[Old Magic]

too many different variations of christianity to take seriously.. born from bizarre hallucinations and notions derived while the witness was alone.. why so many visions thousands of years ago and none today? Science was largely regarded as alchemists and magicians for thousands of years before the renaissance, nothing could explain hallucinations as anything but a higher power trying to contact an individual.. there are too many denominations to list, a matter of lazy convenience or insane idealism (mormons)?

this is where religion dies for me.. there is more magic in the bible than any malazan novel.. it is a tool invented/abused by empires for control through fear..

would anyone take heed to someone that took advice from a burning bush or came down from a mountain proclaiming 'gods new commandments' in modern times? Humans have a knack for wanting an answer for everything, if it cannot be answered, it must be divine intervention..

behold, the powers of the placebo effect!

[frookenhauer]

I am not entirely sure that I believe or disbelieve in God. All things considered, what I have come to understand thus far regarding the whole god thingy is that god does not exist. I will however leave the door ajar in case he decides to pop round for a spot of tea...Actually, I've decided to close it cos seeing as he's omnipotent a puny door little door is no match for him. I am not agnostic.

[Powder]

At the great risk of sounding religious, it seems your description of the events after the death of Christ are a little bit fuzzy. They were not always with single individuals alone and isolated. Still you can write them off as mass halucinations. History, tradition, and scripture itself tell us that hundreds of people claimed to see Jesus after he died and came back to life. In groups of 2, 11, and at times in groups of 100 or more. The people who would have seen him would know him well, and were subsequently willing to stake everything they had on this instance being more than a hallucination. I am not trying to refute your point--far from it. I am just trying to help you get the facts in order as you come to the same conclusion.

To the point of no visions today, that depends on who you ask. There are numerous examples of healings, visions, and etc going on today as well. You will ask to see it to believe it and of course I am going to say that it does not work that way. At the end of the day you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, nor can you argue someone into belief. The only reason I am posting on this thread is in hopes of shedding some more light on the subject, and perhaps showing that I do not belong in a mental institution because I have faith (allbeit some of the people who share my views do, as do some athiests and agnostics).

@ frook What if God likes it outside ?

-Powder

PS Please understand I hold you all in the highest regard, even if our worldviews are different. I happen to like Karsa best, while I know some of you prefer Rake .

[HoosierDaddy]

I like reading what you have to say Powder. I might not agree 100%, but I can certainly appreciate a succinct and sincere argument.

[Dolorous Menhir]

What reason is there for us to believe in God?

[Cougar]

"God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown."

Man constructed God to give our lives reason and purpose, many of us have now reasoned (through flawed methods or not, it doesn't matter) that God has outlived his usefulness. Unfortuantely entirely dispensing with the divine potentially destroys the pupose of man so many of us prefer the comfort of his presence.

I can not belive in god anymore than I accept as true anything for which there exists no evidence. The difference between religion and any other debate is merely that we've privileged religion with a special place thatr exempts it from the normal rules of rationality.

[Powder]

Cougar, on 20 December 2009 - 04:47 PM, said:

"God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown."

Man constructed God to give our lives reason and purpose, many of us have now reasoned (through flawed methods or not, it doesn't matter) that God has outlived his usefulness. Unfortuantely entirely dispensing with the divine potentially destroys the pupose of man so many of us prefer the comfort of his presence.

I can not belive in god anymore than I accept as true anything for which there exists no evidence. The difference between religion and any other debate is merely that we've privileged religion with a special place thatr exempts it from the normal rules of rationality.

I enjoyed my senior seminar on Nietzsche too .

[frookenhauer]

Powder, if god exists then he loves me. If he loves me he will walk through that door. He's had 36 years to do so. I got bored waiting.


God is very far from being dead. The numbers of the devoted are rising, whereas the numbers of the non believers are falling. This is due to one inescapable fact: Believers have more kids and those kids believe (after all if you catch em early enough...), whereas the modern rational man and woman have much to do before they settle down, if at all. In 5 generations, where do you think this will lead?

