The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: God real or not  (Read 234452 times)

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #75 on: 13/03/2006 05:55:52 »
Firstly,
quote:

It is erroneous to regard relativism as equivalent to amorality.


I never I said this
quote:

but then were you not complaining about short termism, people looking for quick solutions?


nor this

Now, regarding the first quote, I never, as far as I can recall, said that the two are equal, I only said that in this society it is the individualís responsibility to develop a sense of moral on their own, and essentially went on to state that this will logically lead to a break down of morality among certain people in the population.  And I attributed this breakdown to the fact that we live in a relativistic society.  Of course I would expect you to now argue about whether or not there even is such a thing as an absolute understanding of moral.  Obviously, I would say yes since I read the Quran.    

Now for the second quote.  Who in their right mind would complain about people looking for quick solutions?  I am utterly at a loss as to how a quick solution is inferior to a long dragged out one.  (all other things being equal of course).  I was complaining about people looking for quick GAINS, not quick solutions.  And even in this, I was not necessarily referring to it in terms of time, a lack of investment in the long term could just as well come from arrogance (one would rather delve in the relative), the removal of which doesnít have some sort of time limit (it could happen quickly, after a long time, or never).  

quote:

I do agree that we live in an era where we are increasingly looking for short term gains, but this is a consequence of people being denied the benefits of long term investment, and so simply have no incentive to make long term investments.



It is obvious by now that we are speaking from two different backgrounds.  I think that you may have generalized this a bit too much, because I canít picture of any particular instance of this.

More importantly, I neglected to specify that I donít just mean long term investment in this life, but indeed, just as much, if not much more, in the afterlife (obviously a Quranic theme, as I doubt you understand the specific context in which I am speaking).

Now Iím going to be honest with you.  I donít actually have any interest of arguing with you or anybody else about religion or God, which I sort of hinted on in my previous post.  I like to learn about humans which ever way I can, mostly through observing their behavior.  Of course the best way of observing peopleís behavior is through some sort of cause and effect relationship (I post up some opinion I have and observe and analyze the effect).  You could obviously be wondering at this point, that if I am arguing for a lack of argumentation, then arenít I destroying my own argument?  WellÖdepending on your perspectiveÖI suppose.  Needless to say this is more or less my last post.

quote:

This is true, but I would also ask is it fair even to ask others to change their beliefs unless you are willing to entertain the notion of doing likewise? Should you be asking of others that which you are not yourself willing to offer?



Frankly, youíre absolutely correct; I am not willing to entertain the notion of the correctness of another religion.  Itís the same reason you are not going to read the Quran (I consider atheism to be a religion since, Christians believe in Christ, Buddhists believe in Buddha and atheists believe to not believe). So, if you havenít already figured it out so far from this post, I wasnít actually serious in asking you to consider reading the Quran.  I new you werenít going to read it, and even if you did, it would only have been an added bonus and wasnít as though that was some how my ultimate goal.  

But seriously, think practically for a second, could you imagine even one person in the history of online forums who actually changed their minds online and converted religion while having a discussion with words and sentences across the globe?  Or even slightly changed their spiritual orientation?  

Iím sure, however, that it wouldnít be too difficult for you to imagine the majority of people, including you and me, who only strengthen their own pre-conceived notions and biases by coming to online forums.  This is referred to as selective attention in psychology; essentially to look for things that confirm our biases.  

And so when you said:

quote:

Clearly, assuming a context free environment is simpler and quicker to work with than having to develop conclusions that are relevant to the context you are working in



which seems to me to be just a stretched out way of calling me a coward, I have this to say: I donít argue where I know for a fact that neither my arguments are going to have any affect on the opposing party nor are the arguments of the opposing party going to have any affect on me, and not only this, but more likely than not both parties are only going increase in conviction in their respective ideologies.  More importantly, I donít argue, if I donít think that I, or the person I am arguing with can benefit from it in some way.  

