1340 replies to this topic

[Athena]

LOL

[Banshee]

Final note: Therefore God, being the universe, is concrete and not abstract.

Fair enough. But in being concrete and not abstract, God is not everything that exists. God cannot be in your heart in an abstract sense, because you just said he ain't abstract.

The universe is not omnipotent. One atom cannot go kill ten people because it wants to. Nor can one man create an atom. I will explain in terms of your next point below:

'wish' is a feature from a nervous system. An atom has no brain, smart ass .

No. The laws of physics, gravity and molecular physics are NOT made by us. The laws were already in place. We just discovered them; we didn't invent them any more than we 'invented' oxygen. If God is every single damn particle in space, then God is adhering to laws. They may be 'abstract concepts', but they are there. I refer you to Newton's Laws of Motion. Show me those laws being truly defied. No? Well, then, God is not only omnipresent (he is not abstract concepts as well as the physical and the tangible), but he is not omnipotent. This is the point I've been trying to get across.

Bansh, I really do respect your views even though you think I don't. But you haven't given me a logical answer to prove my statement that your points are a contradiction is wrong

I say that to any religous person too. There's only one person whose beliefs I would utterly say are wrong, and that's mostly because that person never explained himself beyond posting four or five random words here or there. You all know who I mean. Anyone's entitled to their beliefs. You can have your God, your Allah, your Buddha, your Ganesh and whoever else. I can have my atheism. None of us are ever going to agree, probably. But in order to advance one's belief, is it not right that one must first question them? And answer the questions?

Please, study quantic physics, or at least, try to read one or two articles about it.

You'll understand that everything that happens is kinda random. Particles act in a random way. The sum of the things is what makes sense or appears to have some logics, which we try to explain with our laws.

So, I repeat, the laws are created and written by humans (Maybe some ET might have their physics laws as well).

Following the logic of your first quote, an atom doesn't think 'Hey, after hiting that other atom, I'm going back because I need to follow the physics laws"

But we know that, under certain circunstances, this kind of reaction can happen.

[MSpencer]

Quantum café. You ask for grapefruit juice, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time you get it, it's that one in a couple billion billion billion billion billion billion billion that you get orange.

I believe one of Brian Greene's books states that the calculations done out guarantee that one thing will go against the laws of physics in something crazy like once in a couple trillion years, but I'm leaning towards something higher than that.


http://www.pbs.org/w...nt/program.html
Watch Chapter 5

Edited by MSpencer, 27 July 2006 - 09:03 PM.

[Hrod89]

Maniacs and fundamentalists (sometimes one in the same) ruin it for everyone. This applies to both sides of the arguement.

[Banshee]

The percentage is not that high, Spencer .

[MSpencer]

It's close enough. You would have to be doing something for an eternity to have a reasonable chance of doing something against the observed laws of physics in our level of existence. Obviously on the subatomic level it's different.

[Banshee]

and it's on the subatomic level that things happens ....

[MSpencer]

But the general theory states that anything can happen, that anything is technically possible, just not feasible in all probability. You can only determine the probability of an event happening, and it's not talking about only the subatomic level.

[AOWR-Theoo Stratiotes]

Um... I'm correcting myself on an earlier statement;

I reviewed my science book, and it said that roughly 50,000 years ago the sun would have had an expanded size that would have burned all oxygen and oxidizable materials from the Earth, so I was wrong. Sorry. Argument remains basically the same though, the sun would have destroyed most of the earth that long ago.

[Mathijs]

Read the previous posts.. that argument gets knocked into the floor.

[MSpencer]

The sun's never been that much larger than it is now. They get larger as they get older. Also, that's assuming the sun's size is a linear, unchanging equation... which it isn't.

Out of curiosity, what's the title of the book?

Edited by MSpencer, 29 July 2006 - 09:02 PM.

[Orc Master]

OK, people, I've read quite a lot of this topic. I must say I'm christian, catholic, apostolic, follower of the Holy Catholic Church in the Vatican, but I also believe in science over all. So, I'll give you some decent answers, to see what you think.

1. No evidence of God.Or Buddha. Or anything else like that

Do yourself a favor and go to this page. It clearly gives scientifical proof of God. There you'll find many other links.

2. Plenty of evidence in science. (But I think the Big Bang is bullcrap.)

Ahah, well, the scientific evidence is above. Now, about that Big Bang theory, if the Big Bang wasn't produced, then the Universe would be infinite. If it was, then, there would just not be radiactive elements, since radiactive elements lose particles as time passes. If these elements existed from the "infinite", then, all of them wouldn't exist to the present.