[Illuyankas]

So what you're saying is that believing in gods is an STD?

[frookenhauer]

No, simply that believers will outnumber us hugely. It is part of faith to be fruitful and pop out kids like crazy.

[Cougar]

Nietzsche did not literally mean God is dead, it's a statement to show that rational man has outgrown the need for God, which he constructed in the first place. It's not relevant that religion continues to grow or decline, what Nietzsche means is that even though reasoning, modern man no longer needs God our primal instincts, our irrational fear that our lives are meaningless and existence without purpose leads us to cling to the primitive belief, that is why he very pointedly uses the imagery of the cave.

[Powder]

Cougar, on 20 December 2009 - 08:56 PM, said:

Nietzsche did not literally mean God is dead, it's a statement to show that rational man has outgrown the need for God, which he constructed in the first place. It's not relevant that religion continues to grow or decline, what Nietzsche means is that even though reasoning, modern man no longer needs God our primal instincts, our irrational fear that our lives are meaningless and existence without purpose leads us to cling to the primitive belief, that is why he very pointedly uses the imagery of the cave.

@ Cougar I appreciate your tone, and your obvious intellect. My response below is not intended to exasterbate you in any way shape or form as I hold you in very high regard given your other postings. I will admit to some bias especially after your posts in the facial hair thread--I am a fan.

Yep. Interestingly enough most of Nietzsche's male family were pastors or other religious people. His philosophical musings are more about established religion than they are about anything else. Having read Ecce Homo, twilight of the idols, the anti-christ, and many many others this theme is repeated within his writings constantly. After doing a thorough reading of Nietzsche I have come to feel that more than anything he was burned by the church and this invariable led him to his philosophical conclusions. You are free to disagree with my conclusion but if you subscribe to Nietzsche's premises then you probably also follow in the school of Jaques Derrida. (Of course you already know this, but Ill throw it out there for any readers who do not) Deconstructionism holds the reader in the highest regard, after all it is the reader and not the author who ascribes meaning to a text--ergo no matter what you say to me you must honor my interpretation of Nietzsche's various texts, while I in turn honor yours. If there is any contradiction between the two there is nothing to be done about it, because after all there is no meaning in the text, unless I the reader bring it there.

And so it I moan alongside Derrida by saying 'my dear reader I do not know if you even grasp what I am trying to say as I write. For even as I write this I die to the text, and I do not know what you will bring to it.' Spurs and Styles around page 60, forgive me for my poor paraphrase as I do not have the book memorized and do not have it handy.

@ frook

I would like to start by saying I really appreciated your posts on the economy a thread or two over, they were always insightful and it clearly shows your expertise in the area. You usually have a well thought out and well researched position and so I assume that the same is true in this instance. With the following I am in no way trying to degrade who you are, your int I am dreadfully sorry that God has not proven his existence to you, personally, litterally, and impressively. However, demanding that an all powerful, all creating being descend into your living room sounds a bit self important does it not? I do not mean to be rude, but the logic of such a demand seems a little far fetched.

By the same token I could say that China does not exist (I may be stretching here, but its the discussion forum I have to stretch somewhere). I mean I'd see chinese people around. I'd see maps. Maybe even eat some Chinese food. However if Chairmen (forgive my political naivetee I cannot recall the leader of China at present its not my area of expertese after all) _______ won't come into my living room and share a cup of tea with me then I refuse to believe in its existance. I mean chinese people are everywhere, it doesn't mean they are from this mythical land of China. Further those maps are just government conspiricies. Chinese food is just from the West Coast of the USA (again forgive my geocentric presuppositions I am after all an American and our self importance is legendary). So if all of these things can be explained away China does not exist unless I meet China's leader (It is at this point that the metaphor breaks down, they all do. God is supposed to be omnipresent and should therefore be able to be in your room more easily than whoever is in charge of China, but its your job to poke holes in my analogy!).