In my case, the benefit comes in the form of whatever knowledge I was interested in attaining, such as knowledge about human behavior.  So I leave you with this question: what reason do YOU have for reading this post?
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #76 on: 13/03/2006 14:36:07 »
.........wow...........lotsa qoutes.....

- Big T
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #77 on: 13/03/2006 22:15:18 »
OK, I did say that I was in something of a rush on Saturday, and I apologise if I jumped to conclusions that you had not intended in your text.

But, looking in general with regard to issues of relativism and absolute moral codes.  At the time the Quran  was written, it was an era when both slavery and polygamy were accepted practice, and the Quran supported both concepts.  Polygamy is still accepted by the proponents of Islam, although there is no doubt that it is beginning to fall out of favour, while slavery is now condemned as much by Muslims as by any other mainstream religion (all of which had supported slavery in the past).

The question is, if the values of religion are absolute, then can it be possible to support slavery in one century, and then condemn slavery in the next?  On the other hand, if one accepts that morality has to function within the context of its time and its social environment, then one can say that in the era when slavery was condoned by the Quran and the Bible, it was appropriate for that era, but no longer appropriate to the changed circumstances of the modern era.

quote:

quote:

but then were you not complaining about short termism, people looking for quick solutions



Who in their right mind would complain about people looking for quick solutions? I am utterly at a loss as to how a quick solution is inferior to a long dragged out one. (all other things being equal of course). I was complaining about people looking for quick GAINS, not quick solutions. And even in this, I was not necessarily referring to it in terms of time, a lack of investment in the long term could just as well come from arrogance (one would rather delve in the relative), the removal of which doesnít have some sort of time limit (it could happen quickly, after a long time, or never).




I am not quite sure what you regard as a solution that does not provide a gain?  Ofcourse, you may be using the term gain in a purely monetary manner, in which case I can understand the distinction; but I would argue that quick fixes of any kind are always going to be inferior to those solutions that are carefully and painstakingly constructed, a process that almost inevitably will take time.  As a general rule, the quicker you construct something, the quicker it falls down.  Ofcourse, there are times when things do naturally come to the end of their useful life, but one would rather not pre-empt that time by not spending the time to check that your solution is sufficiently robust.

As for whether the relative is more of less arrogant than the absolute Ė I think I would take quite the contrary view.  Is not the absolute essentially say that the answer I  have in the only valid answer; whereas the relative is saying that the answer I have is one of many answers, and your answer may be just as valid as my answer.  So, which would you really consider the more arrogant?  This is even more the case where the two answers relate to circumstances in totally different societies (maybe separated by hundreds of years of time).  Where you and I must share a common society, then clearly we must find some common ground upon which we can base our codes of conduct, although this does not require that we share a common belief system.

Nor is relativism the quick or simple alternative.  On the contrary, an absolute system, once constructed, never needs to be updated or modified.  A relative system constantly needs to take into account changes in the context it is operating in.

Ofcourse, one might counter this by saying the very complexity of a relative system makes it more prone to error, and providing a simpler absolute moral code, even if this lacks flexibility in dealing with new social environments, at least relieves the practitioner from the responsibility of having to adjust the system to take into account changing circumstances (a little like providing a driver with a car that cannot change gear Ė it may have a more restricted application, but at least it's simpler to use Ė and I am excluding cars with automatic transmission for the purposes of this analogy).

quote:

think practically for a second, could you imagine even one person in the history of online forums who actually changed their minds online and converted religion while having a discussion with words and sentences across the globe? Or even slightly changed their spiritual orientation?



In all reality, I would think such a person to be very fickle if they did.

But, in my view, the value of such exchanges is not that either party should switch allegiances, but that each side, by having to think about questions that they may not necessarily have thought of asking themselves, is given the chance to extend their own belief system, to try and work out how their own belief system might answer a question they might not have thought of before.