3. If God really loved us, would we need to worship Him? This makes me think he's power hungry, meaning He is not perfect, meaning he must not be omnipowerful and omnipotent

He demands us to worship Him because He deserves it. He's not powerhungry, because if He was, then He'd control all our minds, and we'd all spend the whole day in the Church, worshipping Him. But we're free to do whatever we want, because he loves us. And the way we express love back to Him is worshipping Him.

4. If God really loved us, would He send us to Hell? He's omniBENEVOLENT, after all. He forgives everything, supposedly

No, God isn't suposed to forgive everything. He's infinitely mercyful, but only if we ask him to. Now you could say that then God is powerhungry because of this, but think about it this way, if it seems reasonable for you: Imagine you offend one of your friends. Now, let's imagine you don't want that person to be offended anymore. What do you do? You say sorry. That's just exactly what God tells us to do. Now, would you think that friend is powerhungry? I don't know what you think, but I don't think so.

Besides, He's infinitely fair and just. And He doesn't send us to Hell. We just go to Hell because we didn't give reasons for God to allow us into Heaven, because we didn't follow his commandments.

5. If He really existed, why would the KKK/Taliban/other idiots exist?

As I think I said before, all we humans are free to do with our lives whatever we want. "KKK/Talibans/other idiots" (though I'm not fine with calling people with different beliefs "idiots") exist because they didn't choose to live their lives according to God's commandments, they didn't use their freedom well.

6. If He exists, why are there other religions?

Because, as I've said before, we're free to do whatever we want. He won't stop us, because He loves us so much that he lets us make mistakes to learn from them. Other religions exist because some people didn't choose to live according to his commandments in the right moment.

Now, I'm willing to argue whatever you actually have to say against this. Go on, don't be shy!

Edited by Orc Master, 29 July 2006 - 11:42 PM.

[Zephyr]

Ok - this one's a common argument, and I admit I haven't read all 12 pages of this thread, but if every religion thinks that they're following the true God(s) or whatever, how can anybody know that their belief is the "right" one? In a way, doesn't the existance of so many different versions of the "truth" significantly lower the probability that any one of them will actually be correct?

[Tom]

3. If God really loved us, would we need to worship Him? This makes me think he's power hungry, meaning He is not perfect, meaning he must not be omnipowerful and omnipotent

He demands us to worship Him because He deserves it. He's not powerhungry, because if He was, then He'd control all our minds, and we'd all spend the whole day in the Church, worshipping Him. But we're free to do whatever we want, because he loves us. And the way we express love back to Him is worshipping Him.

Worshipping is not love, worshipping is delusion. If God exists then he is EVERYTHING that exists including me, you and everyone as in consciousness as well as the physical illusion painted before our eyes. All he asks is not to worship the ego but to be as egoless as possible in order to free yourself from this physical prison known as the body. The spirit is exactly that, it is your consciousness, his consciousness, part of the single infinite consciousness known as "God" or creation. The body is also part of that however it lives in a finite dimension therefore has a finite life.

4. If God really loved us, would He send us to Hell? He's omniBENEVOLENT, after all. He forgives everything, supposedly

No, God isn't suposed to forgive everything. He's infinitely mercyful, but only if we ask him to. Now you could say that then God is powerhungry because of this, but think about it this way, if it seems reasonable for you: Imagine you offend one of your friends. Now, let's imagine you don't want that person to be offended anymore. What do you do? You say sorry. That's just exactly what God tells us to do. Now, would you think that friend is powerhungry? I don't know what you think, but I don't think so.

Hell is created by humans, hell is created when we imprison ourselves with fear, anger, hatred and all that is considered as the negative emotions. These can be carried on after death and we can remain "trapped" here on this planet as we believed it is all that existed or focused only on the negative which built chains around our neck. Hell is not a place you go, its a place you create by your thoughts and your own consciousness through your negatives and your ego.

5. If He really existed, why would the KKK/Taliban/other idiots exist?

As I think I said before, all we humans are free to do with our lives whatever we want. "KKK/Talibans/other idiots" (though I'm not fine with calling people with different beliefs "idiots") exist because they didn't choose to live their lives according to God's commandments, they didn't use their freedom well.

True, free will. God create us in his image, that is not a physical image, that merely means we have free will. Every problem on earth is caused by humans, "god" does not interfere, we are god, we create and destroy ourselves. It is our responisibility to repair the problems we create.