Now as to God loving you. In my eyes this is true. However is it necissarily loving for him to reveal himself to you in such a way as poping over for a spot of tea? Would your will then be free to believe or disbelieve in God? Would he then not be constraining your free will, forcing you to believe in him? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of creating you with free will in the first place? Would that then not be loving? After all when one loves another they do not force them to do something against their will. Also, who knows whether or not that epiphany is coming in the future? Maybe at deaths gate there will be some grand visitation. I for one do not lose heart at a comment like yours. I know that if you truly seek God (and when I say God I am referring to the Christian God, sorry if this was not clear before) you will find him.

Often times in this short discussion the question of God's power (or lack thereof) has come up. I claim to have seen and experienced said power, you claim skepticism as to the veracity of my claims. I wrestle with your claims and ideas, and it is my sincere hope that you in turn wrestle with mine. At the end of the day hoping that if nothing else understanding will arise between us, and we all might live in some form of harmony despite our disparate views. Sadly I feel as though I have a slight edge having once been a skeptic myself , of course you may have once been believers and have a very similar edge on me. If any of you were believers and have since stopped believing I would treasure an ongoing conversation with you to see just how the 'faith went wrong'. That is not to say that I do not enjoy and admire the discussion we have going on at present of course.

Thank you all for such thrilling ripostes(you see what I did there this is an epic fantasy forum after all) thus far! I really apreciate the open dialogue we have going.

Powder

PS @ HD This is high praise coming from you! Thank you very much. You pay me a kindness by acknowleding the very purpose for which I am writing these responses.

PSPS Karsa fans unite!

[Sinisdar Toste]

Powder, on 21 December 2009 - 01:20 AM, said:

Now as to God loving you. In my eyes this is true. However is it necissarily loving for him to reveal himself to you in such a way as poping over for a spot of tea? Would your will then be free to believe or disbelieve in God? Would he then not be constraining your free will, forcing you to believe in him? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of creating you with free will in the first place? Would that then not be loving? After all when one loves another they do not force them to do something against their will. Also, who knows whether or not that epiphany is coming in the future? Maybe at deaths gate there will be some grand visitation. I for one do not lose heart at a comment like yours. I know that if you truly seek God (and when I say God I am referring to the Christian God, sorry if this was not clear before) you will find him.

well argued good sir. especially like your point about god revealing itself being a removal of your free will to choose to believe in it

[Dolorous Menhir]

That is an interesting argument. God can't prove he exists, because then you would have to know he existed, a violation of free will. This sounds convincing on the surface, but I think it is just intelligent-sounding rubbish. The first point I would make is, why on earth do you think the preservation of free will is a basic principle that constrains the actions of god himself?

Frookenhauer, on 20 December 2009 - 08:39 PM, said:

Powder, if god exists then he loves me. If he loves me he will walk through that door. He's had 36 years to do so. I got bored waiting.


God is very far from being dead. The numbers of the devoted are rising, whereas the numbers of the non believers are falling. This is due to one inescapable fact: Believers have more kids and those kids believe (after all if you catch em early enough...), whereas the modern rational man and woman have much to do before they settle down, if at all. In 5 generations, where do you think this will lead?

Well. This has always been true. But has the ratio of believers to non-believers changed in recent history, against your prediction? I think so.

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 21 December 2009 - 02:19 PM

[Powder]

Dolorous Menhir, on 21 December 2009 - 02:18 PM, said:

That is an interesting argument. God can't prove he exists, because then you would have to know he existed, a violation of free will. This sounds convincing on the surface, but I think it is just intelligent-sounding rubbish. The first point I would make is, why on earth do you think the preservation of free will is a basic principle that constrains the actions of god himself?

Frookenhauer, on 20 December 2009 - 08:39 PM, said:

Powder, if god exists then he loves me. If he loves me he will walk through that door. He's had 36 years to do so. I got bored waiting.


God is very far from being dead. The numbers of the devoted are rising, whereas the numbers of the non believers are falling. This is due to one inescapable fact: Believers have more kids and those kids believe (after all if you catch em early enough...), whereas the modern rational man and woman have much to do before they settle down, if at all. In 5 generations, where do you think this will lead?

Well. This has always been true. But has the ratio of believers to non-believers changed in recent history, against your prediction? I think so.

I am about to pack up and leave school so I will have to be brief in my response, if it is not sufficient more will come later. There are many reasons that God can and (in my opinion does) limit himself (the principle does not limit God, for then he would cease to be God). It would appear to me that we do have some form of free will, and that by and large God does not casually constrain it. However there are times when God does show himself and act in a tangible way (i.e. Jesus, Bible, etc) yet in all those instances people were free to believe or disbelieve in Christ. The difference being that he only seems to do so for those who are seeking after him. Enter Frook (whose honesty I love btw) he is not seeking God, yet demanding that God show himself to him anyway. At this point God would be violating Frooks free will to choose or not choose him by showing up (as it is frook is not choosing God and by God's showing up frook would have to believe him. Obviously Frook is not going to settle for just anyone walking through the door but desires flashing lights, some miracles, proof that he is not halucinating or dreaming etc).

Also, I am not sure as to your usage of the term 'rubbish', but the tone has been quite amiable so far and I will work under the assumption that you wish it to remain so. I hope that helps, if I have been unclear or not made a good point let me know and I will try to post more later.

-Powder

[Cougar]

Powder many props for your attempts to engage with all this, it tough subject to keep civil, I'd respond extensively on Nietzsche, Derrida etc as it's fascinating to talk it through and I'd never deride anyone for having a contrary interpretation, as mine might have changed by tomorrow. As one of my favorites said "Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same." Unfortunately I feel I have to step in as a mod and say that to do so I'd be totally going off topic, since this thread is about why people believe in God, and a thorough discussion of Nihilism and Deconstruction might just be as about as opposite to that as you could get.

I agree entirely with your reading of Derrida, in so far as is possible without irony, since I read it. The only other thing I will say is that I'm not sure it matters what Nietzsche's inluence in critiquing religion was, it's clear that he has constructed a very well reasoned framework to question our motivations in preserving it. You might question his influences from a biographical perspective, and be right to do so, but the philosophy itself I think has to be analysed in isolation. I happen to feel that the actual line 'god is dead' was produced out of a sense of inflamatory mischief, since there is no reason for it to be put so starkly, nor would one logically express it so unless one was actively hoping for it to be taken out of context.

In any case all I really believe, I'm not sure I'm much of a nihilist despite my sig, is that man constructed god and has reached a level of rationality where he no longer needs a deity to validate his life.

[Obdigore]

A question for you Powder (or anyone else, really) that DM's latest post made me ask.

If 'God' revealing himself as true removed free will from humanity, then how could Adam or Eve have ever eaten of the apple of the knowledge of good and evil? I might be apeing the OP, but how could they know that eating the apple is wrong before they know what right or wrong is?

[Dolorous Menhir]

Apologies for the rude response. The tone on some of the other posts in this forum has been less amicable, but I do not believe you have contributed to that in any way, Powder. Calling your arguments rubbish was harsh, but I hope it communicates what I think of your reasoning. You are assuming a great deal of baseless things (e.g. importance of free will, veracity of Bible), without any particular rhyme or reason. You are then building on those assumptions to reach the conclusions you need to reach.

I do not find that convincing. It would be more honest for you to say "I believe," and leave it at that. Don't try to reverse justify it by attempting to prove that god is unable to provide actual proof of its existence for arcane reasons (note the intellectual contortions you are forced into just to try and explain yourself).