I do not expect that you would walk away from this any less a Muslim than you were at the start, but that maybe at the end of this discussion, you might go back to the Quran and try and think of slightly different ways of interpreting it than you did before, because you now have new questions to ask that you had not asked before, and likewise, I might spend time thinking about how I might view my own thoughts and beliefs slightly differently because I have had to answer questions I had not thought of before.  You will still remain a Muslim, and I still remain an atheist, but each of us still maybe now armed with a few more questions than we had before.

quote:

Iím sure, however, that it wouldnít be too difficult for you to imagine the majority of people, including you and me, who only strengthen their own pre-conceived notions and biases by coming to online forums. This is referred to as selective attention in psychology; essentially to look for things that confirm our biases.



I can agree with this insofar as it pertains to what I am willing to listen to from you, or you from me.  As I said above, the interesting aspect of such exchanges are not that I will listen to your answers, but that I will listen to your questions.  The questions are more important than the answers.  Accepting someone else's answers is for idiots who cannot think for themselves, but accepting someone else's questions give one cause to think answers out for oneself, answers that mean something to oneself, which may be something very different from the answers that mean something to someone else.

quote:

I consider atheism to be a religion since, Christians believe in Christ, Buddhists believe in Buddha and atheists believe to not believe



Buddhists believe in  Buddha as Muslims believe in Mohammed, but  Mohammed is not God, and neither is  Buddha.

Buddhism is actually an atheist religion, it has no intrinsic belief in a God (although, I believe some variants of it might integrate theist notions within Buddhism).

Atheism, of itself, is insufficient to be considered an entire belief system.  The other side of the coin, believing in God is not of itself enough to define a particular religion.  Believing in God does not make a person a Muslim, since there are many people who believe in God who are not Muslim (although, ofcourse, believing in God is a prerequisite for a Muslim, but not a sufficiency for it).  By the same token, a belief that there is no God is not sufficient to define all those who share that belief as belonging to a common belief system.

As I said, atheism may indeed form a part of a belief system.  Buddhism is an atheistic religion, and I would argue that Communism is an atheistic religion (albeit, most Communists would themselves be horrified to think of themselves as such, but I would regard that Communism is a complete enough system to be regarded as a belief system).

It may be arguable that it is human nature that we all have some sort of belief system (whether it be a theistic or atheistic belief system), but it is open to debate whether most atheists share enough of a communal belief system that they could be regarded as actually sharing in a communal religion.  This last point is something I am presently undecided about Ė to what extent do most atheists in a community share a common belief system, and to what extent do their belief systems vary, and how does one decide which religious community does an atheist belong to, since there is no communal gathering of atheists, nor any communal self identification of atheist communities?



George
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #78 on: 13/03/2006 22:17:10 »
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789

.........wow...........lotsa qoutes.....

- Big T



Well, since you started the topic, I hope you've been reading all the responses (we may be asking questions on it later :D).



George
« Last Edit: 13/03/2006 22:17:57 by another_someone »
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #79 on: 13/03/2006 23:13:10 »
Don't worry, I was aware of the fact that you were busy, I was going to point out those things regardless...

quote:

But, looking in general with regard to issues of relativism and absolute moral codes. At the time the Quran was written, it was an era when both slavery and polygamy were accepted practice, and the Quran supported both concepts. Polygamy is still accepted by the proponents of Islam, although there is no doubt that it is beginning to fall out of favour, while slavery is now condemned as much by Muslims as by any other mainstream religion (all of which had supported slavery in the past).

The question is, if the values of religion are absolute, then can it be possible to support slavery in one century, and then condemn slavery in the next? On the other hand, if one accepts that morality has to function within the context of its time and its social environment, then one can say that in the era when slavery was condoned by the Quran and the Bible, it was appropriate for that era, but no longer appropriate to the changed circumstances of the modern era.