6. If He exists, why are there other religions?

Because, as I've said before, we're free to do whatever we want. He won't stop us, because He loves us so much that he lets us make mistakes to learn from them. Other religions exist because some people didn't choose to live according to his commandments in the right moment.

Don't be silly, all religions were written by humans as a way to explain the infinite oneness that is creation or "God". Religion however has been used time and time again for powerbases and corruption. It contains both truth and lies however all has a very spiritual and symbolic meaning. Different religions are due to different perspectives of God or ways to explain the nature of the universe/the cosmos/creation. It is not down to the fact catholism is right and the ten commandments are absolute. Christianity/catholism has much truth in it but it also has many lies. The ten commandments were merely guidelines, there is a far more spiritual meaning to them. That is do not affect anyone elses free will. Everyone is linked all part of the same consciousness. Would you murder yourself? No. If you see everyone else as yourself, a mirror of you, another part of the infinite consciousness that is creation you would not harm it. Everything in this life is giving you clues and ideas to move on and evolve spiritually beyond this realm. If you do not evolve you will return to either repeat your life or another life (this is what reincarnation symbolises in bhuddism). All religion has truth in it, there is no way to focus on one single religion otherwise you will limit yourself. God/creation does not care if you focus on one religion, it does not care if your christian, catholic, protestant, jewish, islamic etc etc.

Either way i'd watch the vatican, they would like everyone to believe that humans are corrupt from the moment they are born so they must submit themselves to the almighty vatican who will show them the light. You forget all the vatican has ever done is cause war through its greed. The jesuit order, another part of the vatican is merely just a tool for such things. The vatican has been corrupt since its existance and is still corrupt today. It has its hands in many things, secret societies and even the world banks.

Either way there is no way to state which view is right because they are exactly that, views. Beliefs are what imprison us upon this earth, they close our minds.

[MSpencer]

1. You can't apply principles in philosophy to the question of whether God exists or not. You can't claim that the only reason why we have morality is because of God, it just doesn't work that way, because just as equally I can tell you, with quite a bit of certainty, that we know at least altruism is controlled by a set of behavioral "equations" (Really vast approximations which happen in your brain subliminally and produce certain tendencies to responses) called the Hamilton Rule, based on the theory of kin selection, that organisms are predisposed to allowing their relatives to survive giving them a better chance to pass on at least some of their genes. The Hamilton Rule can be observed in altruism, meaning that opens the door up for us to assume that morality is completely a human thing, considering other organisms observe the key processes.
Life is just pure chance. You can't just list off a bunch of terms and say "this is a better explanation", it just goes against 4000 years of modern human science...

2. Scientific evidence is not on one little Christian Agenda website which preaches "Pray to Jesus shoot the scientists", and advocates "All of science is wrong, the bible is right". One would expect them to at least concede on some points that science could be right about the origins of the modern planet earth and its biosphere... Scientific evidence can be found in thousands of papers, hundreds of theories, and millions of man hours of work to discover what made planet earth in the past thirty years alone. Before that, you have had notable scientists and philosophers all researching these things, spending their entire lives in some cases, but of course, according to the Jesusfreaks, they just have to be wrong because they cannot fathom an existence where the bible isn't construed as law. You have to realize the book was not written by omnipotent, omnipresent people. It was written by some people 4000 years ago who knew less about the world than we do. You shouldn't take it literally, more as a guide of what they want you to do and what they don't want you to do, and by they, I mean people who have been dead for about 3,970 years.

3. We should thank the Great Maker for every moment we're given free.
Anyone see the vast illogical statement there? Next thing we'll be preaching is 6 day creation...

4. Infinitely fair and just. Correct every time. Omnipotent, which by definition is paradoxical, omnipresent, which by definition is paradoxical, and omniscient, which of course, by definition is impossible. All of these are covered under something termed the "Omnipotence Paradox", look it up.
Nothing can ever be right every single time.

5. Hey look, let's everyone follow blindly! Come on, line up now, hold hands, let's follow Jesus off the clift to DivineLand ™.

6. Every other belief must be a mistake then. How foolish I am for questioning the world around me, and basing my beliefs off of valid scientific inquiry than a 4000 year old book which speaks in riddles and condemns anyone the church doesn't like...

[Hrod89]

OK, people, I've read quite a lot of this topic. I must say I'm christian, catholic, apostolic, follower of the Holy Catholic Church in the Vatican, but I also believe in science over all. So, I'll give you some decent answers, to see what you think.

