Probabilities That We Have God [Archive]

scameter

18th March 2006, 05:33 AM

I personally think the issue of God has been thought about both not enough, and not in the correct way. As the Dalai Lama said, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; a God could very well exist, even if we cannot currently find evidence of him/her/it's existence. Or, it could just as well exist beyond the physical, but with the ability to communicate with us mystically. I personally think it is simply arrogance to entirely deny the existence or nonexistence of a God, because either assumption would imply that our knowledge is perfect; which even scientifically is untrue. I think that God, just as with science or anything else that is recognized by the human mind, requires belief to exist in the physical form, and for humanity, empiricism is alot easier to believe in than in something unpalpable, which is the cause of science's popularity, and especially math's. God could be anything from a warrior god that acts as a catalyst to human desires and thus enforces them to fight and murder each other and inspires the Will to Power and survival of the fittest effects, or could be a simple, natural, peaceful entity of mysticality that permeates existence with a transcendental mysticism and magic, and anything in between or without. I think William James' great work, The Varieties of Religious Experience, as well as Joseph Campbell's works, are incredibly helpful in this issue. Personally, I think God probably does exist, but is not so paradoxical as people desire to make out; I think it is, even it even *is*, is the essential Great Mystery, a certain personification of mysticism and feeling in existence that adds a particular magic to existence, and by magic I do not mean what most psychologists explain simply as the desire of humans to explain something that requires empirical logic to describe, such as the sunrise, and thus to label it as unexplainable; I mean spirit, feeling, and mysticism, a sort of transcendental permeation of existence with a flowing nonchalance and deliberation of both irony and passion. I think science is perfectly fine for describing existence, and that logic is perfectly fine for affirming human beliefs, and that philosophy is perfectly fine for creating an arena to which can house the existence of human curiosity; but as for ultimate truth, that is unexplainable. :)

MidnightSun

18th March 2006, 12:48 PM

I totally agree.

scameter

19th March 2006, 01:33 PM

Perhaps. But actually, I think that it is similar to the thought of the Tao, that both your view of entire lack of humanness in god(s), and the Christian view of one God with human characteristics are/could be both true. I actually find the Christian view of God (the Bible's view translated and thought about theologically, not this hypocritical nonsense called the Christian church) to be most suiting to my view of him, and to be honest, I think perhaps it is true to say that if we have thought about something, then thus it must exist, even if no more than a thought electrochemical reaction in our brain: it still exists with it's own potency given by belief. Accordingly, I find the view of the gods of J.R.R. Tolkien's world to be also very interesting, each Valar, or god as is said in the tongue of humans, representing a part of the mind of Illuvatar, or God. For instance, Melkor was the Valar of knowledge, and he was most powerful of all the Valar, but also was evil, believing himself more powerful and more individual than God, and thus seperate from the whole of God's kingdom. After God made what is called Aman, or existence, everything the Valar tried to create Melkor spitingly corrupted or destroyed. Manwe, the king of the Valar (Melkor being no longer counted among the Valar), the Valar of the skies and the heavens, although one less in power rank than Melkor, was most beloved to God, and stood as the king of all Valar.

It is an extremely interesting portrayal of God, and almost resonates with Joseph Campbell's use of the term usually used in the titling of his books on mythology, "The Masks of God", except the Valar aren't masks. I think it unfortunate that Christianity has become so watered-down so to speak, from various insertions of political, economic and societal dogma that it has lost, in public place, it's original mysticism; but, that aspect of it, as well as the truth of it when approached theologically and with an actual brain usually seeming to have been forgotten by church-goers, can be very readily found and experienced. :)

Kether

20th March 2006, 05:07 AM

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
Of course. We do not have evidence for the existence of God, but we can still think about the probability of certain types of deity and the probability of whether a deity exists at all. The question can and should be dealt with rationally.
Assuming that one's knowledge is perfect is indeed arrogant, and we should be ready to change our views according to what the best evidence and reasoning says. Still, we should not simply assume that the limits of our empirical knowledge forbid us from having an answer.
For humanity, empiricism is alot easier to believe in than in something unpalpable, which is the cause of science's popularity, and especially math's.
Strange - I would say the exact opposite: that people are more ready to believe in something comforting but intangible than in something undeniable but initially unpleasant. The spread of logic has been exceptionally limited, and irrationality still has the upper hand - particularly in the political sphere.
I think perhaps it is true to say that if we have thought about something, then thus it must exist, even if no more than a thought electrochemical reaction in our brain: it still exists with it's own potency given by belief.
The thought of something is not the thing itself. The 'thing' is the Ultimate Reality, and the thought is the symbol through which we experience it.
I think science is perfectly fine for describing existence, and that logic is perfectly fine for affirming human beliefs, and that philosophy is perfectly fine for creating an arena to which can house the existence of human curiosity; but as for ultimate truth, that is unexplainable.
The ultimate truth is the neutral existence described by science; the meanings with which we imbue it exist only in our minds. They concern the way in which the human consciousness experiences the reality. They are ultimate in terms of importance to the Subject, but they are not ultimate truth - the ultimate truth is neutral and essentially meaningless.

I think it is more probable that the collective unconscious explains why the belief in gods has developed, not how 'God' communicates with us. It is a theory that fascinates me deeply.

Smurf

20th March 2006, 05:21 AM

yes but what about outside influences, other people can experience your unconscious experience and therefore draw conclusions and understand the unconsciousness,

unconsciousness is as close to death as you will get, it is the brain switching off. it is the dark tunnel with no light. it is the oblivion ... the abyss

scameter

20th March 2006, 05:27 AM

Of course. We do not have evidence for the existence of God, but we can still think about the probability of certain types of deity and the probability of whether a deity exists at all. The question can and should be dealt with rationally. Assuming that one's knowledge is perfect is indeed arrogant, and we should be ready to change our views according to what the best evidence and reasoning says. Still, we should not simply assume that the limits of our empirical knowledge forbid us from having an answer.

Indeed my friend, I'm glad you share my view. :)

Strange - I would say the exact opposite: that people are more ready to believe in something comforting but intangible than in something undeniable but initially unpleasant. The spread of logic has been exceptionally limited, and irrationality still has the upper hand - particularly in the political sphere.

Indeed, but many religions have taken a very down-hill turn in civilized society and especially in the academic world for decades, giving way to science. Most people who claim to follow a religion either do it for show and in a hypocritical manner, or have been taught it from early childhood and thus believe it even when posed with strong empirical evidence.

The thought of something is not the thing itself. The 'thing' is the Ultimate Reality, and the thought is the symbol through which we experience it.

Indeed. But, the thought is our recognition of our experience, and thus is indeed how we perceive it, but how can we know that perception is either accuracte or inaccurate?

The ultimate truth is the neutral existence described by science; the meanings with which we imbue it exist only in our minds. They concern the way in which the human consciousness experiences the reality. They are ultimate in terms of importance to the Subject, but they are not ultimate truth - the ultimate truth is neutral and essentially meaningless.

Ah. So you're saying that ultimate truth is physical existence as is described by objective science? But, through your logic, science uses thought, thus how can it be truly objective?

I think it is more probable that the collective unconscious explains why the belief in gods has developed, not how 'God' communicates with us. It is a theory that fascinates me deeply.

I disagree, although it does fascinate my deeply as well, which is why I enjoy theology. I do not think, dislike science, that our belief and our belief in god and our belief in spirituality is simply unconscious; we aren't only physical. This may be something unthinkable to science, which is limited to describing the physical (although it can't explain the beginning of the physical, the big bang, and so simply say it is a singularity), but there are too many undescribable things in existence to say that we are simply physical. Even the brilliant physicist, Stephen Hawking, admitted this, saying that the question of why things are as they are specifically- such as, why do colours like red and green reflect light, and dark colours like black consume it?- cannot be answered by science, because it describes, not questions.

Kether

21st March 2006, 03:41 AM

Ah. So you're saying that ultimate truth is physical existence as is described by objective science? But, through your logic, science uses thought, thus how can it be truly objective?
The following is adapted from Buddhism and Science:
Perception is an act of thought and thought is symbolism: therefore perception is symbolism.
Cognition - with the possible exception of consciousness, which remains a mystery to me - consists of the interaction of environment with the workings of the neural system of which the brain is a part, or possibly of the interaction of abstract thoughts with abstract thoughts (ie, a priori knowledge, the existence of which is of course hotly debated).

Such mental processings produce the phenomenon of Mind: this processing is central to the brain, and it records and reflects the reality that is being perceived - it is not reality in and of itself, but appears that way. Thus it can be said to be symbolism, which proves the shakiest premise of the argument detailed above. The other - 'perception is thought' - seems to me self-evident.

Therefore, perceptions do not reflect the Ultimate Reality. However, nor are they all wholly obscured - they are symbolism, representation, and thus some can 'represent' the reality better than others. Reality does not exist as that which our thoughts suppose it to be: but we can bring our thoughts closer to reality, and thus understand it better.

At this point, an apparent fallacy becomes painfully obvious - one that you have pointed out. If thought is symbolism, then surely our judgement of reality is clouded by it? My answer to this involves a categorisation of acts of cognition - a distinction between the most basic ones that are innate to human beings, and those that require a higher degree of subjective conceptualisation. Vision falls into the first category; ethics into the second.

The thoughts that fall into the second category can be judged in terms of 'truth' (that is, how well they symbolise reality) by viewing the world using the thoughts of the first kind. This is a nearly impossible task, and some shortcut is therefore needed. Type-two conceptualisations make analysis easy - that is of course the very reason for their existence, from an evolutionary perspective. But, as outlined above, they can cloud that which is being analysed, and the way around that is therefore to escape them, and to use this 'objective' knowledge ('objective', at least, for all intents and purposes) to build concepts that 'represent' well. How can we escape this quandary?

I think that the best way is to examine how type-one thoughts and perceptions work. This is a task for scientists, but I shall assume that they have a logical, causal structure, as what knowledge of them I have seems to point this way. The structure of causality in reality seems to also be logical: this is why reason works as far as understanding the objective world is concerned. It attempts to see the system and the rules that govern it.

With knowledge of why type-one thoughts work, we can create a type-two thought that works: that has the efficiency of type-two coupled with the 'objectivity' of type-one. That system of type-two thought is logical analysis.

scameter

21st March 2006, 04:34 AM

May I ask you something Kether: do you think knowledge, science, and logic can describe and explain the physical entirely, mostly (or entirely) everything philosophically inquired, and entirely dispute and thus explain rationally mental and physical phenomena?