I know that I said Iím done arguing, but (no offense), you have very little understanding about the Quran, so I feel as a Muslim it is my duty to provide correct information.  Rather then say my own words, it would be better if I just dug up a couple of verses from the Quran:

4:92 It is not conceivable that a believer will slay another believer unless it be a mistake. If one kills a believer by mistake, there is the duty of freeing a believing person from bondage; may it be slavery, extreme poverty, crushing debt or oppression. And pay compensation to the victim's family unless they forgo it by way of charity. If case the victim was a believer, and belonged to a tribe who are at war with you, free a believing person from bondage. If the victim was a believer, and belonged to a tribe with whom you have a peace treaty, you should pay the compensation to his family in addition to freeing a believing person from bondage. For those who find this settlement beyond their means, two consecutive months of Abstinence, as in the month of Ramadan, are ordained by way of repentance from Allah. And Allah is the Knower, the Wise.
9:60 Remember that the funds that the Central Authority receives as Alms and Charity belong to the following categories:
- The poor. Those who are not able to earn enough living to meet their basic needs, for any reason.
- Those whose running businesses have stalled or the ones who have lost their jobs, who have become needy with their active lives coming to a standstill.
- Officers who have been appointed by the government to collect alms and charity.
- Those who are hindered from joining the Divine System for financial reasons.
- To free men and women from bondage of any kind: physical slavery, unjust captivity, and oppression from any quarters.
- Those pressed under the load of ransom or heavy debt from an enemy.
- Defense of the Ideological State, in the Cause of Allah.
- The wayfarer who becomes needy, or travels to the believers in destitute condition, and the homeless son of the street.
This is a Duty from Allah. He is the Knower, the Wise and His Commands are based on Knowledge and Wisdom.

And hereís one relating to polygamy:

4:129 Men who have been permitted a second wife for post-war exigencies (4:3) must understand that: You will not be able to deal equally between your wives however much you wish. But turn not altogether away from one, leaving her as if in suspense between having and not having a husband. Fulfill the rights of each one of them and be mindful of Allah. Verily, Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (Your effort is seen 53:40, and He is the Absolver of your imperfections).

I was looking for a much better verse, but was didnít have enough time.  However, this should be enough to make the point.  The ONLY time that a man is allowed to marry more than one wife is after a war.  The reason for this, if you havenít already realized, is that since men were the majority of the soldiers (yes women were also allowed in the army, but of course were the minority), most of the casualties were men.  So a lot of the men get killed, there are a lot of widows who canít necessarily support themselves; thus in this instance, and only in this instance, is a man allowed to marry another women in order to SUPPORT her.    

As far as your actual argument is concerned, Iím not about to give you a history lesson on Islam, as it would be essentially impossible to cover everything.  I would be better off just giving you a reference of the source of my knowledge.  Most of your argument can be found to be flawed even if you only read the preface of the rendering of the Quran which I have mentioned many times.

The rest is detail that just goes around in circles (as I like to say, delves in the relative), as far as Iím concerned.  Donít mind me, its not as though Iím the only one reading your post, some one will surely find it of some use, but I have already dropped out from further argumentation.

Have I shown you one aspect of Islam that you found disagreeable?  Iím not talking about your current understanding of Islam, but aspects of Islam that I presented to you?  If so you would be correct in saying that finding new questions to ask is the point of all these discussions.  But you missed my whole point.  I have accepted the absolute, you have not, so if the Quran is telling me that all the questions as to how to best and most efficiently live my life while taking into consideration the well being of the rest of humanity are answered within the book, then what need do I have to look for new questions?  I've already throughly explained to you that I'm not a blind follower of anything and have at the most fundemental level agreed with everything I could understand in the book (I was able to understand most it). Your argument isnít incorrect, it just isnít relevant.  
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #80 on: 14/03/2006 00:11:24 »
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910

Have I shown you one aspect of Islam that you found disagreeable?




I have never had anything intrinsically disagreeable about Islam, it has simply not convinced me that it was technically the most meaningful world view for my view of the world.  This does not mean that I am, or have ever been, antagonistic to Islam.

quote:


But you missed my whole point.  I have accepted the absolute, you have not, so if the Quran is telling me that all the questions as to how to best and most efficiently live my life while taking into consideration the well being of the rest of humanity are answered within the book, then what need do I have to look for new questions?




I have two issues with this.

Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.  I am not doubting that the Quran does also tell you how you should treat non-Muslims, it is merely that it (as does the Bible, particularly the Old Testament) does appear to be quite discriminatory in treating one's own differently from treating outsiders.

More specifically, I don't know what the Islamic tradition is, but certainly in the Jewish tradition (and at least some branches of the Christian tradition) there are people who spend their whole lives looking at the Bible and seeking to find new answers to questions from therein.  Sometimes the answers can seem like an over-interpretation of what is written, but nonetheless it does demonstrate the principle that merely because a body of written knowledge is fixed, it does not mean that one cannot seek new knowledge even from that fixed set of words.





George
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #81 on: 14/03/2006 01:01:53 »
2:62 (That was a glimpse of the past.) Behold, those who believe (in the Qur'an and call themselves Muslims), and those who are Jews, and Christians and the Agnostics - whoever truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does work that benefits humanity - surely their reward is with their Lord. For them shall be no fear from without, nor shall grief touch them from within.

Well, you pretty much hit a wall right there...What can I say, that's the point of a religion these days.  But although itís complicated to you; itís not at all so for me.  If you want a general summary of humanity in view of the Quran, here it goes:  Humans are created; they begin agriculture and so forth, begin to form permanent dwellings and begin to ask the big questions about life.  Without any direct guidance from God so far, Noah comes to them as God's first message.  History continues, and essentially more and more prophets keep coming to warn humans of wrongdoing and show them a way towards bliss and security.  From the time of Prophet Noah, to the time of Prophet Muhammad, all nations recieved a prophet (such as Moses to Egypt and Jesus to Israelites) and thus a fair warning and incentive to do good works for ALL humanity.  The Torah and Bible were both authored by the same God that authored the Quran, but since humanity was slowly developing its infrastructure, these books were revealed in stages, with the Quran being the final message.  And so that is the reason why no prophets are needed any longer, the Quran is the final message and it is well preserved unlike the other books who's original message has been thoroughly decimated because of the selfish desires of humans.

quote:

Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.



Your argument makes no sense.  What do you expect them to do, go into the other society, and fight whoever is oppressing there own people?  Thatís like saying the United States embarking on a mission to save a homeless person in another personís societyÖAnd keep in mind the world was not globalized as it is today.  It wasnít even as though the other societies at the time besides the Islamic society were weak in strength.  But besides this, there are plenty of verses, which I donít have time to find right now, that relate to leaving people at peace as long as they wish to remain at peace.  

2:190 [All mankind should agree upon and mark their calendars for four months of peacetime. However, true following of the Divine System of Life will meet with harsh opposition.] So, fight in the Cause of Allah those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression. Behold, Allah loves not aggressors. (2:194, 2:217, 4:91, 9:5, 9:36, 22:39, 60:8.)

2:193 Hence, fight them only until there is no more harassment, and Deen may be adopted for the sake of Allah alone. And if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against those who replace peace with aggression.

 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #82 on: 14/03/2006 02:48:33 »
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910
quote:

Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.



Your argument makes no sense.  What do you expect them to do, go into the other society, and fight whoever is oppressing there own people?  Thatís like saying the United States embarking on a mission to save a homeless person in another personís societyÖAnd keep in mind the world was not globalized as it is today.  It wasnít even as though the other societies at the time besides the Islamic society were weak in strength.  But besides this, there are plenty of verses, which I donít have time to find right now, that relate to leaving people at peace as long as they wish to remain at peace.  




Firstly, my comment was with regard to your quotes, not the totality of the Quran, which as I said, although I did not know exact texts, I was aware did include clauses about how to treat non-Muslims.  The only issue I was raising was that you were saying how great Islam was for humanity, and I was saying that your quotes only pertained to how great Islam was for Muslims.

Secondly, your comparison with the USA is both erroneous and inconsistent.