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 21 December 2009 - 09:36 PM

[Powder]

Dolorous Menhir, on 21 December 2009 - 09:33 PM, said:

Apologies for the rude response. The tone on some of the other posts in this forum has been less amicable, but I do not believe you have contributed to that in any way, Powder. Calling your arguments rubbish was harsh, but I hope it communicates what I think of your reasoning. You are assuming a great deal of baseless things (e.g. importance of free will, veracity of Bible), without any particular rhyme or reason. You are then building on those assumptions to reach the conclusions you need to reach.

I do not find that convincing. It would be more honest for you to say "I believe," and leave it at that. Don't try to reverse justify it by attempting to prove that god is unable to provide actual proof of its existence for arcane reasons (note the intellectual contortions you are forced into just to try and explain yourself).

@DM
Thank you very much. This discussion has been very helpful to me in many ways. It is very important to think through ones ideas, and to make sure that they are sound and well reasoned. You raise excellent critiques and have made it very apparent to me that my presuppositions need to come to the fore for the discussion to be held on a level playing field. I do not have any problem with saying 'I believe'. What does bother me is that I am often called irrational, stupid, and a various assortment of other names while doing so (not necessarily here).

As to your questions. Could you focus it down to one point (and let the others rest for now) so that I can think/ponder in a direction and see where I end up? As noted I have presuppositions and I have not explained them all--but to be fair no one ever does--which ones would you like to know about most? I assure you that I am reasonable/rational and try to hang little on 'thin air' and nor do I agree with Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith idea'. However given the wide reaching scope of your questions some focus is necessary.

Hopefully (this may sound a bit off) you will find some area which I have to respond 'I don't know' and will uncover a blind spot within my own life. I relish this opportunity to engage in such a lively discussion with you all as I feel that all of us are benefited by its existence. Wow I had not intended such a lengthy post.

@ Cougar I'd love to! I still keep in touch with my prof from undergrad who basically did his thesis on Nietzsche and I am always going on about such things but no one ever listens (Most American's do not really care for philosophy and those that do can be quite snobbish at times).

@ Obdigore You sir are getting into an area that is very interesting. You are starting to get into an area of interpretation. Is that a literal story? Is it a parable? Is it a correction of Canaanite mythology? Who are you asking? The church proper, which denomination, me? With some more specifics I could try and answer your question but as it stands I find it difficult neigh impossible. So along with DM could you provide some focus to it?

Also was it a tree with magical fruit? Perhaps it was just some random tree we still have today? How is there a snake talking if it is indeed real life?

Just to anticipate a few more....
How does one read the creation narrative? Is it 6 literal days? The Hebrew word (transliterated) yom could also be interpreted as a period of time/epoc/etc as well as day (Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary and so words often have double and triple meanings). Is it a poem/song to sang in worship to what God has done?

You sir are getting into the Genre of interpretation. What kind of literature is in question, translation issues, and the like. I guarantee you that this is a whole new 'can of worms' (a great American colloquialism). If you truly wish to tread this path I will do my best, but my Hebrew mastery is only just beginning and I may not be able to give you satisfactory answers to all your questions, but I certainly will try.
-Powder

PS As I am from America I do not know what rubbish truly means (I had some vague idea of trash, but that is not necessarily rude), so you need not worry about my feelings being hurt or my opinion of you dropping. Thank you for all the responses thus far!

[Obdigore]

Ok, Powder, how about this:

The Bible says (paraphrasing, tell me if I am paraphrasing wrong) That before eating of the tree of good and evil, Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil. If so, how could it be possible that they were told not to eat from it?

Another question that is related, is:
If knowing about God did not remove Adam and Eve's ability to have Free Will, then how could you say that if a human today knew that god did exist (with facts, not faith), how would that remove their Free Will?

I am asking You, Powder, US Resident your opinion on these matters. If you believe I am not understanding something written in the bible please let me know your view on the subject where it differs from mine.