Kether

22nd March 2006, 03:36 AM

Rational methods can gain knowledge of the physical, and of the physical mechanisms that cause cognition. They can understand the Ultimate Truth. But there is another kind of 'ultimate' - what is ultimate to the consciousness in terms of value and importance, and this is not an entirely rational matter. Nevertheless, I believe that knowledge of the reality is important from an ethical perspective, and so logic is still crucial.

scameter

22nd March 2006, 04:42 AM

And may I ask furthermore: Why do you care about having Ultimate Truth, true knowledge, knowledge of reality, and a rational mind?

Kether

22nd March 2006, 05:09 AM

We must have value of reality in order to build systems of value that correspond well to reality. Can we really exist happily in ignorance? I find that a very bleak view, as the desire for knowledge is very central to how I define myself.
That is not a satisfactory answer, and I see some routes that may lead me to a better one. The existentialist view is that we must be constantly breaking out of the stagnant state of en sui - to be reaching out to new and better identities. Perhaps thinking things that correspond poorly to reality is en sui?
It's an excruciating question, and one quite embarrassing to my cosy little metaphysical theory.

scameter

22nd March 2006, 05:17 AM

Can we really exist happily in ignorance?

Then happiness is your reason? Or this:

The existentialist view is that we must be constantly breaking out of the stagnant state of en sui - to be reaching out to new and better identities. Perhaps thinking things that correspond poorly to reality is en sui?

Kether

22nd March 2006, 10:50 PM

I'm uncertain, but I am moving closer and closer towards the latter.

scameter

23rd March 2006, 04:23 AM

Indeed, that could be your subjective reason. But may I give my opinion on an objective reason, as is the same with everyone else?

Because they enjoy it.

Smurf

23rd March 2006, 06:25 AM

perhaps not ignorance then, but rather the non-understanding/knowing of something?
that could warrant simplicity and then happiness...

scameter

24th March 2006, 04:49 AM

I agree psyche. To be honest, I personally value wisdom over pure knowledge; is wisdom can be gained from knowledge, then great. Or if not, then so be it. But I think wisdom, simplicity, and happiness are most important in human life; as well as the principles of philosophical Taoism. :)

locomotive

25th March 2006, 06:32 AM

yeah whats knowledge anyways. Just live with skill and honesty to yourself maybe you can call it discipline or mindfullness and meaning will come.

scameter

25th March 2006, 10:32 AM

Honesty, perception, wisdom, simplicity, happiness, and love are the most important things in life.

MidnightSun

25th March 2006, 01:09 PM

..and innocence :)

scameter

25th March 2006, 01:19 PM

To a degree. But to be honest, innocence shouldn't exist, because in calling someone innocent, one either means that they are naive negatively, or fortunate enough to be in blissful ignorance positively. People shouldn't become naive or ignorant; they should simply be alive. From my opinion of course. :)

MidnightSun

25th March 2006, 02:58 PM

Innocent minds are good i think. Clear ,without any disturbance.

MidnightSun

25th March 2006, 02:59 PM

Its soul's innocence, not body's virginity, scam :lol:

scameter

25th March 2006, 03:27 PM

I didn't mean virginity, I meant spiritual innocence. :) :P

MidnightSun

26th March 2006, 01:30 AM

There can be innocence evil/bad too.

scameter

26th March 2006, 03:22 AM

Ah. Then perhaps that would moreso suit my definition of innocence psyche; but even then, it shouldn't exist, becauce innocence is seen as the opposite of normal perception and worldly awareness and knowledge, and that state should never exist, in a positive eye or a negative one; nor should a lack of innocence be seen as preferable, good, or bad, much less existent. We should simply be, and should progress through life; what most people consider to be the loss of innocence, when we move from childhood into adulthood, should never occur, because that essentially signifies our loss of being truly alive and passionate about the world in even it's basics, which should never happen.

locomotive

26th March 2006, 10:02 PM

you are innocent when there is nothing left undone in your view?

scameter

27th March 2006, 03:45 AM

Hmm...perhaps. Or, if no goals or specific ideas have been formed in your view, or forced into your view.

abhinav

27th March 2006, 10:38 PM

hey these propositions which u guys send are very interesting but i dont want to look at it with the perspective of any religion, i mean whatever be the background of an individual, the question is if i raise my right hand now then who did that. i did it , god made me to do it, or the mechanistic details of my muscles who are guided by the chemical reactions in brain but still who and where does the feeling of raising right hand started up, where is the initiation of any activity is there any time frame or is it happenning perpetually. i mean this is another factor to prove god or some guiding light, even if we are result of some big bang evolution but where is the reason or reason is the character of human mind only. sometimes i think "we can reason so we cannot reason"

schrodinger

15th April 2006, 02:56 PM

It seems the more we learn and understand science, the closer we are to understanding God, (whatever That is). If we ever advance to the point where we truly understand God, we will have solved the ultimate question, and by default we will have become God. That day is a long way away, as we are not even close to understanding ourselves. In the meantime, some of us like to dream and pretend we know something about God. That pretending is what we call "religion". It would seem a harmless enough pastime, except when the "believers" take it seriously. Would we not be better off with only science,guided by human conscience, and no religion? :huh:

MidnightSun

15th April 2006, 03:06 PM

Science is a religion for those who dont have religion.

If we will be so smart to resolve the question we will surely know what to do next.

Kether

15th April 2006, 10:45 PM

Science is not a religion. In the sense in which I use the word, it is something fundamentally opposed to religion. Science relies on questioning and evidence, whereas faith tries to crush questioning, and exists where there is no evidence or even in opposition to it.
Would we not be better off with only science,guided by human conscience, and no religion?
Absolutely.

to kether...where do you think the ecstatic experiences of god such as st. theresa of avilla and others like her's come from...where did the communication from god come from...for they are perceived as communications from god...and there have been too many such mystical experiences with too many witnesses to be disregarded or trivialized as hallucinations or delusions...
If there is such a thing as the collective unconscious, then this might offer a pretty good explanation. Sorry to sound harsh, but I honestly think that 'religious experiences' are hallucinations; if they exist, then the most likely reason for them is that they are products of the mind - perhaps due to the collective unconscious, perhaps due to autosuggestion, or something else; I don't know. Even if they aren't due to 'God', discoveries of their origins (assuming that they happen at all) would give us a fascinating insight into the mind.

Scameter, you may feel that humanity must exist in a state of blissful innocence, sheltered from initially uncomfortable knowledge, but I do not want to exist like that; that is reason enough for this belief of yours not to be an absolute.
We can go on talking for ever about whether ignorance or knowledge is 'happiness', but the fact remains that 'happiness' is inherently subjective. That does not mean that if cannot be observed through objective study, however. We must observe how humans experience the world; their emotional responses to it as subjects; then we will be able to profess to know what happiness is, and how happiness works.
It seems probable to me that there are states of feeling and identity, states of happiness, that are 'better' for the subject than others; that the subject enjoys more. And these are those we should strive towards allowing as many people as possible to exist in, to create the greatest good for the greatest number.

MidnightSun

16th April 2006, 12:57 AM

scameter

16th April 2006, 01:58 PM

I'm glad you said "may" feel Kether, because without it, your entire reply to me would have been irrelevent. And, it really is exciting to see science at work, it's potency on people; it really shows people's fear of the unknown, of the untouchable, and of their own minds. They fear not being able to use logic to conquer everything that they can see, and to call what they perhaps cannot see (of course, with humanity being as perfect as it is, we see everything) as unreal. It's really amazing to see such purity of humanity at work, attempting to "progress" and describe reality, and then to act as if they are doing it to achieve truth or to use logic for some noble means, even though truth rests just under their noses, yet because they cannot even realize why they are doing what they are doing, the impossible is something unseeable; which makes entire sense.

Kether

17th April 2006, 07:38 PM

I'm glad you said "may" feel Kether, because without it, your entire reply to me would have been irrelevant.
I don't follow. Do you mean that you don't believe that humanity should exist in a state of innocence?
I must admit that, given your love of mental complexities, fantasies, extreme subjectivity, and passion, I find it surprising that you would believe that 'childhood innocence' (a lack of complex meaning) should be a desirable thing.
It really is exciting to see science at work, it's potency on people; it really shows people's fear of the unknown, of the untouchable, and of their own minds. They fear not being able to use logic to conquer everything that they can see, and to call what they perhaps cannot see (of course, with humanity being as perfect as it is, we see everything) as unreal.
Strange; this view is a reversal of a very common argument in favour of a logicistic worldview. Let me rephrase it to show what I think:
It really is exciting to see religion at work, its potency on people; it really shows people's fear of reality, of the uncomfortable truth, and of their own intellects. They fear not being able to use their religious dogmas to conquer everything they can see, and to call what they can't explain with them (of course, with religion being as perfect as it is, it can see everything) as unreal.

scameter

18th April 2006, 04:16 AM

I don't follow. Do you mean that you don't believe that humanity should exist in a state of innocence?
I must admit that, given your love of mental complexities, fantasies, extreme subjectivity, and passion, I find it surprising that you would believe that 'childhood innocence' (a lack of complex meaning) should be a desirable thing.

Childhood innocence is a lack of complex meaning? Actually, I would prefer the word "complicated" over "complex". Childhood "innocence" is the true human state of living and philosophy; adulthood is when we become blinded by conceptuality, obligations set upon us by society, and a desire to gain, even when nothing can be gained, only seen with more purity of vision; and when we are old, we return to our childness, then die. It's a rather sad state of affairs to be honest. But, in this adult world, childness must be relinquished if one is to live truthfully.

Strange; this view is a reversal of a very common argument in favour of a logicistic worldview. Let me rephrase it to show what I think:
It really is exciting to see religion at work, its potency on people; it really shows people's fear of reality, of the uncomfortable truth, and of their own intellects. They fear not being able to use their religious dogmas to conquer everything they can see, and to call what they can't explain with them (of course, with religion being as perfect as it is, it can see everything) as unreal.

:D Yes, that would suit as a common model, especially a logistic one, most likely used by the very people I described in the actual version of what you just said.