In most regards, the law of the USA pertains to all persons legally living within the USA, whether they be US citizens or not.  US jurisdiction, for the most part, does not have global reach, and so does not pertain to persons living outside of the USA, of whatever nationality.  I accept that this is a generalisation, and there is some extraterritoriality in US law, and there are some differences in the rights of US and non-US citizens resident within the US, but these are a few exceptions, and in principle all humans within the jurisdiction of the US law are equal under the law.

Beyond that, to try and compare Islamic law with US law would imply that Islam was merely a nation State.  It is not that, and certainly it has ambitions to be far more than a nation State.

Your comment that ďkeep in mind the world was not globalized as it is todayĒ seems to imply that you implicitly accept that one should read the Quran within the context in which it was written, and regard it as pertaining to that context.  Does this not run counter to your argument that the Quran should be read context free, and its law should be regarded as valid for all contexts, without regard to the context in which it was written.

By the way, none of the above is intended to be a condemnation of the Quran, just simply highlighting that it is more the work of man than of God, and as such it should be regarded as having the imperfections of all works of men, including the fact that it was more concerned with what was happening within the society in which it was written (the society that was what the human authors of the Quran were concerned about) than it was looking at a broader world view.  Within that limitation, it is a valiant attempt of its time.



George
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #83 on: 14/03/2006 04:06:52 »
Sorry, but this is exactly why I stopped arguing.  This whole arguement is just going in circles since I'm sure I have already covered everything you are arguing in previous posts.  You made an intial mistake which sprang out from still not fully realizing my absolute prespective from which I am speaking and rolled with it to the end of the post.  So as far as I'm concerned, I felt that much of the post towards the end was irrelevant.  I feel like typing, "maybe now you understand what I mean by delving in the relative", but I'm sure that you don't.  I'm not blaming you or calling you ignorant, but this is the obvious limitation of speaking across online forums which I throughly explained in a previous post.
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #84 on: 16/03/2006 14:42:08 »
Hey i got on most replied topic YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- Big T
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #85 on: 16/03/2006 14:44:36 »
SO no one really knows the answer oh well but i hey i mean there is a possiblity that he is not real i mean people belive what they would like to think is true. People like the idea of a god and jesus so they beilieve it

- Big T
 

Offline mcduke

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #86 on: 23/03/2006 03:59:26 »
Hi all, this is my first post here so be gentle
So, is God real? I'm assuming you mean the biblical all powerful, all knowing creator of everything God. Well, first of all you would think such a being could do a better job of preventing the confusion with all the different religions in the world. There's to much of the, you must believe the same as me or you'll burn in hell for an eternity (cuz that's what a loving God does?). Lets face it, two thousands years ago there wasn't a heck of alot to do except the usually fight for survival bit with alot of why am I here thinking going on. To have a bunch of guys on earth write down on tablets rules to live by and leave it at that, well, Can you be a God by proxy? Our father who art in heaven! If any parents on earth tried being a parent by proxy they'd be thrown in jail for child abuse. Ok kids, I'm going to have you write these rules down for you to live by and I'll look in on you from time to time, but you won't see me. I think if there is a supreme being then he/she needs to be more hands on, and I'm not seeing that.
Religion provides security and comfort in a world where nature is harsh, cruel, and frightening. I've had friends who've turned back to they're religous beliefs in hard times when they need comfort and security. After all, it's what they were raised with. When they've tried to talk religion to me I side step the conversation. Not because I'm afraid of the conversation. I'm simply respecting their belief and don't want to take away their security and comfort. A majority of people cling to a specific belief simply because of how they where raised (it's what they're used to and comfortable with).

Here's an interesting thought. In the bible God can be angry, jealous, and loving. How about bored? Let's face it, being all powerful and able to do anything anytime you want sounds like a perfect recipe for boredom eventually. Therefore, the universe, and we, where created for entertainment. That's why the world is such a confusing mess. And we're all channels on a remote control for the ultimate plasma tv. Click, lets see what Bob is up to today! oh, what a card, that Bob is funny. How about Jack? What's Jack doing today. Oh Jack, that's being a bad boy. So, a perfect world is a boring world not to mention an over populated world.
So, is there a God? If there is one then none of us really have any true idea what he is or wants from us (atleast not unitl you die, maybe). As for me, I like Buddhism, they're peaceful and respect others.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #87 on: 23/03/2006 04:28:06 »
quote:
Originally posted by mcduke

Here's an interesting thought. In the bible God can be angry, jealous, and loving.