1. No evidence of God.Or Buddha. Or anything else like that

Do yourself a favor and go to this page. It clearly gives scientifical proof of God. There you'll find many other links.

Clearly.

However, that site is also clearly biased. It might just be me, but I find it hard to believe that someone who devoutly worships something could possibly write anything that showcases both sides of the arguement fairly.

[Orc Master]

That's possibly because you believe that people will always be partialized by their way of thinking. I think you're right, in some way. But, seeing it in a more open-minded way, I think that POSSIBLY the arguments gave by people who believe could be founded enough to make non-believers, well, believe, if you follow me.

@Hybrid: Don't call me silly, just because you think that the argument is silly. Let's discuss without insulting everyone, please. Let's have some fair play.

The Vatican being a corrupt organization is a very globalized opinion, but I'd like to see evidence for THAT, as you want scientific evidence for God.

Worshipping is love, if you do it with love. All depends of the way you see it. For example, I don't feel delusioned when I worship God, because I do it with love, but YOU may feel it. Then, according to YOUR point of view, worshipping is delusion. And in some way it is, if you don't do it with love.

We are not God; that's a very, I must say it, weird argument. It's right we are free to do what we want, and that we have responsibility for our actions. In fact, that's what God says, and that's why he punishes us by not allowing us to enter Heaven.

Also, your point of view kinda reminds me of the New Age way of thought, in which everybody are part of a single global energy, which you call God for a reason I don't know. But this is wrong, because each person is an individual piece of engineery, and none's made out of the same mold. Each person is unique. So, we can't be part of a whole thing.

Hell is not in people's mind. You can call the imprisoned hatred, anger and ego in your mind "Hell" if that makes you happy, but that's not Hell. Hell is the place where the Devil lies. The Devil exists. Not like he's responsible of our bad behavior/thoughts or anything, but he exists. And when you go to Hell it's the infinite torture for not living according to the Commandments.

Now you brought an interesting thing: that the Ten Commandments aren't for "divine" purposes, but only guides for people. Well, let me tell you something: when you read the Bible, you see Jesus saying that people have to follow the Commandments to enter Heaven.

Finally, what you say about all the religions having a little bit of truth... Well, I just would like you to give me links to scientific proofs of any other religion, besides catholicism. I KNOW i can find scientific facts about MY religion.

@MS Spencer: I like your scientific explanation of the feelings in the human mind. In fact, it makes sense. But I'm not asking you to look at it at the philosophical side. Look at it at the scientific side, at the site link I gave you all.

That's not a little christian agenda website that condemns science. We christian DO ADMIT that science is right, because it gives EXPLANATIONS of the stuff that happen. So, don't tell christians that they are stupid because they don't believe in science, because I do, and I strongly think that it demostrates God.

The Bible was written by people, that's right, and there are many parts that are metaphors and guides, but that must not take us apart from the truth it transmits. What I'm saying is that you can take the Bible as a guide for your life, but you MUST remember that the facts of Jesus' life were real, and that it is the story of a real man who was, by the way, God. If you want I can give you links of sites that demostrate the historical and archaeological authenticity of te Bible and the facts it tells.

Now, we should thank the Great Maker for every moment we're given free, that's right. And why? Because we're not naturally free, we're free because God wants us to. The 6 days creation has to be interpreted in a very specific way. That's a metaphor. Now what is actually important is to know how to makethe difference between metaphors and real statements, and how the metaphors really apply to the World.

It has been proved by science (and it would be foolish to deny it) that the World wasn't created in 6 days. But the thing is that, actually, maybe for God those were like 6 days, we don't know. And as we don't know, we cannot neither deny it or completely accept it. It's a matter of faith.

@Zephyr: Man, it lowers the probabilities in human terms. But as I said before, you gotta find solid scientific proof of any other religion.

@Everyone in general:

WOW, people, you weren't shy at all Well, now argue whatever you want to THESE arguments. Let's see how all this ends...

[MSpencer]

Bear with me, I'm going to tackle this in pieces for the sake of us all.

@MS Spencer: I like your scientific explanation of the feelings in the human mind. In fact, it makes sense. But I'm not asking you to look at it at the philosophical side. Look at it at the scientific side, at the site link I gave you all.

That is looking at it in a scientific way. I'm looking at it in a neurological sense, not philosophical. There's a fine line. The development of complex higher brain functions can clearly be seen in organisms of lesser intelligence. Don't be so vain as to think that because you can think competently, that god must have done it. By saying your own brain processes prove the existence of god is the most unfounded reasoning I have heard in my life. I have seriously heard better reasoning from biology flunkies...

That's not a little christian agenda website that condemns science. We christian DO ADMIT that science is right, because it gives EXPLANATIONS of the stuff that happen. So, don't tell christians that they are stupid because they don't believe in science, because I do, and I strongly think that it demostrates God.

The Christian Agenda likes to say that science is right until it conflicts with the Bible. Anything that scientists write and back up with a huge arsenal of facts and supporting evidence is correct until it somehow might question what is literally stated in the Bible. It's quite obvious in the history of humanity. Galileo was threatened with death over claiming the Earth orbited the sun... what makes today any different? Now, the church just can't burn people alive, all they can do is argue incoherently until the sun goes down...
Science does not support the concept of god anymore than it supports the latest Hollywood movie. Scientists would love to be totally left alone by the Church, except for a few, but every time a legitimate theory is published, the Jesusfreaks tend to work their way out of the woodwork and say "Oh no that's not right, we know because we're the descendants of God". Give me a break.

The Bible was written by people, that's right, and there are many parts that are metaphors and guides, but that must not take us apart from the truth it transmits. What I'm saying is that you can take the Bible as a guide for your life, but you MUST remember that the facts of Jesus' life were real, and that it is the story of a real man who was, by the way, God. If you want I can give you links of sites that demostrate the historical and archaeological authenticity of te Bible and the facts it tells.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is not a book, or that Jesus of Nazareth did exist (I prefer not to use the term Jesus "Christ", it tries to underlie some god-like stature which is not befitting any man). I'm sure Jesus of Nazareth was a Ghandi of the times, a Nelson Mandella, a Muhammad, a John F. Kennedy, a Roosevelt, a Caesar, an Alexander of the philosophical world. But the fact of the matter remains, for all we know, he had lead poisoning and legitimately believed he was the son of god and started this crazy religion. We can already state from archaelogical evidence that Roman troops were near the residence of Mary near the time of Jesus' "immaculate" conception, and we all know how shy THEY were about raping virgins.
No website you can come up with can try and say that Jesus was "divine", there's no such thing...

Now, we should thank the Great Maker for every moment we're given free, that's right. And why? Because we're not naturally free, we're free because God wants us to. The 6 days creation has to be interpreted in a very specific way. That's a metaphor. Now what is actually important is to know how to makethe difference between metaphors and real statements, and how the metaphors really apply to the World.

One of the main principles of sentient organisms is the freedom of action. You're not technically competent if you cannot act on your own accord. We're free because we're alive, no spiritual nonsense has anything to do with that.

It has been proved by science (and it would be foolish to deny it) that the World wasn't created in 6 days. But the thing is that, actually, maybe for God those were like 6 days, we don't know. And as we don't know, we cannot neither deny it or completely accept it. It's a matter of faith.

Maybe for me, typing this response was like three seconds. Maybe three millenia. I know, I think I'll go write a spiritual book with some bullshit in it. We'll call it the Spencer Testament, I'll contact my friend Obersturmfuerher Benedict XVI and I'll check to see whether or not he'll convene a council about adding it to the Bible.
Now how would THAT be to wreck religion for you and every other Christian on the earth?

I better start writing.

Also I would appreciate it if you got my name right in the future. It is quite annoying when people do that.

Edited by MSpencer, 31 July 2006 - 03:26 AM.

[Hostile]

OK, people, I've read quite a lot of this topic. I must say I'm christian, catholic, apostolic, follower of the Holy Catholic Church in the Vatican, but I also believe in science over all. So, I'll give you some decent answers, to see what you think.

1. No evidence of God.Or Buddha. Or anything else like that

Do yourself a favor and go to this page. It clearly gives scientifical proof of God. There you'll find many other links.

Clearly.

However, that site is also clearly biased. It might just be me, but I find it hard to believe that someone who devoutly worships something could possibly write anything that showcases both sides of the arguement fairly.

So you're saying it has to be on a science site to be valid. So if it's a Christian who is a scientist explaining something, than it must be BS. Well that sounds rather biased in the other direction doesn't it.

It sounds that if a scientist who happens to be a Christian runs a site that speculates than it's automatically BS. Yet on those science only sites I read articles about string theories and multiple dimensions. And that gets a round of applause.

In fact that's a funny reversal of "preaching to the chior"

[MSpencer]

When a Christian tries to cite non-existent biblical evidence as proof of God, the site is crap. Any scientist who even looked near the general direction of a bible in their work today would be ridiculed very quickly.