Kether

18th April 2006, 06:07 AM

Childhood innocence is a lack of complex meaning? Actually, I would prefer the word "complicated" over "complex". Childhood "innocence" is the true human state of living and philosophy; adulthood is when we become blinded by conceptuality
Isn't conceptualisation complex meaning? Or complicated meaning, whatever you want to call it? I just find it strange that you're always talking about how humans must live in their myths and their dreams, and then advocate a lack of conceptualisation in life as the perfect state of being.

I know that the word 'childishness' is intended in a largely metaphorical sense, but even so, I don't think that any such state exists. To be honest, this is a factual quibble, and so I consider it a question for science to answer: on that point we no doubt differ.

TruthSeeker

18th April 2006, 08:16 AM

Children are way wiser then adults. They just don't have the tools to communicate that.

I hate how people put children down and use their "inexperience" as an excuse to take advantage of them.... :angry:

(I'm not saying you are like that Kether. I've just been put down many times during my childhood, and was ignored when saying wise things...)

scameter

18th April 2006, 10:41 AM

Isn't conceptualisation complex meaning? Or complicated meaning, whatever you want to call it? I just find it strange that you're always talking about how humans must live in their myths and their dreams, and then advocate a lack of conceptualisation in life as the perfect state of being.

I advocated that a lack of conceptualization in life is the perfect state of being? I do not remember that. Children have less conceptualization, much less actually, because of their lack of conditioning, and this is a good thing, because they are able to live with some innocence, as you call it, until they are broken by society at the advent of adulthood. But the mechanism for conceptualization is always there, and it is not a bad or wrong thing; it simply is apart of the human mind and psyche, and to me simply shows how different our mind is from our body.

I know that the word 'childishness' is intended in a largely metaphorical sense, but even so, I don't think that any such state exists. To be honest, this is a factual quibble, and so I consider it a question for science to answer: on that point we no doubt differ.

:P Of course. Mainly because this isn't simply about fact, it is about truth. And, if you mean by my using of the word, I didn't intend childishness to be largely metaphorical; I meant it entirely literally.

I hate how people put children down and use their "inexperience" as an excuse to take advantage of them....

Me too, very much.

(I'm not saying you are like that Kether. I've just been put down many times during my childhood, and was ignored when saying wise things...)

Oh me too my friend, very much, and I mean this to both of your sentences; Kether, I'm not trying to combat you or anything. It is simply very clear that we have quite different views, and I wholly welcome your opinions as I hope you welcome mine. :)

schrodinger

18th April 2006, 07:13 PM

It really is exciting to see religion at work, its potency on people; it really shows people's fear of reality, of the uncomfortable truth, and of their own intellects. They fear not being able to use their religious dogmas to conquer everything they can see, and to call what they can't explain with them (of course, with religion being as perfect as it is, it can see everything) as unreal.
The discussion or debate about science and religion has been going on for centuries, and it does not appear to be getting any closer to resolution, at least among those who feel strongly about either side. However, there can be no argument that the ratio of scientists to priests is far higher now than at any time in history. In the past, the clergy derived their power by preying on people’s fears and superstitions. Putting aside the threat of nuclear war, the scientists derive their power by removing those fears and superstitions. They do this by using a Rational and Analytical approach to answer the question of How things came to be the way they are. The theocracy is immersed in the question of Who made things the way they are, and even have an instant answer: God did! It is no surprise then; the two “disciplines” appear to be so much in opposition. :boxing:
But are the scientists godless men, given that the pursuit of scientific truths must be godless to succeed? Here I like to offer a quote from Thomas Browne: “The wisdom of God receives small honor from those vulgar heads that rudely stare about, and with a gross rusticity admire his works; Those highly magnify him whose judicious inquiry into his acts, and deliberate research into his creatures, return the duty of a devout and learned admiration.” :)
i think god also give some freedom to us to exercise our free will but yet from a known set of choices although he may not know what we are going to do. i think its exciting to think like that. we can surprise gods. isnt it. may be we can be an anomaly to our system. how does death fits this system ?
Returning to the start of this thread, which brings up questions about creation, free will and what role death plays in God’s plan, here’s one non scholarly take on that big view: Science is heading towards a Grand Unification Theory. To satisfy this theory we have to take the universe back to before the big bang, and determine what the universe looked like. It would have to consist of One element which contains All of the mass in the universe, compressed into an infinitely small and dense primeval atom which possesses only One force, which is the sum of All force in the universe. It would occupy No space and simultaneously All space; there would be no change so no passage of time and simultaneously an infinity of time. It would be perfect. Now, doesn’t that fit our idea of God? The only thing missing is a Mind. Since we are playing God’s God here, let’s give it a mind and fill it with All the knowledge in the universe. So what does God know? He’s perfect, remember? He doesn’t know about sickness, struggling to pay the rent, sex, war, love, hate, doing good deeds etc. As a matter of speculation, for an entity that knows everything He doesn’t know much about anything at all. So what does He do? He explodes and scatters Himself all over the cosmos. He goes from a state of perfect symmetry and harmony to a state of chaos. He does not simply create another universe to toy with, He explodes and becomes our universe and becomes us. He needs us to experience what he has become, so He can experience everything through us.
He needs for us to have free will. Without free will, He may as well curl up back into a perfect state atom again. And he needs us to die, so he can experience death also. He dies and yet He lives forever. This sounds a bit like what Jesus was telling us, but with a twist. Here Jesus dies for the Father, not for us! Buddha was certainly on the right track with his enlightened meditation, in which he remembered the perfect state things started off in. Spinoza also was getting close, as well as Einstein and countless other free thinkers. It would seem then that it would take a combined effort by the Scientists and the freethinking Religionists to put it all together someday. What will God do when that happens? When we, who are just a scattered part of He, finally figure out Him, what will happen? It could be like a reunion, perhaps the real “Grand Reunification Theory”, game over and back to the good old days of a perfect single atom! Maybe we should not inquire too deeply? Maybe that is the message in Genesis? :uhoh:

Kether

18th April 2006, 08:49 PM

How can you possibly know that children are wiser than adults, if they don't have the tools to communicate that? Everyone seems to be saying how wise and magnanimous the mind of a child is, and I really don't understand it.
I hate how people put children down and use their "inexperience" as an excuse to take advantage of them.... (I'm not saying you are like that Kether. I've just been put down many times during my childhood, and was ignored when saying wise things...)
I can't remember ever saying anything wise in my childhood, unless I still qualify as a child :lol: . I probably don't.
I advocated that a lack of conceptualization in life is the perfect state of being?
You said that 'childhood' is the perfect state of being, and then said that 'childhood' meant a lack of conceptualisation. Indeed, in the same paragraph as your above statement, you said:
Children have less conceptualization, much less actually, because of their lack of conditioning, and this is a good thing, because they are able to live with some innocence, as you call it, until they are broken by society at the advent of adulthood.
I mean this to both of your sentences; Kether, I'm not trying to combat you or anything. It is simply very clear that we have quite different views, and I wholly welcome your opinions as I hope you welcome mine.
Absolutely. I love debating, and I'm sorry if I ever seem aggressive in discussions. If I do, I don't mean it.

TruthSeeker

18th April 2006, 11:26 PM

How can you possibly know that children are wiser than adults, if they don't have the tools to communicate that? Everyone seems to be saying how wise and magnanimous the mind of a child is, and I really don't understand it.
A child's mind is way more simple and sofisticated then the mind of an adult. That's why they learn languages so fast! It's a very abstract mind, devoid of the confusion that comes with knowledge. It's also very integrated and is specially adaptable and good at making diverse connections which we are often incapable of.

I can't remember ever saying anything wise in my childhood, unless I still qualify as a child . I probably don't.
I remember talking about very intelligent things, like philosophy, when I was 12...
Children nowadays are capable of being impressively intelligent by the age of 3 or 4. They are often called "Indigo Children".... B)

Kether

18th April 2006, 11:49 PM

It would have to consist of One element which contains All of the mass in the universe, compressed into an infinitely small and dense primeval atom which possesses only One force, which is the sum of All force in the universe. It would occupy No space and simultaneously All space; there would be no change so no passage of time and simultaneously an infinity of time. It would be perfect. Now, doesn’t that fit our idea of God? The only thing missing is a Mind. Since we are playing God’s God here, let’s give it a mind and fill it with All the knowledge in the universe.
There are two major fallacies in your theory about the primeval singularity. Firstly, I can't see how it could be described as 'perfect'. To be honest, we can't apply notions like 'perfection' to something as impersonal as the universe - particularly to a universe in which there were no people - and even if we could, it appears to have possessed no qualities I would call 'perfect'.

My second objection is to your assertion that the Singularity was sentient. Your argument seems to be that, since the singularity contained 'everything', then it must have contained sentience. But what do we mean by 'everything'? All matter and energy - and sentience is neither of these. Sentience is not so much a thing, as the product of a complex configuration of things: the brain. And the Singularity did not contain every configuration of things that would ever exist; it contained all the things needed to make that configuration, yes, but it did not contain the system or its product. So, the Singularity wasn't conscious.

TruthSeeker

19th April 2006, 02:28 AM

I agree.

And I think sentience is a major issue there...

TruthSeeker

19th April 2006, 02:40 AM

Well, when defining a "god", I think one of the things that can be very helpful is to look at it from a more universal perspective rather then as a singularity.

There are basically 3 characteristics of God:

God is omnipresent: He is everywhere in space and in time. He is in the present, in the past and in the future right now. From that, it follows that...
God is omniscient: Because since He is everywhere, He can "see" everything therefore know everything that is going on. From that, it follows that...
God is omnipotent: Knowledge is power so, basically, since He knows everything He is capable of doing everything.

And that's basically what we have. Of course we can expand on it, but it is a beginning.
For example, in #1, I usually expand to explain that God is in a dimension where size defines everything. I think an easy way to understand this is by looking at how we perceive the world ourselves. For instance, we are bigger then an ant, so we occupy more space-time then an ant and, therefore, perceive it accordingly. If we were as big as the planet, we would be able to perceive everything that is going on in the planet, at the same time. The same applies to God. That's basically what I call the "size dimensiom"...

Kether

19th April 2006, 04:54 AM

Sentience is indeed a major issue here: if 'God' isn't sentient, then It might as well not exist. Every theist defines God as a conscious entity - which I think is exceedingly improbable. That's why I call myself an atheist.

scameter

19th April 2006, 09:30 AM

How can you possibly know that children are wiser than adults, if they don't have the tools to communicate that? Everyone seems to be saying how wise and magnanimous the mind of a child is, and I really don't understand it.

Of course not. What adult would ever teach you that children are wise?

I can't remember ever saying anything wise in my childhood, unless I still qualify as a child

And memory and speech are such wonderful things?

You said that 'childhood' is the perfect state of being, and then said that 'childhood' meant a lack of conceptualisation.

I never said it is the perfect state of being, it is simply much better and more human than the adult's. As you quoted from me, I said *less* conceptualization, not no conceptualization at all.

Absolutely. I love debating, and I'm sorry if I ever seem aggressive in discussions. If I do, I don't mean it.

Same here. :)

I agree with all three of your basic descriptions of God truthseeker, except the last one; it places too much emphasis on power, that since knowledge is power, and since he knows everything, he is capable of doing anything. Knowledge is power is a human concept. Although, I think knowledge is indeed power, but to say that God's knowledge is what gives him the ability to do anything I think is erroneous.

if 'God' isn't sentient, then It might as well not exist.

lol Can this be applied to animals, plants, rocks, planets, solar systems, suns, galaxies, nebulas, gasses, liquids, non-rock non-biological solids, and universes as well?

Every theist defines God as a conscious entity - which I think is exceedingly improbable.

Why is it improbable, and why does his being conscious really matter? I think God encompasses every single aspect of existence, but the fact of this, and the fact of Jesus, his son, being the embodiment of compassion and selfless love makes it all the more illogical and, in turn, truthful. People cannot do anything compassionate without it being a selfish act, and for Jesus to be capable of doing something out of love selflessly is impossible, and thus true.

schrodinger

19th April 2006, 01:09 PM

There are two major fallacies in your theory about the primeval singularity. Firstly, I can't see how it could be described as 'perfect'. To be honest, we can't apply notions like 'perfection' to something as impersonal as the universe - particularly to a universe in which there were no people - and even if we could, it appears to have possessed no qualities I would call 'perfect'.
Since perfection is a subjective matter, and only God existed in this scenario before creation, there is no one who can say God was/is not perfect. The major fallacy perhaps is in your reasoning. :dunno:
My second objection is to your assertion that the Singularity was sentient. Your argument seems to be that, since the singularity contained 'everything', then it must have contained sentience. But what do we mean by 'everything'? All matter and energy - and sentience is neither of these. :blink:
Really? Remember matter and energy have equivalence. If sentience is not energy, it surely needs energy to exist. Since the primeval atom contained ALL matter, and therefore ALL energy, it must also contain all sentience. This is not so much a theist approach as it is a scientific analysis.:snooty:
God is omnipresent: He is everywhere in space and in time. He is in the present, in the past and in the future right now. From that, it follows that...
All three conditions are met by the primeval singularity. God in this case does see and know everything. That is, He sees and knows everything there IS to see and know inside a primeval atom, which isn't a whole lot! That's why He explodes and creates the universe we have today and all the creatures in it. By the way, I am not a theist, I am a scientist (chemist actually),:alcoholic:
and this is just one idea of How things might have come to be, and does not rely on established religious dogma. And these are not "assertions" which I can defend, only ideas, and I welcome the discussion! :thumbsup:

Kether

19th April 2006, 05:55 PM

Since perfection is a subjective matter, and only God existed in this scenario before creation, there is no one who can say God was/is not perfect. The major fallacy perhaps is in your reasoning.
Not really - in fact, what you have just said pretty much sums up my view, and seems to refute your idea that the Singularity was 'perfect'. Since standards of perfection are inherently subjective, I contended that:
I can't see how it could be described as 'perfect'. To be honest, we can't apply notions like 'perfection' to something as impersonal as the universe - particularly to a universe in which there were no people.
In other words, "there is no one who can say God is/was not perfect." If this is so, then logically, "there is no one who can say God is/was perfect". Yet this is what you tried to do when you said that It would be perfect.

Really? Remember matter and energy have equivalence. If sentience is not energy, it surely needs energy to exist. Since the primeval atom contained ALL matter, and therefore ALL energy, it must also contain all sentience.
I said that knowledge is the product of a certain configuration of matter/energy: the brain. Once that configuration was broken up, then it would not have the emergent result of knowledge. In the Singularity, there would be all matter and energy, but it would not exist in the configuration required to produce knowledge. Therefore, there would be no knowledge in the Singularity.

Me: If 'God' isn't sentient, then It might as well not exist.
Scameter: lol Can this be applied to animals, plants, rocks, planets, solar systems, suns, galaxies, nebulae, gasses, liquids, non-rock non-biological solids, and universes as well?
I didn't mean that sentience was a prerequisite for existence, I meant that the usual conception of 'God' is of a sentient being: in other words, a God would have to be sentient to be a God. Then I said that 'God' (ie everything) probably isn't sentient, and thus He/She/It probably doesn't exist.

schrodinger

19th April 2006, 11:43 PM

what you have just said pretty much sums up my view, and seems to refute your idea that the Singularity was 'perfect'. Since standards of perfection are inherently subjective,

It seems that semantics are starting to get into play here. A discussion of such a grand subject as the primeval condition of the universe should not have to hang up on the definition of “perfect” and the subjectivity of “perfection”. :(
However, I’ll take one last stab at breaking this deadlock: Since this is a primeval particle, reduced down to the simplest possible form, both mathematically and physically, it can be called, without reasonable argument, “pristine”, as in original, pure, and total. Perfect can be defined as pure, total, lacking in no essential part and containing no non-essential part. In this sense, it is not subject to the subjectivity of any human observer. Physicists of this day are quite accustomed to extrapolating theories to situations that could not possibly be witnessed by human beings, and a discussion of the primeval universe is perhaps the extreme example of this.

When we have taken the universe back in time to before the big bang, we arrive at a universe in a state of ultimate simplicity: There is only One type of matter, as the quarks and leptons have become the same particle: There is only One type of force, as the force of gravity finally becomes unified with both the strong force and the electroweak force. It is infinitely dense, and although infinitely small, it occupies All of the space in the universe. It is infinitely hot, as it contains all of the energy in the universe. It exists in infinite time, since time cannot be measured because there is no change. (Again, this has nothing to do with human observers and so nothing to do with subjectivity; this is a scientific hypothesis). The state of this primeval universe is then pristine, original, complete….it is perfect! :P
It is also hypothetical, as we certainly cannot reproduce this condition in the laboratory. However, the hypothesis is based on other conditions that can be tested, and have been, in large particle accelerators.
All of the above is theoretical physics and I only present it as a very good possibility of How things started out. You need not accept it, and this writer need not defend it further than this!
Beyond that, on the speculative issue of whether or not this primeval entity possessed knowledge, and might possibly be God…I leave that to each of you to consider and comment on. :D

Kether

20th April 2006, 01:38 AM

In the sense that you describe, then the primeval singularity could be called 'Perfect'; I thought that you were using a perceived 'perfection' to support your idea that it was something that might be called God.
My biggest objection was to the idea that the Singularity contained knowledge. Well, I have stated my view on that subject, and will leave it at that for the time being.

scameter

20th April 2006, 11:34 AM

I didn't mean that sentience was a prerequisite for existence, I meant that the usual conception of 'God' is of a sentient being: in other words, a God would have to be sentient to be a God. Then I said that 'God' (ie everything) probably isn't sentient, and thus He/She/It probably doesn't exist.

Thus, because people say God is most probably sentient, and they describe him as being sentient through portrayals of him as being such, he is sentient beyond doubt. And, because you say that God "probably" isn't sentient, he "probably", or more, most definitely, doesn't exist. That is entirely too absolute, even for a scientific viewpoint. And, why did you say that God is "i.e. everything"?

Kether

20th April 2006, 06:47 PM

And, because you say that God "probably" isn't sentient, he "probably", or more, most definitely, doesn't exist. That is entirely too absolute, even for a scientific viewpoint.
No, I said probably doesn't exist. If I had said 'most definitely doesn't exist', then my view would be too absolute - but I didn't.
And, why did you say that God is "i.e. everything"?
Because I think that the 'thing' that best fits the common description of God is 'everything'; the universe in its totality. It is this that is the 'creator', and which controls events, like a god.
Thus, because people say God is most probably sentient, and they describe him as being sentient through portrayals of him as being such, he is sentient beyond doubt.
What I said was that most, if not all, theists have said that God is sentient: in other words, if the creator of the world isn't sentient, then it isn't God. Remember that 'God' is just a word.

scameter

21st April 2006, 04:55 AM

Because I think that the 'thing' that best fits the common description of God is 'everything'; the universe in its totality. It is this that is the 'creator', and which controls events, like a god.

Then God's existence is irrefutable, even for science.

What I said was that most, if not all, theists have said that God is sentient: in other words, if the creator of the world isn't sentient, then it isn't God. Remember that 'God' is just a word.

lol I find it odd that you say God is just a word when you have said many times previously that words represent things in existence. God is just a word, just as mathematical symbols are nothing, yet they are something to us. God should be treated with as much respect as any other pitiful human concept. I despise how people feel themselves capable of deeming some things more "relevant" than other things (not to say you do Kether, by the way). This is why I stopped reading Colin Wilson's book The Occult; in the introduction, he said that he still finds occultism to be less relevant than science or philosophy. I find this to be an extremely arrogant and foolish thing to say. *Nothing* we do matters; not truth, not science, not math, not philosophy, not occultism, not the imagination, nothing. Which is why everything is important equally, because it is to the individual. And, this is also why I think everything the mind produces is real. We cannot know for any certainty whether what our senses perceive as reality is truly real or not, we are only going by what we feel and think about it. Thus, why should something appearingly perceived, called "evidence", be any less or more real than something imagined? Both are equally real, and equally important. This is why one of my largest wishes is to see something in what scientists call existence that is not explainable through math or science in any means, and that cannot be adapted to fit either one, and that simply perplex scientists and mathematicians infinitely, causing them to realize that neither science or math is perfect, they are only other aspects of the human mind like anything else.

schrodinger

21st April 2006, 05:05 PM

In the sense that you describe, then the primeval singularity could be called 'Perfect'; I thought that you were using a perceived 'perfection' to support your idea that it was something that might be called God.