One of the things you also have to bear in mind is that over time the very meaning of the words used has changed, so what the people intended when they wrote the words might have been subtly different from the way we reed those words.

quote:


 How about bored? Let's face it, being all powerful and able to do anything anytime you want sounds like a perfect recipe for boredom eventually.



It actually sound like a recipe for indecision Ė if you can do anything, then you can also do it an infinite number of ways, and no one way is any better than another, so there is no rational basis for choosing one way of doing something over another way of doing it.



George
« Last Edit: 23/03/2006 04:38:54 by another_someone »
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: God real or not
« Reply #88 on: 23/03/2006 04:31:16 »
I wonder if he's got fast forward,or slow reverse:)

Michael
 

Offline gecko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #89 on: 26/03/2006 09:31:19 »
the idea of something being all-powerful is self defeating and natural selection and evolution continue to compound hard evidence, showing a creator is unneccesary.

god doesnt and exist and he never did. what, have you people lost it?
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #90 on: 27/03/2006 15:15:41 »
hey hey hey ok gecko prove that he does not exist

- Big T
 

Offline mcduke

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #91 on: 28/03/2006 04:54:28 »
The reason people believe is because they need the security and comfort of that belief, that there is something greater and benevolent out there watching over us. The mess this world is in pretty much answers that question. Sure we may be the most intelligent beings on the planet, but that just means our ways are that much more complicated then the other creatures on the planet.
I've been asked do I believe in God, but what I'm really being asked is does my belief match his belief? These days I tell em I'm buddhaRue. That means I'm peaceful and live in harmony with all things unless you piss me off, lol.
Most important is just to have fun in life. After all, if you can't have fun then what's the point?

I bet that Gods remote control has fast forward and backwards, and even slow forward and backwards for full entertainment value.
 

Offline gecko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #92 on: 28/03/2006 05:13:34 »
tony, i cant prove god doesnt exist anymore than you can prove he can.

 when you say something exists with no evidence whatsoever, just because of faith or belief, you can never be proven wrong. i believe theres a planet in the universe ruled by a race of skyscraper sized ants who eat nothing but pancakes. if you cant prove me wrong, than is that true?

 god is just about as likely, considering theres the same amount of proof for both. i always want to see evidence before i believe in something... for some reason objectivity and skepticism have taken a backseat to the whimsy and wonder of religion
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #93 on: 28/03/2006 13:43:57 »
In the physical world (i.e. away from mathematics or pure logic), then the only thing that can be proven is ďI think, therefore I amĒ - everything else is hypothesis, and its usage depends upon its utility not upon absolute proof of absolute truth.

It may be argued that the utility of God as a working hypothesis has been superseded by other theories that provide greater utility in many contexts, but none of this proves any of them to be an absolute truth, or absolute falsehood.



George
« Last Edit: 28/03/2006 13:44:52 by another_someone »
 

Offline mcduke

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #94 on: 29/03/2006 02:55:20 »
Inorder to prove if God exist or not, don't you need to know what religious version to prove or disprove? I think there's a reference in the Bible to Gods, not just God. So, if there is more then one, which one/ones would you like to prove/disprove?
I would think that a God would provide better order in the world, ya know, like just one religion, and if someone gets the idea of starting a different/wrong religion God would pay him/her a visit(or atleast send an angel) to say,"hey, that's wrong". I would think an all powerful being would be able to do that. If not, then the confusion here must be on purpose, as in, We're entertainment for a supreme being that is bored. Or, maybe just a science project. Of course there is the possibility that we're just nature at work void of any divine intentions.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2006 02:59:05 by mcduke »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #95 on: 29/03/2006 04:07:08 »
In my opinion, God is an invention via the imagination of man.
 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: God real or not
« Reply #96 on: 29/03/2006 08:39:52 »
What I dont get is that there is neither "proof" for or against some super deity behind the scenes. So why would someone jump to the conclusion that one exists? Maybe back in the day before we had any scientific method or knowledge it was the simplest answer to the great question; Why? But now we have scientific method and a nice simple answer that the universe just is and runs on natural interactions between stuff and other stuff. So why would anyone continue with deity worship? Personally I embrace EVERYTHING as if it were God because clearly we are all part of the grand interconnected system that is life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor

Assuming that there is a hidden super being running the show isn't exactly justified in my mind. Why do I need to think that there is one?? When the world merrily goes on working without me doing so in a reasonably predictable way from currently available evidence. If suddenly we find that everything we thought was true breaks down and four giant horsemen come flying about my head I might be inclined to change my mind ;)

A lot of religions don't take themselves quite so seriously as Christianity or Islam etc. Most of the eastern philosophies take a far more relaxed approach and dont assume anything is true :) or that any of their deities truly exist in how they worship and symbolise them. So who is right???
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #97 on: 29/03/2006 16:17:15 »
quote:
Originally posted by mcduke

Inorder to prove if God exist or not, don't you need to know what religious version to prove or disprove? I think there's a reference in the Bible to Gods, not just God. So, if there is more then one, which one/ones would you like to prove/disprove?
I would think that a God would provide better order in the world, ya know, like just one religion, and if someone gets the idea of starting a different/wrong religion God would pay him/her a visit(or atleast send an angel) to say,"hey, that's wrong". I would think an all powerful being would be able to do that. If not, then the confusion here must be on purpose, as in, We're entertainment for a supreme being that is bored. Or, maybe just a science project. Of course there is the possibility that we're just nature at work void of any divine intentions.



Maybe God would rather remain anonymous, and is quite happy if we don't know who he is, but would worship some non-existent phantom Ė who can tell.

The problem is, if the guy is all powerful, then He would scarcely need to send angels to correct His
mistakes, because the mistakes would not have happened to be corrected.

In fact, the notion of God being all powerful implies that He must be the only God, since if He had any competition, then he could not be all powerful.  But, if He is all powerful, then why would He even require assistants, such as angels?

quote:
Originally posted by Ultima

What I dont get is that there is neither "proof" for or against some super deity behind the scenes. So why would someone jump to the conclusion that one exists? Maybe back in the day before we had any scientific method or knowledge it was the simplest answer to the great question; Why? But now we have scientific method and a nice simple answer that the universe just is and runs on natural interactions between stuff and other stuff. So why would anyone continue with deity worship? Personally I embrace EVERYTHING as if it were God because clearly we are all part of the grand interconnected system that is life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor

Assuming that there is a hidden super being running the show isn't exactly justified in my mind. Why do I need to think that there is one?? When the world merrily goes on working without me doing so in a reasonably predictable way from currently available evidence. If suddenly we find that everything we thought was true breaks down and four giant horsemen come flying about my head I might be inclined to change my mind ;)




The point is that there are different ways of looking at the world.

The modern perspective is almost purely functional, and the question we ask most is ďhow does it workĒ - and the answer to this is not well facilitated by the notion of God.

In the past, the world was less scientific, less functional; and people were more interested in hierarchies of allegiance and responsibility, and having a God at the root of such a model makes as much sense as the Big Bang makes to the fill the lack of direct knowledge about the roots of cosmology.



George
 

Offline mcduke

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #98 on: 30/03/2006 21:37:44 »
Well, may the force be with you.
 

Offline gecko

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #99 on: 30/03/2006 23:40:11 »
isnt the idea of all powerful-ness adressed with-

can god make a stone so big he couldnt move it?

if he can, then he is not all powerful; because he cant move the stone. if he cant, then he is not all powerful either; because he cant make a large enough stone.

thats what always killed all-powerfulness for me.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: God real or not
« Reply #99 on: 30/03/2006 23:40:11 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums