelief searching for logical explanation of events that don't need to be logical or even real to hold a valuable moral. That's all.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 19 October 2008 - 05:03 PM

[frookenhauer]

Yes, yes very pretty, but what you are saying is that we came first and invented the big G.

Also if someone planned to set fire to my feet unless I believed in god...But really, the reason why the whole god thing has survived so long is because of that gaping big hole within ourselves that needs to be filled. Or is that just me?

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Yeah well I guess that makes me a bad christian then.

But it kinda makes me a well-adjusted human being as well. And I believe that's what matters more than a blind belief in the mystical.

I guess I've never had a big gaping hole in my world-view. If that's the case with you what's stopping you from believing wholeheartedly (rather than believing scientifically in a way or by means of substituting the unknowable or simply unknown at the present level)? The opinion of the others should not matter to you - logic should not matter to you. Nobody would ever be able to disprove you while you will never be able to prove your belief in scientific terms.

Is that really that bad?

PP: I'm off for tonight I'm gonna go justify the second part of my nickname by reading some Gardens of The Moon and then probably some Feet of Clay (still a huge fan of Pratchet no matter what).

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 19 October 2008 - 05:27 PM

[frookenhauer]

Fair enough, I guess its one of them horses for courses things.

That gaping big hole was just another one of them concept things. It pretty much amounts to the sum of all I don't know, so you could say its infinite in size (Thought I'd get that in before anyone else). Quite scary when I think about it, I guess its about time I did one of them soul searching thingies.

Anyway...If we cannot apply logic to the question, is belief the only way to bridge the gap between us and the Almighty? If so, then the guy who set this up needs a good kicking. (I'm of the opinion that there is always an answer, but at the moment the tools we have are insufficient)

And again it all boils down to whether he exists or not.

[Bent]

frookenhauer, on Oct 19 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

Fair enough, I guess its one of them horses for courses things.

That gaping big hole was just another one of them concept things. It pretty much amounts to the sum of all I don't know, so you could say its infinite in size (Thought I'd get that in before anyone else). Quite scary when I think about it, I guess its about time I did one of them soul searching thingies.

Anyway...If we cannot apply logic to the question, is belief the only way to bridge the gap between us and the Almighty? If so, then the guy who set this up needs a good kicking. (I'm of the opinion that there is always an answer, but at the moment the tools we have are insufficient)

And again it all boils down to whether he exists or not.

Well, I have been taught this....Its the base of all christianity, John 3:16

For whosoever BELIEVES in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. So in effect, yes, belief(faith) is the only true way to God, but it you need proof, you can't truly believe. It is just part of the condition of salvation. But again, I feel he loves us enough to still do things that are unexplainable to give us every opportunity to believe. As to the big hole needing to be filled, everyone wants to know more than they do. Thats the nature of humanity, and what makes us so very special, we strive for more, continually reaching and trying to understand. But there are things we never will be able to understand. And someof use refuse to accept that, I have simply taken the easier road, and said, I won't understand it, but I still choose to accept that it is. I don't know why water is wet, it just is. I accept it. I don't know why God created us to worship him, he just did. So I do. Not really the best expanation of anthing, but perhaps a better understanding of myself and my beliefs.

Not that its not okay to question things, but there comes a point where unanswered questions have to be seen as just that, and we move on, accepting that maybe they will never be answered, and so we ask another. hoping to find answers where logic will once again prevail.

[Cause]

I think the problem comes from that whether you choose to believe that your mind evolved or was created it cant be denied that your mind was evolved/created to work in its enviroment. Science has shown us that matter is really 99.9% empty air and is kept toghether by force fields of attraction and repulsion. You cant put your hand through it though so your mind says its solid, you see it as solid and thats all that matter. You only interact with distances and sizes of a certain size and your mind has no real concept of what a lighyear or nanometer means. We see the world has divided by time tommorrow is not yesterday and the present is infitesimal. So whether your believe in the big bang or creationism your mind cant understand iether. What existsted before time, what was the universe before the big bang like if none of the laws of nature we know did not hold true. As for god the problem comes that while we have words for things like perfect and omnipotent we cant understand them. What happens when the perfect weapon hits the perfect shield. Can god create a challenge he cant meet? The language fails at describing these things and creates a paradox. So as always it comes down to those with faith and those who see flaws with the bible, torah etc

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 19 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

It is simply hilarious that people that find it natural that life can appear randomly, out of nothing, have a problem with a being existing before everything else.

And that's all I'm going to say on this matter.

And its astonishing that you think saying that and nothing else is making a point. You have not said anything of worth, you offer no explanation, no proof, no logic, no debate. Just a personal statement about your own beliefs.

Your statement implies life could not appear 'randomly' naturally but why do you say that. If it were not for your faith in god the only other explanation available is that life since it exists must have occured naturally.