Then we are in agreement with many other theorists, including Stephen Hawking, who said “The early universe was simpler, and it was a lot more appealing because it was a lot simpler.” Supersymmetery carries this even further, depicting the universe as starting in a state of sublime perfection. In any case, this has nothing to do with “divine perfection”, nor does it imply the universe was “God” in the usual sense.

My biggest objection was to the idea that the Singularity contained knowledge. Well, I have stated my view on that subject, and will leave it at that for the time being.

You will be surprised to learn I am in agreement with your objection where I said; “The only thing missing is a Mind.” Even after playing God to God, and granting Him a Mind, it turns out that “He doesn’t know much about anything at all.” This is hardly the God depicted by the Great Religions, which irrationally depict an all knowing, rational God.

Remember that 'God' is just a word.

Yes, it is only a word, and I believe this is getting close to the heart of the issue of belief, or non-belief in “God”. This simple three letter word immediately brings to mind a supernatural, mystical figure shrouded in rites and rituals that date back to a time when the mind of man was much simpler, or at least much less knowledgeable than today. The question “Is there a God” invariably refers to this magical figure, and these days more and more people, particularly scientists, are answering “No”. The religionists then brand the men of science, and even science itself, as “evil.”

Because I think that the 'thing' that best fits the common description of God is 'everything'; the universe in its totality. It is this that is the 'creator', and which controls events, like a god.

Exactly! We need a word for “something like a God.” “God like” will not do, since it contains the word God and all it’s associations. If we had a new word, with a new meaning, which is in accord with what we have learned from science, there would not be so many “atheists” or “agnostics” around! Suppose we had a word or a symbol, which meant, “point of origin of the universe and the matter, energy and forces believed to govern life according to natural laws.” I suspect most people would answer in the affirmative when asked if they believed in such a thing. Then Science would indeed become the new religion; a religion devoted to the striving after rational knowledge of the powers and principles believed to govern life, while still providing man solace, help and guidance. That is a tall order, but it must be filled if we ever are to free ourselves from the shackles placed on us by our imaginative ancestors.

Kether

22nd April 2006, 03:00 AM

Then God's existence is irrefutable, even for science.
Let's get this straight:
The most fundamental characteristics of a 'God' would be that He/She/It was a sentient, deliberate, conscious entity or force that created the world, and which causes events to happen. I think that the universe itself, in its entirety, fulfills the last criteria. But it is not sentient; thus, it is not God, and thus God does not exist.
lol I find it odd that you say God is just a word when you have said many times previously that words represent things in existence.
You find this a contradiction? How?

scameter

22nd April 2006, 09:12 AM

The most fundamental characteristics of a 'God' would be that He/She/It was a sentient, deliberate, conscious entity or force that created the world, and which causes events to happen.

Not necessarily. It could be an unsentient (especially since He/She/It doesn't die :P), undeliberate, unconscious force that is the world and that is events that we perceive as occuring. You can't just trust what people say when considering God; you must consider also your own speculations, and your own feelings.

I think that the universe itself, in its entirety, fulfills the last criteria. But it is not sentient; thus, it is not God, and thus God does not exist.

Too concrete and too easy. Religions claim to say that God is sentient, which is impossible if he/she/it dies, thus there's one thing they simply say to make God seem more relevant to us. They say God is an all-loving, caring God, even though he ordered the murder of many "heathens", in the Old Testament and in other religions did similar things, thus another point they're not certain of. And not all religions say God is everything, as you claim. For instance, Judaism claims that God made the world; it didn't say that God is all and all are God. That is more of a pagan/neo-pagan belief, usually.

You find this a contradiction? How?

Because if words represent things in reality, and God is just a word, then he exists in reality, which is something you do not appear to believe.

schrodinger

22nd April 2006, 02:07 PM

Now the discussion shifts to words and existence. The contention is: “A word is a symbol for something that exists. Therefore, if we have a word for something, it exists.” By extension, one could argue that all things depend for their existence on being perceived by the mind of man, whether or not a word is assigned to them.This is a form of “subjective idealism”, in which Berkeley was a staunch believer.
Johnson famously argued; “I refute it thus!” while stubbing his toe on a rock. Buddha was of a similar persuasion to Berkeley, however one can imagine even Buddha stubbing his toe(s) many times in his travels throughout India and Nepal! I wonder what he said on such occasions?
Returning to words and things that exist, how about extra-terrestrial, or Yeti, or parallel universe? These are all words for things, although we do not know, with any certainty that they exist, except as thoughts and words. Of course, this can be argued endlessly similar to the paradoxes of Zeno, which are maddening and perhaps even dangerous to know.
It has also been said that anything that can be conceived in the mind of man, will most certainly occur, given enough time. Given infinite time, it will most certainly happen an infinite number of times! If that is true, we should prepare ourselves for some very strange and frightening events, especially given the mind of Steven Spielberg!
However, unless you intend to make your living as a philosopher, you may want to plant yourself in what is the generally accepted world of reality. That automobile speeding towards you does obey Newton’s law, Force does equal the product of mass times acceleration, and if the car strikes you, you will need the help of a scientist who is also a Doctor of Medicine.
One last thought: Buddha had to eat “real” food and the irony is; He died of food poisoning! I wonder if an M.D., trained in modern medicine, could have saved him?
:mellow:

Kether

22nd April 2006, 06:40 PM

Well said, Schrodinger! I think it was Dr Johnson who stubbed his toe on a rock, in refutation of Berkeley's philosophy. Plato was in fact a very otherworldly philosopher. But the principle is the same. :lol:
Then again, you are unlikely to convince Scam that the world exists by such means, since you are using evidence to prove your point. But I think you're absolutely right.
Not necessarily. It could be an insentient (especially since He/She/It doesn't die ), undeliberate, unconscious force that is the world and that is events that we perceive as occurring. You can't just trust what people say when considering God; you must consider also your own speculations, and your own feelings.
This is a semantic issue. I am trying to figure out how helpful it will be to consider the creator of the universe (whatever that may be) a 'God'. To do this, I thought about what criteria something must fulfill to be called a God:
1) A force or entity that somehow created the world and controls events in it,
2) A being that does so deliberately, consciously, and sentiently.

I did not say that being the entire universe was a prerequisite for being God; I said that the entire universe fulfilled the first category, but not the second category. So, according to my reasoning, it is not God. You can call it 'God' if you like, but I would much rather not. I would rather call myself an atheist.
Because if words represent things in reality, and God is just a word, then he exists in reality, which is something you do not appear to believe.
Words can represent things in reality, but some do this better than others. Some words represent things that don't exist at all.
The same goes for thoughts (which aren't the same as words). The computational device that is the brain can receive the wrong a posteriori inputs in the wrong way, and thus be wrong.

scameter

23rd April 2006, 10:29 AM

Then again, you are unlikely to convince Scam that the world exists by such means, since you are using evidence to prove your point. But I think you're absolutely right.

Yes indeed, you're right. To simply present me with evidence of something, from your perspective, and then to say "It's true", no I won't just accept it immediately, even once I have understood the concept of it. To do so would be quite limited.

1) A force or entity that somehow created the world and controls events in it,
2) A being that does so deliberately, consciously, and sentiently.
I did not say that being the entire universe was a prerequisite for being God; I said that the entire universe fulfilled the first category, but not the second category. So, according to my reasoning, it is not God. You can call it 'God' if you like, but I would much rather not. I would rather call myself an atheist.

Not every God is how the Muslims, Christians and Jews describe, and oftentimes, even how they usually describe him is up to much debate, hence the field of theology. To simply give God such a concrete logic as you have and to say "Well, he doesn't fulfill my logic, so he doesn't exist" is too simple; there is much more to it than that. But, if you consider it a semantic issue, that's perfectly fine for this topic. There's room to discuss it more thoroughly elsewhere sometime. :)

Words can represent things in reality, but some do this better than others. Some words represent things that don't exist at all.

Exactly, which is where subjectivity arises. We cannot know with entire certainty whether something exists or not, no matter "probability". Thus, all words, thoughts, and concepts could be all true, all false, or somewhere in between for all we know, which is why I encourage boundless speculation so: because to truly desire truth, one must look at everything objectively (or as much so as possible), honestly, indiscriminatingly, and with no bounds to anything, including reality as we perceive it commonly. Of course evidence in this reality poses truths, but those truths are fact and this change of term isn't simply up to the individual; I'm saying this because for something to be truthful ultimately, it must be beyond simple reality as it physically appears, and must be all-encompassing. But, smaller truths, such as those empirical truths found by science, are too far from being all-encompassing to be true truth, and thus are factual. They are truthful, but not ultimately.

The same goes for thoughts (which aren't the same as words). The computational device that is the brain can receive the wrong a posteriori inputs in the wrong way, and thus be wrong.

Yet words do represent thoughts, just as much as they can represent things in reality as we see it, which is how literature is so varied: because words represent thoughts, and thought is capable of using both imagination and speculation beyond the simple norm of reality, words recorded into the form of literature are essentially only bound to what we can imagine, which is very boundless.

schrodinger

23rd April 2006, 04:44 PM

Kether:
Well said, Schrodinger! I think it was Dr Johnson who stubbed his toe on a rock, in refutation of Berkeley's philosophy. Plato was in fact a very otherworldly philosopher. But the principle is the same.

Somehow “Johnson” does not convey the same philosophical weight as “Plato”, however it was indeed Johnson! Thank you for the correction! I have gone back and edited my previous posting.:typing:

Scameter:
Not every God is how the Muslims, Christians and Jews describe, and oftentimes, even how they usually describe him is up to much debate, hence the field of theology. To simply give God such a concrete logic as you have and to say "Well, he doesn't fulfill my logic, so he doesn't exist" is too simple; there is much more to it than that. But, if you consider it a semantic issue, that's perfectly fine for this topic. There's room to discuss it more thoroughly elsewhere sometime.

I suppose we should have taken “Bill Clinton’s Approach” at the very beginning and said “Define God”, before attempting to argue His existence or non-existence. With God defined in the traditional manner of the Western religions, I would have to call myself at the very least an agnostic. It is my view that as mankind gathers more and more scientific knowledge about the origins of the universe and the workings of the human mind, we will gradually change the definition of “God”. Perhaps the new definition will be something like:”The Universe AND the human conscious mind.” If that were to be the definition, I would call myself a true believer.

