Does God have a God?

[11parcal]

I suppose a similar question would be: if God created us what created God?

Or is God his own God, and would that make him a Satanist? :eek:

[OilIsMastery]

There can only be one First Cause/Prime Mover.

[John99]

^^ No because a free man has no master.

[11parcal]

There can only one First Cause/Prime Mover.

But something must have triggered that first cause, there has to be some sort of infinite chain going on or I find it highly improbable that the universe exists, I am basically asking the religious version of: What caused the big bang?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

IF there is 1, you have no way of knowing what the 1st cause is. For all you know, there could be many gods at different levels. The god you worship could worship a higher god who worships a yet higher god. The Holy Babble isn't even clearly against this possibility.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I suppose a similar question would be: if God created us what created God?
Or is God his own God, and would that make him a Satanist? :eek:
But something must have triggered that first cause, there has to be some sort of infinite chain going on or I find it highly improbable that the universe exists, I am basically asking the religious version of: What caused the big bang?

Logicly, if 1 says the universe must have been created, 1 must say the same of whatever created the universe.
They seem to think they get around it by saying god wasn't created. It's absurd but that's their story & they're sticking to it.

[(Q)]

There is good reason to believe that the god of gods is a turtle.

[11parcal]

Logicly, if 1 says the universe must have been created, 1 must say the same of whatever created the universe.
They seem to think they get around it by saying god wasn't created. It's absurd but that's their story & they're sticking to it.

Yeah, there are alot of paradoxes and contradictions in religion.

[OilIsMastery]

But something must have triggered that first cause
Impossible. Then it wouldn't be the first cause.

there has to be some sort of infinite chain going on
Impossible. An infinite regression of causality is logically absurd because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.

What caused the big bang?
An infinite level mage by the name of God...:D

[11parcal]

Impossible. An infinite regression of causality is logically absurd because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.

Then this is but a virtual reality in a universe that makes sense... :D

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

There is good reason to believe that the god of gods is a turtle.

Yep! It's turtles ALL THE WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY............................... .................................................. ............................................

Yeah, there are alot of paradoxes and contradictions in religion.

Thus it can't be true any more than a square triangle.

Impossible. Then it wouldn't be the first cause.

OK. He should have put first cause in quotations. The meaming was yet clear.

Impossible. An infintie regression of causality is logically absurd

I easily see how that seems so to some but a 1st cause, something existing without being caused, is even more absurd.

because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.

This may be the most absurd thing I've ever heard or read or thought possible for a fool to claim.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

God doesn't have to prove himself to us, silly goosies.

[OilIsMastery]

This may be the most absurd thing I've ever heard or read or thought possible for a fool to claim.
If Aristotle is an absurd fool then I'm in good company.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Absurd? Nono here's absurd: Stranger is an example of a truly open mind. lololol THAT's absurd.

[(Q)]

God doesn't have to prove himself to us, silly goosies.

Why not?

[S.A.M.]

There is good reason to believe that the god of gods is a turtle.

You've been reading philosophy. I'm impressed. :p

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Infinite regression does not fit into Q's theology of Atheism.

[JDawg]

Impossible. An infinite regression of causality is logically absurd because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.

That is assuming time exists outside the boundaries of our universe. Or did you not take that into account?

[Jan Ardena]

I suppose a similar question would be: if God created us what created God?

Or is God his own God, and would that make him a Satanist? :eek:

Ask yourself this; aside from the creation of zero, what come before the number 1?

JAN.

[11parcal]

Ask yourself this; aside from the creation of zero, what come before the number 1?

JAN.

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

God doesn't have to prove himself to us, silly goosies.

If it wants me to believe something, it is responsible to prove it to me.

If Aristotle is an absurd fool then I'm in good company.

I hope you enjoy each other.
Do you believe women have less teeth than men?

[(Q)]

Infinite regression does not fit into Q's theology of Atheism.

Hey Ham, no need to make cheap shots and then not answer my questions.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I wonder, maybe we christians have it all wrong, maybe God has been giddily making hell just right for you, stranger. I hope not though. Maybe if you have time you could check out the parable of lazarus and the rich man. Thought provoking stuff.

[OilIsMastery]

Do you believe women have less teeth than men?
No. Do you believe there is no such thing as physics?

What about that most infamous claim, that women have fewer teeth than men? At first glance, one wonders (as does M.) how such a claim could serve an ideological purpose. How are the interests of men advanced at the cost of women by the belief that they have more bicuspids and molars? But more importantly, M. points out that there is some evidence to suggest that Aristotle's claim about teeth is actually a testament to his careful observation rather than evidence of apriorism in his science. Although the evidence is speculative, there is some proof that the diets of ancient Mediterranean women were deficient in vitamin C and D, deficiencies which resulted in diseases such as scurvy, osteomalacia, and osteoporosis, especially in pregnant and lactating women.5 No one knows exactly what Aristotle saw when he looked into the mouths of Mrs. Aristotle and her friends, but if he consistently saw fewer teeth that would hardly have been implausible given what we know about diet, calcium deficiency, and tooth loss.

Link (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-09-19.html#n1)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I wonder, maybe we christians have it all wrong, maybe God has been giddily making hell just right for you, stranger.

HUH?

I hope not though.

WHY would you hope not??? Don't pretend to care about me.

Maybe if you have time you could check out the parable of lazarus and the rich man. Thought provoking stuff.

I checked out that silly fable before you were born.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

No. Do you believe there is no such thing as physics?

“ What about that most infamous claim, that women have fewer teeth than men? At first glance, one wonders (as does M.) how such a claim could serve an ideological purpose. How are the interests of men advanced at the cost of women by the belief that they have more bicuspids and molars? But more importantly, M. points out that there is some evidence to suggest that Aristotle's claim about teeth is actually a testament to his careful observation rather than evidence of apriorism in his science. Although the evidence is speculative, there is some proof that the diets of ancient Mediterranean women were deficient in vitamin C and D, deficiencies which resulted in diseases such as scurvy, osteomalacia, and osteoporosis, especially in pregnant and lactating women.5 No one knows exactly what Aristotle saw when he looked into the mouths of Mrs. Aristotle and her friends, but if he consistently saw fewer teeth that would hardly have been implausible given what we know about diet, calcium deficiency, and tooth loss. ”


If somehow I could know, I wouldn't be surprised either way that might have happened. It is possible but there isn't enough to explain for certain whether his ignorance was incidental or careless.
This applies several lines of reasoning tho which you & others won't apply to YOUR religion.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

OOPS! I meant to put this in another thread & have now done so. Hopefully not much risking the wrath of the gods.

Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking "whether we have to suppose one such mover or more than one, and if the latter, how many."[1] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of spheres would be 47 or 55.

[OilIsMastery]

OOPS! I meant to put this in another thread & have now done so. Hopefully not much risking the wrath of the gods.

Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking "whether we have to suppose one such mover or more than one, and if the latter, how many."[1] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of spheres would be 47 or 55.
Aristotle doesn't conclude that. He speculates and admits it's a possibility i.e. hypothesis...:rolleyes: In the Metaphysics, which is where he actually does his concluding, since Metaphysics means things which come AFTER the Physics, he says otherwise.

[Jan Ardena]

0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Which is..........?

Yep, you guessed it, a part of the 1.
Without the 1 there can be no0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
For perception of existence to occurr there has to be something that just is, and from that thing, everything comes.

jan.

[lightgigantic]

I suppose a similar question would be: if God created us what created God?

Or is God his own God, and would that make him a Satanist? :eek:
the given definition of "god" is that he is causeless. Not sure why atheists have a big problem with this. Its not uncommon to encounter causeless elements even in reductionist paradigms, since eternal regression of causes poses unique philosophical problems
:shrug:

[Pete]

the given definition of "god" is that he is causeless. Not sure why atheists have a big problem with this. Its not uncommon to encounter causeless elements even in reductionist paradigms, since eternal regression of causes poses unique philosophical problems
:shrug:
I suspect that what most thinking atheists have a problem with (yes, I'm aware that there are also many unthinking atheists) is that theists seem to think that a causeless universe as absurd, but have no problem with a causeless God.

If a causeless God is acceptable, then why not a causeless Universe?

[lightgigantic]

I suspect that what most thinking atheists have a problem with (yes, I'm aware that there are also many unthinking atheists) is that theists seem to think that a causeless universe as absurd, but have no problem with a causeless God.

If a causeless God is acceptable, then why not a causeless Universe?
A causeless universe without consciousness as the causeless element poses unique problems .... namely how design comes into being and how (apparent) universal constants remain (apparently) constant. For instance, a perfectly functional car will remain immobile for practically eternity until someone sits in the driver's seat, yet a conscious element can transform even a dysfunctional car into a mobile one in a few moments.

From here, atheists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena. Theists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness isn't.

Theists have a means of application for verifying this claim.
Atheists don't.

[Michael]

I think the better question is does God have sex? Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs would suggest yes.

[Pete]

A causeless universe without consciousness as the causeless element poses unique problems .... namely how design comes into being and how (apparent) universal constants remain apparently) constant.
For starters, evolution by natural selection is a reasonable mechanism for the origin of "design".
Furthermore, supposing the existence of God does not make those problems go away, but simply pushes them one step further back while adding other problems.

For instance, a perfectly functional car will remain immobile for practically eternity until someone sits in the driver's seat, yet a conscious element can transform even a dysfunctional car into a mobile one in a few moments.
A universe is not a car, I'm sure you'll agree.
Consider galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, clouds, volcanoes, crystal formation, rainbows... there are countless things all around that have no apparent need of conscious elements for mobility and complexity.

From here, atheists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena. Theists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness isn't.

Theists have a means of application for verifying this claim.
What means?

Atheists don't.
The origins of consciousness is under active investigation from a number of angles (mainly neuroscience and artificial intelligence). If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
Similarly, if consciousness is not materially reducible, then this should also eventually become apparent - eg if a perfect computer model of a human brain fails to exhibit consciousness.

[Enmos]

Impossible. Then it wouldn't be the first cause.
Idiotic.

Impossible. An infinite regression of causality is logically absurd because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.
Even more idiotic.

An infinite level mage by the name of God...:D
Ah.. that explains it :rolleyes:

[lightgigantic]

Pete
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
A causeless universe without consciousness as the causeless element poses unique problems .... namely how design comes into being and how (apparent) universal constants remain apparently) constant.
”
For starters, evolution by natural selection is a reasonable mechanism for the origin of "design".
which lands one into the problems posed by abiogenesis (metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists)


Furthermore, supposing the existence of God does not make those problems go away, but simply pushes them one step further back while adding other problems.
it's not clear what specific problems you are suggesting

“
For instance, a perfectly functional car will remain immobile for practically eternity until someone sits in the driver's seat, yet a conscious element can transform even a dysfunctional car into a mobile one in a few moments.
”
A universe is not a car, I'm sure you'll agree.
it is in the sense that it is matter bereft of consciousness

Consider galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, clouds, volcanoes, crystal formation, rainbows... there are countless things all around that have no apparent need of conscious elements for mobility and complexity.
you say there is no complexity in a galaxy?
:confused:

“
From here, atheists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena. Theists rest on the metaphysical claim that consciousness isn't.

Theists have a means of application for verifying this claim.
”
What means?
never encountered a normative description in scripture?

“
Atheists don't.
”
The origins of consciousness is under active investigation from a number of angles (mainly neuroscience and artificial intelligence). If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
Similarly, if consciousness is not materially reducible, then this should also eventually become apparent - eg if a perfect computer model of a human brain fails to exhibit consciousness.
hence, atheists don't

[Pete]

which lands one into the problems posed by abiogenesis (metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists)
Yes, the origin of the first replicator is a problem, but a different problem.

it is in the sense that it is matter bereft of consciousness

you say there is no complexity in a galaxy?
:confused:
Clearly there is complexity in a galaxy. There is mobility and complexity in things that are bereft of consciousness - your immobile car is not the general case.

I apologize for the awkward phrasing in the previous post.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you please explain?

hence, atheists don't
Care to explain?
Did I not just describe a non-theist means of verification of whether consciousness has a material basis?

[lightgigantic]

Pete
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
which lands one into the problems posed by abiogenesis (metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists)
”
Yes, the origin of the first replicator is a problem, but a different problem.
and a key player of the "natural selection" argument if you want to start discussing origins that don't require consciousness


you say there is no complexity in a galaxy?

”
Clearly there is complexity in a galaxy. There is mobility and complexity in things that are bereft of consciousness - your immobile car is not the general case.

I apologize for the awkward phrasing in the previous post.
the mobility and complexity of things bereft of consciousness either have a cause that is unknown or cannot be indicated as being independent of consciousness

“
never encountered a normative description in scripture?
”
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you please explain?
never encountered a description in scripture how one should act in order to know god, or how one can know that one is acting in a way that enables one to know god?

“
hence, atheists don't
”
Care to explain?
Did I not just describe a non-theist means of verification of whether consciousness has a material basis?
Basically the more technical the computer, the greater the number of technicians it has in tow for when it malfunctions ... meanwhile other people in high places are pulling their hair out trying to work out ways to curb the population of everything from cockroaches to humans
:D

[Pete]

and a key player of the "natural selection" argument if you want to start discussing origins that don't require consciousness.
Well, the start of this sub-topic was your mention of the origin of "design", by which I understood you to mean complex life.
Evolution by natural selection is a mechanism by which complex life ("design") can arise from simple replicators.
The origin of the simple replicators is an interesting topic, but not that interesting if you're not an organic chemist. Simple replicators aren't so complex that they need special explanation.

the mobility and complexity of things bereft of consciousness either have a cause that is unknown or cannot be indicated as being independent of consciousness
You don't know the cause of rainbows?
The cause of the other items mentioned are there to be learned as well.
In each case, the mobility and complexity arises in known ways from chaos and simplicity.

Does chaos need an explanation any more than God needs an explanation?

never encountered a description in scripture how one should act in order to know god, or how one can know that one is acting in a way that enables one to know god?
Yes, we've had this discussion before. You are talking of subjective means, means that inform us of ourselves. By looking for evidence solely within oneself, it is not possible to distinguish between hallucination and reality.
Such evidence is not reliable at best, and completely meaningless in general.

Basically the more technical the computer, the greater the number of technicians it has in tow for when it malfunctions ... meanwhile other people in high places are pulling their hair out trying to work out ways to curb the population of everything from cockroaches to humans
:D
:bugeye:
Did you type that into the right post? It appears to have no relationship whatsoever to our discussion.

[greenberg]

Furthermore, supposing the existence of God does not make those problems go away, but simply pushes them one step further back while adding other problems.

And you don't want problems, right?

[Pete]

Hi greenberg,
Nice zinger, although irrelevant.

[11parcal]

Which is..........?

Yep, you guessed it, a part of the 1.
Without the 1 there can be no0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
For perception of existence to occurr there has to be something that just is, and from that thing, everything comes.

jan.
But we can still ask why 1 is 1, why shouldn't 1 be 4? Because there is no explanation, the point of origin could be anything hell, 2543 could have been 1 if society had made it so.

[Jan Ardena]

But we can still ask why 1 is 1, why shouldn't 1 be 4? Because there is no explanation, the point of origin could be anything hell, 2543 could have been 1 if society had made it so.


2543 is 1, 2,543 times.

jan.

[11parcal]

2543 is 1, 2,543 times.

jan.

What is your point? I'm trying to say that one doesn't have to be one, nor does it have to equal one to someone outside of our numerical system.

[Jan Ardena]

What is your point? I'm trying to say that one doesn't have to be one, nor does it have to equal one to someone outside of our numerical system.

You can call 1 whatever you like, but the point of 1 can only be what is understood to be 1.
You ask if God has a God, and my point is, he is God, numero uno, one without a second.

jan.

[11parcal]

You can call 1 whatever you like, but the point of 1 can only be what is understood to be 1.
You ask if God has a God, and my point is, he is God, numero uno, one without a second.

jan.

But why can't the universe have just always existed, why God?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

wait <looks around> poo on the walls, yep this is religion, what does math have to do with it?

Why God? Eh. Why not? Is God hurting you somehow?

[11parcal]

wait <looks around> poo on the walls, yep this is religion, what does math have to do with it?

Why God? Eh. Why not? Is God hurting you somehow?

Not me in particular but many people have been hurt in many religious affairs, and as for math that was all a metaphor.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

If not you in particular, then why do you care? Are you standing in someone's stead? Whose?

[11parcal]

If not you in particular, then why do you care? Are you standing in someone's stead? Whose?

Religious extremism hurts everyone, 9/11 for example? I feel concern that religious lunatics will mess up this world more than it already is.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I feel concern that average people will accidentally screw it up worse, whether religious or not.

[11parcal]

I feel concern that average people will accidentally screw it up worse, whether religious or not.

True, I'm not saying that it's all religions fault I'm just saying that it is often a catalyst to terrible disasters.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Hitler=religious? Stalin? I mean, between the three abrahamic religions the western world was able to maintain itself through the dark ages, despite infighting and hatred. Don't stress religion too much, man, unless you're checking out real soon. Your own set of beliefs, whatever they are, will develop, and the ony one you have any power over is you.

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Why would god need a god? If god needed a god he isn't god. The question is, "Why do people need a god?"

[PsychoticEpisode]

I once heard this version: we eventually become godlike, then in a big free for all one of us survives and becomes god, then he/she/it starts everything all over again because they can. What I couldn't figure out is what happens when another god is formed by the same process, because then you would have two gods, no?

[11parcal]

I once heard this version: we eventually become godlike, then in a big free for all one of us survives and becomes god, then he/she/it starts everything all over again because they can. What I couldn't figure out is what happens when another god is formed by the same process, because then you would have two gods, no?

Mortal Combat deathmatch between them winner take all loser FATALITY!

[PsychoticEpisode]

Mortal Combat deathmatch between them winner take all loser FATALITY!

How could two gods of equal strength and both knowing everything possibly kill one another?

[11parcal]

How could two gods of equal strength and both knowing everything possibly kill one another?

Instant annihilation, like an electron and a positron meeting, resulting in one astounding thing: There is no God! :eek:

[PsychoticEpisode]

Instant annihilation, like an electron and a positron meeting, resulting in one astounding thing: There is no God! :eek:

That's a great hypothesis. You may be on to something.;). No Gods left standing but we have a universe full of God parts:cool:

[Pete]

...we have a universe full of God parts:cool:

Try God's Debris (http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/). But don't take it too seriously. As a natural philosopher, Scott Adams makes a great cartoonist!

“Are you saying that God blew himself to bits and we’re what’s left?” I asked.
“Not exactly,” he replied.
“Then what?”
“The debris consists of two things. First, there are the smallest elements of matter, many levels below the smallest things scientists have identified.”
“Smaller than quarks? I don’t know what a quark is, but I think it’s small.”
“Everything is made of some other thing. And those things in turn are made of other things. Over the next hundred years, scientists will uncover layer after layer of building blocks, each smaller than the last. At each layer the differences between types of matter will be fewer. At the lowest layer everything is exactly the same. Matter is uniform. Those are the bits of God.”

[PsychoticEpisode]

Try God's Debris (http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/). But don't take it too seriously. As a natural philosopher, Scott Adams makes a great cartoonist!.

Thanks, I still like the 2 god version. Or one god divides into two equal parts, one good and one evil(positive & negative). Neither can do in the other guy and they don't dare come in contact. Better quit before someone starts to believe it.

[Pete]

One matter, and one antimatter. The matter God has the upper hand now, but the fight continues! :eek:

[greenberg]

Hi greenberg,
Nice zinger, although irrelevant.

Not at all.

It is natural for humans to dislike having problems - we prefer being happy and content.
This aversion for problems can go so far that we even settle for all sorts of simplistic, reductionist notions of ourselves and the Universe, in the hopes that this will make us happy and content.

[lightgigantic]

Pete

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and a key player of the "natural selection" argument if you want to start discussing origins that don't require consciousness.
”
Well, the start of this sub-topic was your mention of the origin of "design", by which I understood you to mean complex life.
Evolution by natural selection is a mechanism by which complex life ("design") can arise from simple replicators.
The origin of the simple replicators is an interesting topic, but not that interesting if you're not an organic chemist. Simple replicators aren't so complex that they need special explanation.
quite a complex explanation is required in the complete absence of such replicators (as well as the complete absence of repeatable experiments that can give rise to them)

“
the mobility and complexity of things bereft of consciousness either have a cause that is unknown or cannot be indicated as being independent of consciousness
”
You don't know the cause of rainbows?
The cause of the other items mentioned are there to be learned as well.
In each case, the mobility and complexity arises in known ways from chaos and simplicity.
chaos = we don't know

Does chaos need an explanation any more than God needs an explanation?
god has an explanation
chaos does not

“
never encountered a description in scripture how one should act in order to know god, or how one can know that one is acting in a way that enables one to know god?
”
Yes, we've had this discussion before. You are talking of subjective means, means that inform us of ourselves. By looking for evidence solely within oneself, it is not possible to distinguish between hallucination and reality.
Such evidence is not reliable at best, and completely meaningless in general.
evidence within oneself is only half the equation - kind of like the evidence within oneself in regard to the pursuit of science could well be a degree from a credible institution etc ...... further analysis reveals that there could be other issues outside of oneself (after all, there are plenty of crackpots with a PhD after their name)

“
Basically the more technical the computer, the greater the number of technicians it has in tow for when it malfunctions ... meanwhile other people in high places are pulling their hair out trying to work out ways to curb the population of everything from cockroaches to humans

”

Did you type that into the right post? It appears to have no relationship whatsoever to our discussion.
you suggested
If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
given the throngs of IT specialists that congregate around the latest high tech computers amidst hordes of burgeoning populations of everything from fruit flies to humans, we can safely put the score at something like AI - O, natural consciousness 99999 gazillion

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Why would god need a god? If god needed a god he isn't god. The question is, "Why do people need a god?"
because our best arrangements (either in reality or illusion) are totally fallible

[Jan Ardena]

11parcal,

Not me in particular but many people have been hurt in many religious affairs,

Many people have been hurt through alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, and the list goes on, why aren't you questioning the origins of these things?

Religious extremism hurts everyone, 9/11 for example? I feel concern that religious lunatics will mess up this world more than it already is.

Then question "religious extremism".

True, I'm not saying that it's all religions fault I'm just saying that it is often a catalyst to terrible disasters.

Politics is the catalyst to most terrible disasters, including 9/11, so why not question politics?

It seems to me that you are jumping on a bandwagon.

jan.

[swarm]

Jan Ardena
many people have been hurt in many religious affairs

If your religion is having an affair, maybe you should dump it?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Not at all.

It is natural for humans to dislike having problems - we prefer being happy and content.
This aversion for problems can go so far that we even settle for all sorts of simplistic, reductionist notions of ourselves and the Universe, in the hopes that this will make us happy and content.

Sometimes that seems so. Often the opposite seems so. People say they want to be happy but do things which make them & others unhappy. Many I've known who insist they're happy & YOU can be happy too are the grumpiest grouchiest who are disturbed by superficial things.

[OilIsMastery]

One matter, and one antimatter. The matter God has the upper hand now, but the fight continues! :eek:
The Antimatter God could cast positrons. Oh dear. Fear Him.

[11parcal]

Many people have been hurt through alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, and the list goes on, why aren't you questioning the origins of these things?
Automobiles are necessary religion isn't. Patriotism is a feeling, we cannot stop feelings. And go ahead and destroy all the alcohol in the world, but I have a feeling that will only create more anger and death.


Then question "religious extremism".
I have: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86318


Politics is the catalyst to most terrible disasters, including 9/11, so why not question politics?
Once again, politics and governance is necessary, without it the world would be in shambles and the crime rate would rise exponentially.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

11parcal-you do know they got around before the 20th century, right? I'm sorry, but patriotism is just a word. Feelings are pretty unimportant without actions, dontcha think?

Politics and governance necessary? If everyone would simply declare me Emperor there'd be no concerns with that. Then again, if we just disband all nations and authority, we achieve the same result, in anarchy the strongest, and smartist usually build from the ash.

Wait, I thought this was "Does God have a God?" My answer-Why should I care? If he does, we have poorly defined the word God. If he doesn't, the word God is still in need of some work, I'd say.

[Nin']

Ask yourself this; aside from the creation of zero, what come before the number 1?

JAN.

There is no one number that comes before the creation of 1.

.9999... is equal to one.

(1/9) = (0.1111...)

(0.1111...) * (9) = (9/9)

(0.9999...) = (9/9)

(9/9) = (1)

[Pete]

quite a complex explanation is required in the complete absence of such replicators (as well as the complete absence of repeatable experiments that can give rise to them)
No I don't think that's necessary. It is enough to say that "we don't know,but we're still looking".
You could consider complex explanations (like an omnipotent intelligent creator)... but as I said before, it's not a satisfying explanation. You're just substituting one origin problem with another.
On a side note, expecting repeatable abiogenesis experiments might be a little unrealistic, unless you have an available timeframe of millions of years.

chaos = we don't know
We do know. The natural development from disorder to order for rainbows, galaxies, and other things mentioned earlier are well understood.

god has an explanation
chaos does not
Does chaos need an explanation?
Does god have sufficient explanation?

evidence within oneself is only half the equation
A necessary half of the equation. The other half on its own does not support the existence of God.

...kind of like the evidence within oneself in regard to the pursuit of science could well be a degree from a credible institution etc ...... further analysis reveals that there could be other issues outside of oneself (after all, there are plenty of crackpots with a PhD after their name)
No LG, that's not relevant at all. Having a PhD is just a first-level filter, and not even a necessary one. It doesn't form any part of the evidence for any scientific theory.

you suggested
If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
given the throngs of IT specialists that congregate around the latest high tech computers amidst hordes of burgeoning populations of everything from fruit flies to humans, we can safely put the score at something like AI - O, natural consciousness 99999 gazillion
No, you vastly overestimate the current technology in comparison to a human brain. We are orders of magnitude short of approaching the required complexity.

Your implied expectation is something like expecting a hammer and chisel to be able to split an atom.

[Diode-Man]

We are all made of atomic matter, the universe therefore is alive. We are all a piece of God!

[Simon Anders]

Not at all.