[frookenhauer]

Bent, on Oct 19 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

Well, I have been taught this....Its the base of all christianity, John 3:16

For whosoever BELIEVES in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. So in effect, yes, belief(faith) is the only true way to God, but it you need proof, you can't truly believe. It is just part of the condition of salvation. But again, I feel he loves us enough to still do things that are unexplainable to give us every opportunity to believe. As to the big hole needing to be filled, everyone wants to know more than they do. Thats the nature of humanity, and what makes us so very special, we strive for more, continually reaching and trying to understand. But there are things we never will be able to understand. And someof use refuse to accept that, I have simply taken the easier road, and said, I won't understand it, but I still choose to accept that it is. I don't know why water is wet, it just is. I accept it. I don't know why God created us to worship him, he just did. So I do. Not really the best expanation of anthing, but perhaps a better understanding of myself and my beliefs.

Not that its not okay to question things, but there comes a point where unanswered questions have to be seen as just that, and we move on, accepting that maybe they will never be answered, and so we ask another. hoping to find answers where logic will once again prevail.

That's very nice way of looking at things Bent, but I've just got this niggling question. Its about your belief and proof proposition. The thing is Moses had plenty of proof to play around with. He's got the whole burning bush, three plagues and the whole red sea to part and so did the slaves in Egypt. Jesus had a healing touch and did the whole loaves and fishes thing. Noah had his flood. Those things sound kind of proof like to me. What I'm trying to say is that belief and proof are not mutually exclusive and can exist together. What you're saying is just a get out for no more proof in this day and age. Which, funnily enough, the world could seriously do with. Also why did God just choose the Jewish slaves to be his people? what about the rest of the world? Aren't we all his children? But that's just sidetracking the issue. Belief and proof sitting in a tree K I S S I N G.

@ Cause, surely an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being (Personally I'd make someone less omnipotent, so I could show off now and then ), wouldn't that class as something he could not meet/beat? And what about us agnostics? The third way, the fence sitters, the maybes and the waverers. I see flaws in all the propositions.

[Osric]

On topic to answer Silencer:

First of all, I'm not religious, I don't believe in god. However if I was, then I would look at it kind of like this.
God created, he created us all, he created everything. Everything includes reality or at least our perception of reality. Time and space are concepts of our reality. So to answer you, the assumption that god needed creating in the first place is flawed. He has no beginning and no end, he simply is. He created the concepts of a beginning and an end, he created the very meaning of creating. So applying our laws of physics to the person that created them is impossible, god didnt need creating, he is omnipotent.

Anyway, what's always bothered me about religion is the blind belief part. You are basically not allowed to have doubts, to ask questions, the only thing you need to do to get into heaven is to believe what people tell you, what you read in the bible. Is that something God would want for us to do? Would God want us to blindly believe? If so why did he make it our nature to find out new things and why would he make it our nature to doubt? General answer is to test our belief but what's the point? Maybe someone with more knowledge about religion can answer that.

[Cause]

frookenhauer, on Oct 19 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

@ Cause, surely an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being (Personally I'd make someone less omnipotent, so I could show off now and then ), wouldn't that class as something he could not meet/beat? And what about us agnostics? The third way, the fence sitters, the maybes and the waverers. I see flaws in all the propositions.

Omnipotent means all powerfull. If god creates another omnipotent being, he himself only remains omnipotent if he has power over the other omnipotent being. If he does not he is no longer omnipotent. If he does have power over the other being it is no longer itself omnipotent since it does not have the power to resist.

It goes further. Does an omniscient being who knows everything even its future choices have the power to change its mind?

[Bent]

frookenhauer, on Oct 19 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

That's very nice way of looking at things Bent, but I've just got this niggling question. Its about your belief and proof proposition. The thing is Moses had plenty of proof to play around with. He's got the whole burning bush, three plagues and the whole red sea to part and so did the slaves in Egypt. Jesus had a healing touch and did the whole loaves and fishes thing. Noah had his flood. Those things sound kind of proof like to me. What I'm trying to say is that belief and proof are not mutually exclusive and can exist together. What you're saying is just a get out for no more proof in this day and age. Which, funnily enough, the world could seriously do with. Also why did God just choose the Jewish slaves to be his people? what about the rest of the world? Aren't we all his children? But that's just sidetracking the issue. Belief and proof sitting in a tree K I S S I N G.

Thats just it, though Frookie, and I can only answer for the Christians on this, hopefully you will realize that all my answers are bias because of my belief system. Having said that, God sent Jesus(a part of him) to earth as a final proof, and wht happened, even those who saw him doubted, so when you compare, what exactly would it take to make everyone believe? Its impossible, due to the free will clause, God can't prove it now any more than he could then, because everyone has the choice to believe. As for why Moses and all of the proofs there? Before he sent Jesus to be born, no one ever had a chance to believe like we do in the time after Jesus, those people had only the old guidelines that were passed on from family to family, and the only way they could get salvation was to have faith that their sacrifices(lambs, or doves, etc. ) would bring them salvation, so I would say this, Those who lived before had a stronger faith than we do today, because they ONLY had miracles to guide them, we are fortunate to have more, the story of a man who never once faltered even when persecuted by his own people. The ultimate miracle.

Osric, on Oct 19 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

Anyway, what's always bothered me about religion is the blind belief part. You are basically not allowed to have doubts, to ask questions, the only thing you need to do to get into heaven is to believe what people tell you, what you read in the bible. Is that something God would want for us to do? Would God want us to blindly believe? If so why did he make it our nature to find out new things and why would he make it our nature to doubt? General answer is to test our belief but what's the point? Maybe someone with more knowledge about religion can answer that.

To answer this question, I believe you have to look at what God had already created, Angles. The were mindless and had no free will, Lucifer even tied to step away in jealous rage. He was cast out of heaven and sent to hell for his digressions. God =, didn't want that, he wanted a free minded people, and in order to secure that we were free, he gave us the traits of curiosity and cynicism. Free will is again the key. If we never doubted or questioned, we would be mindless slaves, therefore, he left our choices up to us, even the wrong ones. Not a test per say, but instead a security that we can choose which path to take.

Cause, on Oct 19 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

It goes further. Does an omniscient being who knows everything even its future choices have the power to change its mind?

Ha ha, but it doesn't need to, its omniscient. Think about that. lol

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Oct 19 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 19 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

It is simply hilarious that people that find it natural that life can appear randomly, out of nothing, have a problem with a being existing before everything else.

And that's all I'm going to say on this matter.

And its astonishing that you think saying that and nothing else is making a point. You have not said anything of worth, you offer no explanation, no proof, no logic, no debate. Just a personal statement about your own beliefs.

Erhm, we are talking about what the universe is and how it started??!! - I don't think any of us can offer an explanation, proof or logic. As for debate, with nothing of the above, there cannot be a debate, only speculation.

Cause, on Oct 19 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

Your statement implies life could not appear 'randomly' naturally but why do you say that. If it were not for your faith in god the only other explanation available is that life since it exists must have occured naturally.

Dearest Cause, I did not want imply anything of the sort, however if should be clear to anyone at this point what I believe. However I disagree that the stupid (imho) idea that something can occur out of nothing is the "only other explanation" - I think it's absurd. I would never see that as a valid explanation, I would rather go try find a better theory, or stick with "I don't know".

[Bent]

One quick point, God chose the Jews because they believed in one true God, but had distorted that belief to suit there needs, thus God infiltrated their system, and planted seeds for them. They have yet to sprout, but supposedly when Armageddon(no not the one with Liv Tyler) happens, 144,000 Jews will convert and accept that Jesus was in fact the messiah, he sowed the seed in them for future reference, because they were the ones who first believed in the one true god, as opposed to the "pagan" gods of old.

[frookenhauer]

@Bent I am fully aware of your bias You say those guys in the past had faith that was stronger? tell you what, show me the red sea parting and I'll be a believer too, I'd even settle for a burning bush that spoke to me. That's what you call proof led. The whole miracle thing is a powerful tool. I don't know how to say this without knocking your faith, but Jesus was the ultimate believer, he knew he was going to be the top man in heaven. How would a few short moments of agony be any loss to such a man. Not so much of a sacrifice in that case. I'm sorry I brought this up, but it is worth considering.

Gem - If its just speculation, then speculate

[Silencer]

Gem, your first response to this thread was pretty much on the level of Terez at her worst. I'm shocked.

As I said before, if God wants me to believe, all he has to do is one simple thing. However, he instead seems to assume that it's somehow better to send one man, 2000 years ago, to sacrifice himself. To me, that doesn't show anything. If someone told me dragons attacked a castle in England 1500 years ago I would believe it. Why should I believe that some guy 2000 years ago in Jerusalem performed miracles? Hell, if I did believe in those dragons I'd probably be called insane. (That's not a dig, btw, just a point).

And I'm not buying the love thing, either. He loves us so much, he is willing to subject us to eternal torment after our death? That's pretty much the opposite of love, in my book....

Interesting perspective on the thing, Osric. I can see how that would work. Although I still don't see how matter couldn't also have always been there. (But that puts us back in the logic loop created by my original question, so I'll leave it).

And Bent, if the Angels were mindless, how did Lucifer step away? Surely that implies a mind? Or did Lucifer transcend the limits of his being? As he later becomes a deceiver. Once again that implies a mind. Unless your mindless comment only applies to the Angels' free will? But then, once again, how did Lucifer defeat that?