On a personal note; this is much more than just a philosophical exercise to me. Two years ago I was at Fort Bliss, Texas going through the Army’s processing for my deployment to Iraq (as a DOD civilian). Among the hundreds of questions I needed to answer was one asking my religious preference. I’ll admit I was stumped here. Although I had a Christian upbringing, I had long ago decided that was too exclusive, relegating non-Christians to the horrors of Hell. I finally decided to write “Buddhist” as the Buddhist set of beliefs come closest to what I believe. Perhaps what really prompted me to make that choice is the fact that my Thai wife is a Buddhist. She has very simple beliefs, and I’m sure she has never studied Buddhism in any depth. However, even after twenty years of marriage, she is still the most generous and kindest person I have ever known. If Buddhism is good enough for her, it is good enough for me. I wonder if I am good enough for Buddhism?
So, after all the scientific analysis and debate, my choice of religion rests on something very human and irrational, but what better way to make such a choice?
:dunno:

scameter

24th April 2006, 12:22 AM

It is my view that as mankind gathers more and more scientific knowledge about the origins of the universe and the workings of the human mind, we will gradually change the definition of “God”.

It is rather unfortunate that you have that view my friend. God isn't just physical, and even if he cannot be "seen" physically, that doesn't dismiss his existence. But, it is of course a personal choice.

”The Universe AND the human conscious mind.”

I would hope not, because that wouldn't be God. That would be the universe and the human conscious. God is far beyond and within that, and within us. Indeed, there is much more mystery to God than what the church usually chooses to proclaim, and it is unfortunate that the truth of much religion is clouded by the dogma and politics of the churches.

If that were to be the definition, I would call myself a true believer.

There would be nothing to believe in with that definition. The religion of science already claims those two as Gods, because that's what they see. Why not just follow that?

Although I had a Christian upbringing, I had long ago decided that was too exclusive, relegating non-Christians to the horrors of Hell.

See? That's the problem. The truth of Christianity is obscured by the cloud of dogmas issuing from the churches. There is much, much more to Christianity than what they say. I used to think as many do, that Christianity is just some fake religion to make people feel better that had no real truth, especially when logic was applied to it. But, that isn't so. By studying Jesus, and realizing, as the Catholic church says, that much of the Bible is metaphorical and is up to interpretation, and that the things in it should be altered if history or science is altered. But that the fundamental truths of it remain, even through the logical cleansing. Especially that of Jesus. He culminates all the religions of the world into himself, but moreso, because he is beyond human, and is God. For instance, he calls himself the Way, which is synonymous to the Tao. Yet, he loved humanity as a whole so much, that he was willing to die to essentially devour our sins within his death. But, the truly wonderful thing about him is, is that he gave us examples of sins that could not be maneuvered against, such as simply looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and feeling hate in your heart for someone is murder. But, he said that we can't do it! Which is why he's here. He said, in fact, that if we are given the choice between satisfying sin or being good and following God, we will choose sin every time, and this is beyond a doubt true. Even if people are capable of doing good things, and have done them in the past, that doesn't mean they wouldn't choose "the flesh" first. Nor does it mean that we won't doubt God. This is why I hate the extreme hypocrisy the churches, as if they were wonderful and perfect because they have money and prestige and that because they go to church, they're beyond us. But that is entirely against Christianity.

So, after all the scientific analysis and debate, my choice of religion rests on something very human and irrational, but what better way to make such a choice?

No better way. :)

locomotive

24th April 2006, 04:59 AM

thanks for reminding of the zenos paradoxies. good read.

schrodinger

25th April 2006, 01:13 PM

locomotive:
thanks for reminding of the zenos paradoxies. good read

Ah yes, Zeno. His ideas seemed like Greek to even the Greeks! However, they certainly exercise the intellect, and may have indirectly contributed to the formulation of the modern calculus by introducing the concept of an infinite series and an infinitesimal.

Scameter:
There would be nothing to believe in with that definition. The religion of science already claims those two as Gods, because that's what they see. Why not just follow that?

Science is not the enemy of religion, as you seem to think. Science purifies religion by removing the elements of fantasy, magic and pleading for fulfillment of our wishes by some benevolent super being. Science strives after rational knowledge, and the attainment of such results in a “reverence” for the grandeur of the universe and existence. This is a humbling experience, which can best be described as “religious.” However, science is lacking in a means for interpreting this feeling. Buddhism allows for a modulation of this feeling, without imposing the confinements of a deity.

scameter

26th April 2006, 11:23 AM

Science is not the enemy of religion, as you seem to think.

I never said that. Actually, I find it unfortunate that many religions allow the scientists to act as if they can disprove their religions, when really they have no chance of doing so.

Science purifies religion by removing the elements of fantasy, magic and pleading for fulfillment of our wishes by some benevolent super being.

Science has no ability to do that. Just because it can't find those things in existence doesn't mean they're not real.

Science strives after rational knowledge, and the attainment of such results in a “reverence” for the grandeur of the universe and existence.

Then they are just as magically minded and wishing for fulfillment of their wishes as any religion. And by rational knowledge, you mean empirical knowledge.

Buddhism allows for a modulation of this feeling, without imposing the confinements of a deity.

It is the church of religions that adds the lack of rationality and the addition of confinements to having a deity, not the religion it's self.

TruthSeeker

26th April 2006, 12:01 PM

See? That's the problem. The truth of Christianity is obscured by the cloud of dogmas issuing from the churches. There is much, much more to Christianity than what they say. I used to think as many do, that Christianity is just some fake religion to make people feel better that had no real truth, especially when logic was applied to it. But, that isn't so.
Very true. Same happened with me...

By studying Jesus, and realizing, as the Catholic church says, that much of the Bible is metaphorical and is up to interpretation, and that the things in it should be altered if history or science is altered.
What!? :o
The Catholic church never said those things!!! Much of the contrary!! Whatever happened to that whole stupid "evolution is evil" campaign of the catholic church!?!?!?! :o

But that the fundamental truths of it remain, even through the logical cleansing. Especially that of Jesus. He culminates all the religions of the world into himself, but moreso, because he is beyond human, and is God. For instance, he calls himself the Way, which is synonymous to the Tao. Yet, he loved humanity as a whole so much, that he was willing to die to essentially devour our sins within his death. But, the truly wonderful thing about him is, is that he gave us examples of sins that could not be maneuvered against, such as simply looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and feeling hate in your heart for someone is murder. But, he said that we can't do it! Which is why he's here. He said, in fact, that if we are given the choice between satisfying sin or being good and following God, we will choose sin every time, and this is beyond a doubt true. Even if people are capable of doing good things, and have done them in the past, that doesn't mean they wouldn't choose "the flesh" first. Nor does it mean that we won't doubt God. This is why I hate the extreme hypocrisy the churches, as if they were wonderful and perfect because they have money and prestige and that because they go to church, they're beyond us. But that is entirely against Christianity.
Huumm... yeah...

scameter

26th April 2006, 12:19 PM

The Catholic church never said those things!!! Much of the contrary!! Whatever happened to that whole stupid "evolution is evil" campaign of the catholic church!?!?!?!

The Catholic church very much so said it. Here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html)

TruthSeeker

26th April 2006, 01:00 PM

Well, they are hypocrites! They also ignored that whole scandal of priests raping children! <_<
They still also believe that the whole Bible (or at least most of it) is completely literal! They still believe hell is literal. They still have the same frame of mind they had when they made the whole inquisition thing! They still have the same punishing attitude and they still accept bribes to take people to their "heaven".... :rolleyes:

scameter

26th April 2006, 01:17 PM

They don't accept those bribes anymore. Indeed they are hypocrites, but I am at least glad to hear them say what they said, even if they didn't mean it.

schrodinger

27th April 2006, 02:31 PM

Scameter: Actually, I find it unfortunate that many religions allow the scientists to act as if they can disprove their religions, when really they have no chance of doing so.

There are no ‘proofs’ in today’s science. The very best scientific theories are those which have withstood a battery of tests, using every weapon conceivable, to find errors and to discredit them. Even those theories, which have survived this onslaught, remain at best, tentative. Modern science has dispensed with the idea of an absolute certainty. The true scientist doe not claim to possess irrefutable truth. What he does possess is a desire to advance our knowledge by asking bold questions and seeking rational truth.
This is in stark contrast to many religions, particularly Christianity, which claim to possess the absolute truth with absolute certainty. I find such thinking narrow and hypocritical.

Scameter: Science has no ability to do that. [Purify religion] Just because it can't find those things in existence doesn't mean they're not real.

Only those who strive after truth and understanding can aspire to reach the goal of science, which is to thoroughly explain all of our perceptions of the universe in as simple an association as possible. It seems to me that a religious person has a similar goal, but tries to achieve this goal without doing the hard work of science. It is much easier to say, “God made this”, than to use the scientific process of deduction and conceptualization to determine something’s nature and origins. Because of all the excess baggage that religion carries around, it can never be called pure, not even in its concepts, but most especially in its practice.

Scameter: Then they are just as magically minded and wishing for fulfillment of their wishes as any religion.

Certainly most scientists do have faith, and more than a few are religious in the classical sense. But the most common faith among scientists is faith that natural laws, which govern the universe and our existence, are rational. This is much different than the blind faith of religionists in a Divine Being, and everything that follows from that. Science is not “wishful”, in any sense of the word. As for science being magically minded, I suggest you read Newton’s Principia to dispel all such notions.

Scameter: And by rational knowledge, you mean empirical knowledge.

That would have come across better stated as a question. And the answer is; “No, I mean rational.” Rational simply means comprehensible to reason. Empirical “knowledge” is that which is derived by observation and experience. By observing mumbo jumbo rites and rituals, one may obtain empirical knowledge, but it almost certainly will not be rational. Science aims to define general laws that describe the interconnection of objects and events in both time and space. Using such laws, we are then able to predict the behavior and outcome of certain phenomena and events with great precision, even if the phenomena has never been observed before. Take, as one example, the predicted collision of a string of meteors with Jupiter some years ago. Hunting for dinosaur bones on the surface of the moon may employ the very best empirical methods, but it could not be called rational.

Scameter: It is the church of religions that adds the lack of rationality and the addition of confinements to having a deity, not the religion it's self.

Perhaps, but when it comes to the “church” and the “religion”, I don’t know how you can have the one without the other. That is why I think we need a new definition of “God”, if not an entirely new religion. I am simply saying that it is time for religion to change, in accordance with the great advance we have made in science, since the time the “Great Religions” were formed. If religion does not accommodate science, more and more people will turn away from religion, and I think mankind will suffer from that loss.
In case Tom Cruise should happen to read this: No, I do not consider Scientology a new religion. It has even more mumbo jumbo than the more traditional religions, and seems to be designed for the weird Hollywood crowd with its highest goal being the payment of less tax!
Maybe that should be discussed in another forum. I only mention it to say I find it absurd and not worthy of discussion.

scameter

27th April 2006, 03:01 PM

This is in stark contrast to many religions, particularly Christianity, which claim to possess the absolute truth with absolute certainty. I find such thinking narrow and hypocritical.

I agree. But, what Christianity expresses is usually done so by the hypocritical followers of the church, and because of their hypocrisy, the truth of the Bible cannot be realized. This is quite unfortunate, especially to the foreign eye to the religion. The Bible claims that God exists and the Jesus came and died to save our sins, but there is much more to it than that, many more possibilities; the Bible could be an entire metaphor. It could be a mythology. It could be partially metaphorical, partially realistic, or with mythological substituted with metaphorical. This is where theology and the philosophy of religion lives.

Only those who strive after truth and understanding can aspire to reach the goal of science, which is to thoroughly explain all of our perceptions of the universe in as simple an association as possible.

I disagree. That is not the goal of science. The goal of science is to acquire small truths entirely based on physical evidence, with no real attempt to fathom or speculate beyond that. Which is perfectly fine; the factual descriptive truth it acquire is entirely valid. But, it should not be the exclusive means of attaining truth.

It seems to me that a religious person has a similar goal, but tries to achieve this goal without doing the hard work of science.

I do hope you are talking about the modern state of religion, because in the past, when religion actually meant something deeply to many people, when things such as scholasticism and monasticism kept the intellectual side of humanity alive for so many years, religion was taken extremely seriously. And even before the dark ages, every ancient civilization took religion very seriously, not simply as something to glance at, then turn to physical proof. To those people, the physical world was a split between a world of harsh brutality, cruel natural disasters and mysterious phemonenon, and the parts of the physical world to which bore meaning, the imprint of the divine, such as the stars (in astrology in particular), the lucious flowers and trees and magnanimous mountains, and even many of the animals. Many didn't really care about how, for instance, a hurricane worked; they simply knew it came in from the seas, and caused much destruction. But, the things that awed them, things such as I mentioned before, they took meaning in, and it is those things that kept religion so vibrant for so long, even throughout the dark ages. Faith that there was more to existence than just the harsh world they saw; that the wonderful things in nature had meaning, that death wasn't simply the end, and that their minds were more than chemicals, but portals into likeness of God. Science came about during luxury time. The only science before it was either more spiritual sciences, such as alchemy or astrology, or technology that was made out of necessity. It is when we began to fear nature less and have more ability for luxury that science came about, and religion began to have less impact on people. But, this does not discount religion at all, nor does it discount science. There must exist a balance of both for harmony to exist.

But the most common faith among scientists is faith that natural laws, which govern the universe and our existence, are rational. This is much different than the blind faith of religionists in a Divine Being, and everything that follows from that.

Then where did science begin? Who were the very first scientists? Science began when people had enough luxury time to look at nature thoughtfully, and describe it. At first, this was as much a religious practice as it was for gaining knowledge; for a Christian, describing nature was simply understanding God's creation. Not all Christians are/were like the ones now; they used to have a real intellectual interest in everything, including nature, and many things, such as gene inheritance, was discovered by Christian monks. Buddhism and Islam also made many intellectual discoveries, without lessening their passion for the divine.

As for science being magically minded, I suggest you read Newton’s Principia to dispel all such notions.

Is it as boring and passionless as things such as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations? Or is it as awe-filled and magical as are the thoughts, speculations and pictures within Stephen Hawking's books?

That would have come across better stated as a question.

I didn't mean it as a question.

Perhaps, but when it comes to the “church” and the “religion”, I don’t know how you can have the one without the other.

I'm sorry you see it that way. There is quite a difference, and it is unfortunate that one has to be made. Not all religious practice must be done in congregation, much less in a church. I don't go to church, and when I used to be forced to by my mom, I despised the ignorance, focus on money and hypocrisy within it. None of them were Christian, much less religious.

If religion does not accommodate science, more and more people will turn away from religion, and I think mankind will suffer from that loss.

Why? From what you have said, such a change would be wonderful; people would stop being so foolish by wanting meaning and seeing the divine in life, and would simply move on to the bland empiricism of science. Would that not be preferable? Should everything close down academically besides math and science?

It has even more mumbo jumbo than the more traditional religions, and seems to be designed for the weird Hollywood crowd with its highest goal being the payment of less tax!

:D

locomotive

28th April 2006, 10:16 AM

I disagree. That is not the goal of science. The goal of science is to acquire small truths entirely based on physical evidence, with no real attempt to fathom or speculate beyond that. Which is perfectly fine; the factual descriptive truth it acquire is entirely valid. But, it should not be the exclusive means of attaining truth.

speculation is absolute indulgence. Hypothesising is something science does.
what other means are their to obtaining truth? Religion on an educational level gives you philosophy and psychology or atleast an understanding or simply a transformation of your behaviour. It also has it's use as a blanky for people. With which they can sleep peacefully.

scameter

28th April 2006, 10:30 AM

what other means are their to obtaining truth?

You know no other means, other than science? Religion, theology, philosophy, spirituality, music, art, language, mythology, literature, song, history, strategy, military training, technology, medicine, games....There are so many ways of obtaining truth, and to conclude that only one is truly able to do so-science-is to be limited, which is not desired in the pursuit of truth. Of course science is a necessary facet of the quest for truth, but it is only that: a facet, not the entire means of questing nor the quest it's self.

It also has it's use as a blanky for people. With which they can sleep peacefully.

Not any religion I know of. Except maybe the hypocritical view of church religions, such as Christianity. The actual religion it's self is much different, and much more complex, than anything the church has chosen to show, precisely to get money, support, and power from the people accordingly, because they lie to grant people the ability to feel secure and happier, and to also give people the ability to act better than others.

schrodinger

28th April 2006, 06:49 PM

I disagree. That is not the goal of science. The goal of science is to acquire small truths entirely based on physical evidence, with no real attempt to fathom or speculate beyond that.

I cannot believe you have such a narrow view on the goal of science. I suspect that you are taking a contraire view for the sake of argument. In any case, such a view is not at all in agreement with the thinking of some of the greatest scientists.
Here are just two examples:

“The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe”
“Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest.
And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in”

Stephen Hawking, “A Brief History of Time” 1996

“Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible
phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the
attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.”

Albert Einstein, Essay on Science and Religion, 1939

Then where did science begin? Who were the very first scientists? Science began when people had enough luxury time to look at nature thoughtfully, and describe it. At first, this was as much a religious practice as it was for gaining knowledge;

Modern science probably began in the 15th century, but no one can place an exact date on it. At that time Copernicus first published his book on the revolution of the planets, with the sun at the center. There was a sudden sense of opening up the universe, which became even more apparent in Galileo. Life was still very hard in those days, and the Authoritarian Catholic Church made it even harder. To suggest that religious practice facilitated gaining scientific knowledge is mistaken, to say the least. The transformation to a rational world was finally achieved in 1687 when Isaac Newton published his ‘Principia’

Is it as boring and passionless as things such as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations? Or is it as awe-filled and magical as are the thoughts, speculations and pictures within Stephen Hawking's books?

It would appear you have not read it. To answer your question, I will use a quotation from Stephen Hawking:

“In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his ‘Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica’,
probably the most important single work ever published in the physical sciences.”

In fact, it surely is the most influential book ever written in physics. Of course it is not filled with glossy illustrations, such things did not exist then. But it certainly is awe-filled, not with magic, but with entirely new scientific concepts and an entirely new mathematics to explain them.
I doubt if Stephen Hawking thinks of his books as being ‘magical’, he is a true scientist and his theoretical speculations are all based on scientific knowledge.

You know no other means, other than science? Religion, theology, philosophy, spirituality, music, art, language, mythology, literature, song, history, strategy, military training, technology, medicine, games....There are so many ways of obtaining truth, and to conclude that only one is truly able to do so-science-is to be limited, which is not desired in the pursuit of truth. Of course science is a necessary facet of the quest for truth, but it is only that: a facet, not the entire means of questing nor the quest it's self.

We have been discussing here the merits of the scientific approach in striving to find a rational truth about the universe and whether or not that truth can lead us to a conclusion about the probability of the existence of ‘God’ that fits the traditional definition. It is in that context only, that I have intentionally omitted the human realm from my discussion because it obscures the question. It would be asking too much to include here all of the human experience of consciousness which lie outside of what we can define clearly. This does not mean that science is everything, or everything is science. To the contrary, if we confined ourselves only to what we can define clearly, we would be left with next to nothing, as the human realm is still vastly broader in scope than the scientific realm.
The present state of our scientific quest does not point to the probability of a creator. It seems to leave us with the possibility of a ‘creation’ without the need for a ‘creator.’ You see the problem; one cannot even discuss this topic without delving into the human realm of experience to find words to express it. In any case, I think we have taken this discussion about as far as it can go, without becoming redundant and superficial.

locomotive

28th April 2006, 08:14 PM

"Religion, theology, philosophy, spirituality, music, art, language, mythology, literature, song, history, strategy, military training, technology, medicine, games"

most of them are science. Some are a collection of observations. Games?
"Not any religion I know of"
any religion that promises hapiness if you do this and that is a blankey. For some it doesn't even matter if they follow it to the letter. Since they are closer to god's way they are so happy.
Could you tell me what religion has to offer?

scameter

29th April 2006, 07:57 AM

I cannot believe you have such a narrow view on the goal of science. I suspect that you are taking a contraire view for the sake of argument.

:D I'm not.

“The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe”
“Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest.
And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in”

Yes, that would qualify under what I said. Their "whole" theories of the universe as descriptions are simply small truths. The universe isn't all there is, regardless of what they choose to believe. Unless the entirety of everything is taken into consideration, whole truth cannot be acquired.

Modern science probably began in the 15th century, but no one can place an exact date on it.

And before then, it was alchemy.

There was a sudden sense of opening up the universe, which became even more apparent in Galileo.

Sudden? So, no one before modern science had ever had the desire to open up the universe?

To suggest that religious practice facilitated gaining scientific knowledge is mistaken, to say the least.

As I said before, many scientific discoveries came about from monks, and most scientists were Catholic, and not just because it was forced; they truly believed in it.

I doubt if Stephen Hawking thinks of his books as being ‘magical’, he is a true scientist and his theoretical speculations are all based on scientific knowledge.

Does this include his statement that science is limited to how the universe is, and cannot answer questions such as "Why are the planets exactly as they are?" Not how they are as they are, but *why*. Science describes, it doesn't truly speculate, which is why it can never attain entire truth. Not alone anyways.

We have been discussing here the merits of the scientific approach in striving to find a rational truth about the universe and whether or not that truth can lead us to a conclusion about the probability of the existence of ‘God’ that fits the traditional definition.

I thought we were discussing the probability of God, not only from the scientific viewpoint, but from an entire viewpoint. If we were only discussing the existence of God scientifically, the discussion would've ended a long time ago.

You see the problem; one cannot even discuss this topic without delving into the human realm of experience to find words to express it.

Even science cannot escape such a journey.

schrodinger

29th April 2006, 04:08 PM

Yes, that would qualify under what I said.

Good. Stephen Hawking will be so relieved to know that! :lol:

and most scientists were Catholic,

:blink: :blink:

What?! Is that why Stephen Hawking wrote this?

“In 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts it advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference, the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference – the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo!”
The Catholic Church did everything it could to stifle scientific progress,from Copernicus to Galileo, and that same attitude continues today.

I thought we were discussing the probability of God, not only from the scientific viewpoint, but from an entire viewpoint. If we were only discussing the existence of God scientifically, the discussion would've ended a long time ago.

Sorry. I should have written, “I was discussing.” I have no idea what you were discussing! :D

:mellow:

scameter

1st May 2006, 12:08 PM

The Catholic Church did everything it could to stifle scientific progress,from Copernicus to Galileo, and that same attitude continues today.

I said *were*. Yes, the Catholic church has tried it's best to stifle science, ignorantly; but there were many monks who advanced science, such as the discoverer of genetic inheritance, and many scientists were Catholic. No, not every scientist was Catholic, and many who are famous were put down by the church, but many others, especially more philosophic scientists, were very Catholic, such as Descartes.

schrodinger

2nd May 2006, 04:20 PM

locomotive:
speculation is absolute indulgence. Hypothesising is something science does. What other means are ther to obtaining truth?

Religionists usually rely on blind faith, “authority”, or miraculous revelations as enough “evidence” for the existence of God. However, there have been some philosophers and theologians who thought it possible to “prove” or demonstrate by reason that God must exist. To “demonstrate by reason” is another way of saying to “use scientific analysis”. Thomas Aquinas is probably the most famous, and the most successful such theologian with the “five ways”. They are here, as briefly as possible:
1). For a thing to be moved, another thing must move it, and so on in an infinite regression. To avoid the infinite regression we must assume a “first mover”, and that is God.
2). “Nothing is caused by itself”. Again, this can be followed to an infinity of causes, so we must assume a first cause, and that is God.
3). Physical things do not exist forever. In an infinite time, there must be periods when no physical things exist. For existence to continue, there must be something that is eternal, and that is God.
4). There are different degrees of qualities in the world. These differences only make sense if compared to a maximum, and that maximum is God.
5). The arrow does not move towards its goal except by the archer’s hand. Since all things in the world move towards a goal, there must be an intelligent being who directs all things, and that is God.

David Hume provided powerful arguments against the first, second and third statements by saying whatever we can conceive as existing, we also can conceive as not existing. No need for an eternal God. He also argued that the source of the universe could be the universe itself, no need for a first cause or a first mover.

Number four is easily argued against since evil exists. That would make God the maximum evil! :o

Argument number five is argued against this way: There is no legitimate way we can define the properties of a God by observing the properties of his creation. This universe might be one of many attempts at creation and may in fact be a botched attempt by an alien scientist who has since discarded it! :alien:

It would seem that this type of argument can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God, and can lead to much frustration if not insanity to those who go down this path.:wallbash:

That being said, the latest advances in scientific theory have now shown, at least hypothetically, how the universe could have begun from “nothing” and how it expanded to become the way it is now. The latest fine-tuning has the universe first appearing as a failed annihilation between two particles of matter and anti matter. Such annihilations happen all the time, and have been observed in particle physics. Once a particle escapes the annihilation, it warps space and time causing an expansion that leads to the big bang. So the process that is now envisioned is: pop! sizZLE, BANG! Science did not set out on a quest to either prove or disprove the existence of God. It did set out to find out How things are the way they are, and it is beginning to appear that it all could have happened without a creator. <_<
This does not mean science is anti-God. Plato said; “The life which is unexamined is not worth living.” Cannot a similar statement be made for God? :think:

MidnightSun

2nd May 2006, 09:39 PM

Physical things do not exist forever. In an infinite time, there must be periods when no physical things exist. For existence to continue, there must be something that is eternal, and that is God.

Hmm intresting. Physicall cant exsist infinite time so its finite. Something that could exsist all the time would be infinite. God is infinite. And if there are finite things there can be infinite ones too, so there might be God...if i got it all right...

TruthSeeker

3rd May 2006, 03:25 AM

1). For a thing to be moved, another thing must move it, and so on in an infinite regression. To avoid the infinite regression we must assume a “first mover”, and that is God.
That's about cause and effect. All effects mus have a cause, so, therefore, it does indeed go ad infinitum. That's simply a paradox, meaning that our perceptions is what defines the truth.

2). “Nothing is caused by itself”. Again, this can be followed to an infinity of causes, so we must assume a first cause, and that is God.
Why nothing is caused by itself? How do you define the thing that is causing itself? Where's the boundary? Another paradox?

3). Physical things do not exist forever. In an infinite time, there must be periods when no physical things exist. For existence to continue, there must be something that is eternal, and that is God.
Well, in order to understand physicality, one must understand what is not physical as well. What is physical? We know that there is abstract existence because we have it in our heads. We also know that the physical can genenerate the abstract and turn the abstract into physical. But what is the cause and what is the effect? Does the abstract come into our heads sponteneously or do we have to generate it ourselves? Once again, we bump into a paradox.

4). There are different degrees of qualities in the world. These differences only make sense if compared to a maximum, and that maximum is God.
What are the degrees of quality? It is you that determine that, so that is subjective.

5). The arrow does not move towards its goal except by the archer’s hand. Since all things in the world move towards a goal, there must be an intelligent being who directs all things, and that is God.
Which goal? Does the universe has a goal? And why does the sentence "The arrow does not move towards its goal except by the archer’s hand " should be applied to all reality? Why should that be absolute?

David Hume provided powerful arguments against the first, second and third statements by saying whatever we can conceive as existing, we also can conceive as not existing. No need for an eternal God.
True. We can also change the qualities of God. Unless you make a detailed argument. That requires a more complex kind of logic which does not exist yet.

He also argued that the source of the universe could be the universe itself, no need for a first cause or a first mover.
Could be.

Number four is easily argued against since evil exists. That would make God the maximum evil!
So? God can't be evil? What is evil anyways? That's just what you perceive to be evil.

Argument number five is argued against this way: There is no legitimate way we can define the properties of a God by observing the properties of his creation. This universe might be one of many attempts at creation and may in fact be a botched attempt by an alien scientist who has since discarded it!
Not true. I can hear Mozart's compositions and tell that they are from Mozart, because I know how his compositions sound like. Therefore, his compositions imply his own attributes. It has to, because it came from him.

It would seem that this type of argument can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God, and can lead to much frustration if not insanity to those who go down this path.
True.

That being said, the latest advances in scientific theory have now shown, at least hypothetically, how the universe could have begun from “nothing” and how it expanded to become the way it is now.
Big Bang is a big question mark. There are many arguments against it. A singularity is not nothing either.

TruthSeeker

3rd May 2006, 03:38 AM

God is a big paradox. He is watching us, eating his popcorn, chilling out in heaven and having some fun. :baeh:

Meanwhile... :begging:
:rolleyes:

locomotive

3rd May 2006, 03:57 AM

"Why nothing is caused by itself? How do you define the thing that is causing itself? Where's the boundary? Another paradox?"

it is a paradox. How can something that doesn't exist make itself exist?
the argument against that there must be a god that is infinite that made the universe is simple. Who made god? the only counter argument that I know of is that god simply existed. Therefore you could argue against that by saying why can't the universe simply exist by itself? Some might say because there needs to be a creator. haha.
Anyway if something cannot be nothing and nothingness cannot be somethingness then according to the fact that we are something there can only be somethingness. Even though science says things are made out of nothing and particles dissapear and reapear there is still Something.

TruthSeeker

3rd May 2006, 11:15 AM

Good one. I still think Nothingness exists. It's even in the Tao Te Ching...

scameter

3rd May 2006, 02:50 PM

Oh, hey, that'd be a great statement for my topic in science "Nothingness as an Entity"! :P

schrodinger

3rd May 2006, 05:22 PM

locomotive:
Anyway if something cannot be nothing and nothingness cannot be somethingness then according to the fact that we are something there can only be somethingness. Even though science says things are made out of nothing and particles dissapear and reapear there is still Something.

TruthSeeker:
Good one. I still think Nothingness exists. It's even in the Tao Te Ching...

Indeed…What is “nothing”? :huh:
Personally, the only way I can conceptualize “zero” or “nothing, is to see it surrounded by something.
Let’s look at our number system to get an idea: -4 ß 0 à +4
In this context, zero has a definite meaning which is immediately apparent to anyone, or so I would think.
But just this: 0 What does that mean?
(Bear with me, this is getting to the good stuff!) :lol:
How about the mathematical expression –(-4)=+4. We all know that is correct, but how do we know that?
If we started out like this: -4ß 0 and then subtracted (–4), would we not just have 0?
It is only when we think of zero as being in the center of +4 and –4, that –(-4)=+4 makes any sense. It is like two opposite forces, remove one and only the other is left. Now the idea from science that “nothingness” consists of two types of opposite particles, in a state of constant annihilation does not seem so strange after all. :scatter:

Or perhaps: :hahaha:
It is a tale
Told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

à William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act: V, Scene V

scameter:
Oh, hey, that'd be a great statement for my topic in science "Nothingness as an Entity"!

Sounds interesting! I hope you will publish it here. :)