It is natural for humans to dislike having problems - we prefer being happy and content.
This aversion for problems can go so far that we even settle for all sorts of simplistic, reductionist notions of ourselves and the Universe, in the hopes that this will make us happy and content.
Control. I think there is a judgment that life simply will be up and down and there is nothing that can be done about it. Random events may add a lot to the swings up or down, but again, one can practically try to minimize the downs and maximize the ups, but still there will be both. That I think rides across the surface. My guess is that with many there is a fear of control loss that holds this structure in place. What if something that appears to me to require irrational methodologies was effective or correct? How would I know when to stop? Do I have that kind of skill? Look what something that seems the same to me led to in the past with others. How can I know it would not lead to that with me? I will not be like them. There are two options.

[Pete]

Not at all.

It is natural for humans to dislike having problems - we prefer being happy and content.
This aversion for problems can go so far that we even settle for all sorts of simplistic, reductionist notions of ourselves and the Universe, in the hopes that this will make us happy and content.
Yes, I thought you'd go that way.
However, the discussion is question was not about problems affecting happiness or contentedness, but rather explanatory problems of the physical world.
Note also, that the exchange was prompted by a theist pointing out potential of problems with materialism.

So like I said, your zinger was irrelevant to the post to which it was in reply.

[greenberg]

Yes, I thought you'd go that way.
However, the discussion is question was not about problems affecting happiness or contentedness, but rather explanatory problems of the physical world.
Note also, that the exchange was prompted by a theist pointing out potential of problems with materialism.

So like I said, your zinger was irrelevant to the post to which it was in reply.

Again, no. I am saying that the way we approach "explanatory problems of the physical world" has to do with our happiness, contendedness.

It's common to dissociate the two - the explanation of how the Universe is, and happiness. Which leads to standard questions in ethics and philosophy, like "Are truth and morality mutually exclusive?" and "Are truth and happiness mutually exclusive?" From the way we answer these questions -even if just implicitly- depends how we will address matters of "explanatory problems of the physical world".

For a theist, at least ideally, questions of happiness and truth are not dissociated from eachother.

[greenberg]

Control. I think there is a judgment that

life simply will be up and down and there is nothing that can be done about it. Random events may add a lot to the swings up or down, but again, one can practically try to minimize the downs and maximize the ups, but still there will be both.

That I think rides across the surface. My guess is that with many there is a fear of control loss that holds this structure in place.

What if something that appears to me to require irrational methodologies was effective or correct? How would I know when to stop? Do I have that kind of skill? Look what something that seems the same to me led to in the past with others. How can I know it would not lead to that with me? I will not be like them. There are two options.

Yes.
Control - Thinking that it is all entirely up to us, the good and the bad, as if we would create it from scratch.

And also: Vanity, intellectual vanity - Refusing to take up another's suggestion. No, leave me alone, I want to figure it out all by myself!

[lightgigantic]

Pete

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
quite a complex explanation is required in the complete absence of such replicators (as well as the complete absence of repeatable experiments that can give rise to them)
”
No I don't think that's necessary.
yes it is necessary.

When (empirical) science starts leaving the arena of direct perception and starts using (so called) logic and philosophy as major playing cards you end up with nutty stuff like Richard Dawkins latest contributions

It is enough to say that "we don't know,but we're still looking".
You could consider complex explanations (like an omnipotent intelligent creator)... but as I said before, it's not a satisfying explanation. You're just substituting one origin problem with another.
On a side note, expecting repeatable abiogenesis experiments might be a little unrealistic, unless you have an available timeframe of millions of years.
hence using empiricism as a means for validating things that are beyond the limits of its paradigm has an essential tragicomic element ....

“
chaos = we don't know
”
We do know. The natural development from disorder to order for rainbows, galaxies, and other things mentioned earlier are well understood.
all that is known is a small slice of relative issues, with chaos (ie "we don't know") standing loud and clear at one end of the macrocosm and at the other end as the microcosm
:o

“
god has an explanation
chaos does not
”
Does chaos need an explanation?
the point is that chaos cannot have an explanation

Does god have sufficient explanation?
sure
name, fame, qualities, pastimes etc etc

“
evidence within oneself is only half the equation
”
A necessary half of the equation. The other half on its own does not support the existence of God.

“
...kind of like the evidence within oneself in regard to the pursuit of science could well be a degree from a credible institution etc ...... further analysis reveals that there could be other issues outside of oneself (after all, there are plenty of crackpots with a PhD after their name)
”
No LG, that's not relevant at all. Having a PhD is just a first-level filter,
that's my point!

and not even a necessary one. It doesn't form any part of the evidence for any scientific theory.
the evidence for "looking within oneself" is to come to a certain standard (whether it is a certain standard for a PhD or spiritual purity .... to say the least, trying to pass oneself off as a medical doctor and being totally ignorant of issues that credible study could clear up poses many hurdles )

Despite coming to that standard, there are issues about how well grounded one may be in the reality of things ... for instance its not the case that a doctor's opinion about a medical situation is the final last word about it - rather you have the issue of how a particular claim fits into the already existing body of work that surrounds it. This is how they determine who is a medical practitioner and who is a quack - the same system is remarkably similar for spiritual affairs

“
you suggested
If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
given the throngs of IT specialists that congregate around the latest high tech computers amidst hordes of burgeoning populations of everything from fruit flies to humans, we can safely put the score at something like AI - O, natural consciousness 99999 gazillion
”
No, you vastly overestimate the current technology in comparison to a human brain. We are orders of magnitude short of approaching the required complexity.

Your implied expectation is something like expecting a hammer and chisel to be able to split an atom.
you have more chance of splitting an atom with a chisel then you do of synthesizing life from matter bereft of consciousness

[swarm]

lightgigantic
you have more chance of splitting an atom with a chisel then you do of synthesizing life from matter bereft of consciousness

Luckily matter self organizes into living structures quite nicely on its own without need for outside interference.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

There is no one number that comes before the creation of 1.

1 wasn't created.

.9999... is equal to one.

(1/9) = (0.1111...)

(0.1111...) * (9) = (9/9)

(0.9999...) = (9/9)

(9/9) = (1)

Are you joking?

[lightgigantic]

Luckily matter self organizes into living structures quite nicely on its own without need for outside interference.
not all matter organizes itself
only matter infused with consciousness
:cool:

[lightgigantic]

1 wasn't created.



and the same idea holds with god ....

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

and the same idea holds with god ....

No. It's not the same.

[greenberg]

No. It's not the same.

Because ...? Qualify your answer.

[jpappl]

Does God have a God ?

I would only ask that question of someone who believed in god.

Infinity in this case, is not something we are able to understand. Tends to make our minds explode.

[(Q)]

IF a god had a god, and that god had a god, and that god had a god, and so on...

... there would no god.

[Jan Ardena]

It's quite amusing how some atheists skip around the notion that the scriptoral God, the being that the majority of theists believe in, is defined as spiritual by nature, therefore not subject to the known laws of material nature. And defined as everlasting, and eternal, does not come into being, does not die, or any kind of regenerative processes.
And opt for there own idea of what God is, putting him in category of a material being.
You'd think they'd just decide not to believe it and be done with it.

jan.

[11parcal]

It's quite amusing how some atheists skip around the notion that the scriptoral God, the being that the majority of theists believe in, is defined as spiritual by nature, therefore not subject to the known laws of material nature. And defined as everlasting, and eternal, does not come into being, does not die, or any kind of regenerative processes.
And opt for there own idea of what God is, putting him in category of a material being.
You'd think they'd just decide not to believe it and be done with it.

jan.

We decide to question the universe first before we just instantly accept things, but I suppose it's too much to say that we think we could be wrong, I'm frankly amused that thiests don't do more questioning

[jpappl]

Jan,

"You'd think they'd just decide not to believe it and be done with it."

We would but we keep having the god crap shoved in our faces.

For example, the religious litmus test for politicians at the national level.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I never decide to believe or not to believe. I can't believe in things without evidence.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Checked for evidence of the planet Neptune? Or do you just believe things you are told?

[lightgigantic]

Jan,

"You'd think they'd just decide not to believe it and be done with it."

We would but we keep having the god crap shoved in our faces.

For example, the religious litmus test for politicians at the national level.
how does sniffing about on a religious sub forum go for an example?
:p

[lightgigantic]

IF a god had a god, and that god had a god, and that god had a god, and so on...

... there would no god.
let me introduce you to atheist ikea furniture

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/2.jpg

[jpappl]

Discussing the foolishness of religion on a sub-forum is one thing.

Having a religious litmus test on a presidential candidate in a society that is not supposed to be a theocracy is another.

[lightgigantic]

Discussing the foolishness of religion on a sub-forum is one thing.

Having a religious litmus test on a presidential candidate in a society that is not supposed to be a theocracy is another.
democracy is all about popularity - the fact that no atheistic presidential candidate has made it to the point of sitting the test simply indicates that most people think it's a bad idea.

But don't fret

You can always try your luck in places like Russia and China

:D

Meanwhile, if you are distressed about the aroma of things thrown in your face, I kindly suggest you re-examine your web browsing history ...

[jpappl]

"democracy is all about popularity - the fact that no atheistic presidential candidate has made it to the point of sitting the test simply indicates that most people think it's a bad idea. "

No, it's called throw a little of that god stuff in there, they love it.

Would you call Clinton a true believer ? Obama ?

Do you really think they believe or do they just tell you that so they can get past your litmus test.

[11parcal]

Checked for evidence of the planet Neptune? Or do you just believe things you are told?

Telescopes my good man, telescopes.

[swarm]

lightgigantic
not all matter organizes itself

Yes, all matter organizes as it loses energy.

only matter infused with consciousness

Consciousness is not a tea.

Until matter is at a sufficient level of complexly (i.e. the development of neurons) there is no consciousness. Consciousness is a function of neural activity.

[jpappl]

Swarm,

"Consciousness is not a tea."

LO F-ng Loud

Yes, I'll have my consciousness infused tea now.

good 1

[greenberg]

"democracy is all about popularity - the fact that no atheistic presidential candidate has made it to the point of sitting the test simply indicates that most people think it's a bad idea. "

No, it's called throw a little of that god stuff in there, they love it.

Would you call Clinton a true believer ? Obama ?

Do you really think they believe or do they just tell you that so they can get past your litmus test.

If you are not happy with the way the situation is in your country, then you have several avenues you can take: civilian initiative, civilian disobedience, suing the government, demanding new elections, becoming a politician yourself ...

But if you don't take them, if you haven't done everything in your power that is granted to you by the Law and the Constitution,

then you have no justified reason to complain about how things are in your country,

and should shut up.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

How can god cope with not having a higher power to believe in & trust to take care of it & punish it when it's being bad?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

If you are not happy with the way the situation is in your country, then you have several avenues you can take: civilian initiative, civilian disobedience, suing the government, demanding new elections, becoming a politician yourself ...

But if you don't take them, if you haven't done everything in your power that is granted to you by the Law and the Constitution,

then you have no justified reason to complain about how things are in your country,

and should shut up.

That is completely unjustified. IF anyone should shut up, it's the 1 telling someone to shut up without justifying it.

[jpappl]

Green,

"But if you don't take them, if you haven't done everything in your power that is granted to you by the Law and the Constitution,"

Well I would say that I have done what I can. I educate myself to the issues, I am very fair to both sides and am not someone who is influenced by petty nonsense from either side. I vote you could say religiously.

I have always taken the position that we the voters are responsible for the leaders we elect. I don't blame the presidents for what has gone over the years I blame the populace.

"then you have no justified reason to complain about how things are in your country",

"and should shut up."

If you look in the mirror you will see what I am complaining about.

[greenberg]

That is completely unjustified. IF anyone should shut up, it's the 1 telling someone to shut up without justifying it.

I justified it:

If you are not happy with the way the situation is in your country, then you have several avenues you can take: civilian initiative, civilian disobedience, suing the government, demanding new elections, becoming a politician yourself ...

But if you don't take them, if you haven't done everything in your power that is granted to you by the Law and the Constitution,

then you have no justified reason to complain about how things are in your country,

and should shut up.

[greenberg]

Well I would say that I have done what I can.

Then you have no reason to complain anymore.

Unless you think others are obligated to heed your criticism.

[jpappl]

So to the original example.

Do you belive there should be a religious litmus test for political candidates ? and if so why ?

If you say yes. I have a reason to complain. This is a democracy not a theocracy ! there should be no such test for religion, gender or race of anykind. But it has been that way and I sincerely hope that changes so we can move on.

I would be more inclined to impose an idiot test than any of the above.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I justified it:

No. You didn't.

Then you have no reason to complain anymore.

Unless you think others are obligated to heed your criticism.

Absurd.

[greenberg]

This is a democracy not a theocracy ! there should be no such test for religion, gender or race of anykind.

Why not?
What is written on the Dollar bill?


But it has been that way and I sincerely hope that changes so we can move on.

So what have you done to (help) bring about this change?

[jpappl]

Green,

"What is written on the Dollar bill?"

"The next step in the process of religionizing the national currency had to wait nearly a century, when on July 11.1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto "In God We Trust." The following year, Public Law 851 was enacted and signed, which officially replaced the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust" All of this occurred at the height of cold war tension, when political divisions between the Soviet and western block was simplistically portrayed as a confrontation between Judeo-Christian civilization and the "godless" menace of communism. Indeed, the new national motto was only part of a broader effort to effectively religionize civic ritual and symbols. On June 14, 1954, Congress unanimously ordered the inclusion of the words "Under God" into the nation's Pledge of Allegiance. By this time, other laws mandating public religiosity had also been enacted, including a statute for all federal justices and judges to swear an oath concluding with "So help me God."

All paper currency issued after October 1, 1957 included the IN GOD WE TRUST national motto."

So they used votes or lack of votes to bully the right wing of the republican party to push this through. It's funny how the right wing has shown it's desire to have a theocracy over a democracy and it couldn't be any clearer than replacing "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God we trust". To me that is un American.

Just because some cowards bent over backwards to put "in God we trust" on the dollar bill doesn't mean that we should replace democracy with theocracy so it is a leap that we should have such a litmus test.

Also, to all those who are not christian, they could just claim that is their god being trusted on the dollar bill.

Putting "God" on money is a very funny thing when you consider "the meek shall inherit the earth" Maybe they should put it on shovels and hammers and buckets instead.

"So what have you done to (help) bring about this change?"

I already told you. I vote, and yes sometimes I am out voted, doesn't mean I am wrong. What do you want me to do start breaking knee caps of every person who disagrees with me.

A good example of the ridiculous argument you are making is this.

If you are a christian, but you live in Iraq, so most view you as wrong and you are out numbered by the muslim majority in the place that you live. Does that make you wrong ?

I love this country but I believe we can do better.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

We should do better if we can. I'm not certain we can.

[Jan Ardena]

11parcal,

We decide to question the universe first before we just instantly accept things,

Ask first, then instantly accept.

...but I suppose it's too much to say that we think we could be wrong, I'm frankly amused that thiests don't do more questioning

That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think? :(

jan.

[11parcal]

Ask first, then instantly accept.
We accept based on what evidence we can find against the belief that God exists, besides I'm an Agnostic Atheist if enough proof comes from the other side I'll accept that I was wrong.


That's a bit of a generalisation don't you think? :(Maybe, but think of all the theists in the world, how many of them question their religion? Obviously it's becoming more all the time, and we can see that by the fact that the number of atheists in the world is rising.;)

[greenberg]

Maybe, but think of all the theists in the world, how many of them question their religion? Obviously it's becoming more all the time, and we can see that by the fact that the number of atheists in the world is rising.

Sure. Just like despite all the government and non-government anti-AIDS campaigns, anti-smoking campaigns, health food campaigns, pro-ecology campaigns, and so on and on
many people still have unprotected sex, smoke, eat unhealthy food, and do all sorts of things to pollute the environment, and so on and on,
and the world's situation is getting worse and worse.

Not questioning one's preconceived notions about how things are and should be is not limited to behavior in relation to religion.

[Jan Ardena]

11parcal,

We accept based on what evidence we can find against the belief that God exists,

Can you cite any evidence that shows God does not exist?

...besides I'm an Agnostic Atheist if enough proof comes from the other side I'll accept that I was wrong.

I don't care for these contrived designations, you are atheist because you don't believe in God, period.

Maybe, but think of all the theists in the world, how many of them question their religion?

I don't know, because I don't know all the theists in the world.
But I'm willing to bet you know, because you are atheist (agno-ath for the sake of argument).
I eagerly await your answer.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

11parcal,

We accept based on what evidence we can find Obviously it's becoming more all the time, and we can see that by the fact that the number of atheists in the world is rising.;)

Yes.
The world is becoming more hellish as time goes by.
Then that's no surprise to those who read scriptures.

jan.

[PsychoticEpisode]

And man said, 'let there be two gods, and there was two.' Then man said, 'let there be more gods, and there were more". Forgotten lines in a dusty parchment or something we think about but are afraid to write down?

If more gods are required then it is very easy to find some. Is there a hierarchy in the God dimension? Oh, why not? Is there any written evidence in text that may indicate God answers to a higher authority?

Not trying to pick on Xians here but somewhere (Exodus I think) God says he doesn't want any other gods before Him. I suppose if I wanted to maintain a monotheist bias then God is merely talking about artificial gods or material things being used as His substitute. If taken literally one can also make the case for there being other gods out there, known to God but it doesn't suggest one god is more authoritative than the other.

Is JC a god? If so then doesn't he have a divine authority to answer to? If JC does answer to God then at least one can see that there is room for different classes of gods.

How about God and Allah, two gods or one? But is there a Zeus? or a ruling panel of gods who designate regions of the universe to their peers?

[lightgigantic]

swarm

lightgigantic
not all matter organizes itself
”
Yes, all matter organizes as it loses energy.
... yet there is something unique about matter that gets organized by consciousness (as anyone who has had a car break down can testify ....)

“
only matter infused with consciousness
”
Consciousness is not a tea.
... yet even a 6 year old can distinguish between a dead person and a living one.
:rolleyes:

Until matter is at a sufficient level of complexly (i.e. the development of neurons) there is no consciousness.

Consciousness is a function of neural activity.
... yet no scientist has a clue whether they are even barking up the right tree in trying to manifest this apparent sufficient level of complexity from matter deprived of consicousness

[lightgigantic]

"democracy is all about popularity - the fact that no atheistic presidential candidate has made it to the point of sitting the test simply indicates that most people think it's a bad idea. "

No, it's called throw a little of that god stuff in there, they love it.

Would you call Clinton a true believer ? Obama ?

Do you really think they believe or do they just tell you that so they can get past your litmus test.
so if its all superficial, what are you complaining about exactly?
:confused:

[JDawg]

so if its all superficial, what are you complaining about exactly?
:confused:

It's not all superficial. See Sarah Palin.

[lightgigantic]

It's not all superficial. See Sarah Palin.
:confused:

????

[JDawg]

:confused:

????

No, really, the :confused: wasn't enough. I'm glad you added that extra "????", because otherwise, I wouldn't have had any idea what you were getting at.

Sarah Palin is a true believer. That was my point.

[lightgigantic]

No, really, the :confused: wasn't enough. I'm glad you added that extra "????", because otherwise, I wouldn't have had any idea what you were getting at.

Sarah Palin is a true believer. That was my point.

:confused:
...and?

[OilIsMastery]

metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists
Best quote so far.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists

Best quote so far.

How so? What do you think LG is saying with it?

[11parcal]

Can you cite any evidence that shows God does not exist? Can you cite any that shows he does? It's a never ending circle, the Holy Babble can't be trusted as it could easily be historical fiction. Eventually science will prove God's non-existence, that is what I think until then though I'm happy to sit on the fence.



I don't care for these contrived designations, you are atheist because you don't believe in God, period.So I must be an atheist because I don't believe but you are free to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish etc. when you do? that hardly seems fair ;)




I don't know, because I don't know all the theists in the world.
But I'm willing to bet you know, because you are atheist (agno-ath for the sake of argument).
I eagerly await your answer.
I don't claim to know any more than you do, in fact i can almost guarantee you know more about the subject than I do, the point is, using these forums as an example there are alot more atheists asking questions than there are theists, but to be fair this is a science board and everyone knows that science and knowledge seem to lower the rate of faith in people...

Yes.
The world is becoming more hellish as time goes by.
Then that's no surprise to those who read scriptures.
Trust me, i've seen the holy babble get brought into these discussions, just leave it alone or someone like (Q) will come in here and tear you apart.

[jpappl]

LightG,

Originally posted from Jan,

"You'd think they'd just decide not to believe it and be done with it."

I responded,

We would but we keep having the god crap shoved in our faces.

For example, the religious litmus test for politicians at the national level.

This is my complaint and it is valid. I have proven this was not part of the original foundings of this country. This country was founded on the seperation of church and state. Freewill !

There are many others I may have, but my response was to Jans statement. The main issue myself and I would imagine most of us have an issue with. We are ok with someone not believing the way we do, but we don't appreciate being proselytized to.

Jdawg,

"It's not all superficial. See Sarah Palin."

My point exactly, they are not choosing this person based on intelligence and an understanding of issues but on whether they perceive this person as a strong christian.

There are several very good Republican and I believe christian women who are superb in my opinion and John McCain made the error by trying to persuade the right. Could have choosen for example, Christine Todd-Whitman, former head of the EPA, very intellegent on the issues, tested and vetted.

No intelligent theist, atheist or agnostic or any combination of thereof, would require such a test.

[JDawg]

JPappl, you have to understand that people like Oil and LG, they don't deal in facts. Light actually said that Metaphysics isn't a strong suit for atheist, which is hysterically since he's implying so many things, including the absurd notion that theists have a scientific strong suit...oh, wow, I laughed until I cried.

[JDawg]

:confused:
...and?

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're being intentionally stupid, or if it's just the way you are...

[(Q)]

JPappl, you have to understand that people like Oil and LG, they don't deal in facts.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Jan Ardena]

11parcal,

Can you cite any that shows he does?

Typical. You make a point, then when asked to give clarity to that point, it turns out you don't have a point. If you don't make it in science, you'll make a great magician.

It's a never ending circle, the Holy Babble [bible] can't be trusted as it could easily be historical fiction.

You've been quite sensible so far, why have you chosen to use a derogative terminology.

Eventually science will prove God's non-existence, that is what I think until then though I'm happy to sit on the fence.

Your not on the fence, you are clearly in the I don't believe God exists camp.
Just study your quote, and you'll understand what I mean.

So I must be an atheist because I don't believe but you are free to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish etc. when you do? that hardly seems fair ;)

Those are actual designation, yours isn't. You don't believe in God, therefore you are atheist by definition. A theist is a person who believes in Godl

I don't claim to know any more than you do, in fact i can almost guarantee you know more about the subject than I do, the point is, using these forums as an example there are alot more atheists asking questions than there are theists,

It may appear that way if you think trick questions are genuine.

...but to be fair this is a science board and everyone knows that science and knowledge seem to lower the rate of faith in people...

Are you sure about that?
What is your evidence?

Trust me, i've seen the holy babble get brought into these discussions, just leave it alone or someone like (Q) will come in here and tear you apart.

Ahh...that's.
You show remarkable faith, there's hope for you yet youngster.

jan.

[lightgigantic]

JPappl, you have to understand that people like Oil and LG, they don't deal in facts.
and the facts are what?
empirical?
(but then why does empiricism have such a colourful history in determining what is factual?)
:scratchin:

Light actually said that Metaphysics isn't a strong suit for atheist, which is hysterically since he's implying so many things, including the absurd notion that theists have a scientific strong suit...oh, wow, I laughed until I cried.
Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists simply means "Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists".
The reason is because they tend to be hopelessly addicted to empiricism.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Jan ----- “ It's a never ending circle, the Holy Babble [bible] can't be trusted as it could easily be historical fiction. ”

You've been quite sensible so far, why have you chosen to use a derogative terminology.
------------------------------------

Stranger ========== For the christian bible, The Holy Babble is truthful, corect & apt terminology.

What is derogatory is the god of The Holy Babble's attitude & treatment of humans & most theists' attitude toward humans in general & nonbelievers in particular.

OH! This is post #1111. What does it mean? It must mean something. Should I pray to find out?

[JDawg]

and the facts are what?
empirical?
(but then why does empiricism have such a colourful history in determining what is factual?)



Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists simply means "Metaphysics is not a strong suit for atheists".
The reason is because they tend to be hopelessly addicted to empiricism.

:bugeye:

:shrug:

:rolleyes:

Some people just refuse to remove the Bible from their eyes, I guess.

[lightgigantic]

Some people just refuse to remove the Bible from their eyes, I guess.
since my post doesn't hinge on anything scriptural, it appears that others have a problem of removing unresolved anger issues from their angle of vision ....
:shrug:

[greenberg]

11parcal,

Not me in particular but many people have been hurt in many religious affairs,

Many people have been hurt through alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, and the list goes on, why aren't you questioning the origins of these things?

None of those things can hurt one as much as God and ideas of God can.
All those other things are only partial at best, affecting only portions of one's existence. But God, by the very definition, can affect one's whole existence, past, present and future, here, there and elsewhere.
If a person is given the wrong idea about God, this can scar them for life.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

None of those things can hurt one as much as God and ideas of God can.

Given that these are inflicted by the mind, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

All those other things are only partial at best, affecting only portions of one's existence.

I beg to differ. These can have a very negative effect on the individual, affecting there whole perception of life.
Overcoming ones hurt and pain, can enrich life.

But God, by the very definition, can affect one's whole existence, past, present and future, here, there and elsewhere.

Yes, if one chooses (keeping with definition).

jan.

[phlogistician]

Impossible. An infinite regression of causality is logically absurd because if the past were infinite, then time would never arrive at the present.

Excellent, so God cannot have existed for ever,.... so must have sprung into being at some point. The act of God's creation was the prime mover then, not God!

Hoisted by your own petard, I think!

[greenberg]

None of those things can hurt one as much as God and ideas of God can.

Given that these are inflicted by the mind, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

I am not sure what the "these" in your post is referring to - alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism and so on, or God and ideas of God?


All those other things are only partial at best, affecting only portions of one's existence.

I beg to differ. These can have a very negative effect on the individual, affecting there whole perception of life.

How?
Perhaps it is is just me - but I think that alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, politics, violence and so on are not an instant sentence to eternal doom; it is possible to recover from them at least partly. They can have extremely negative effects on a person, surely.
Whereas being told that since you haven't been baptized as an infant, your life might as well be over right now and you will surely burn in hell for all eternity, starting now, and that there is no land and no time and no help for you to hide from the wrath of God - that, I think, can do more damage than any amount of alcohol or violence.


But God, by the very definition, can affect one's whole existence, past, present and future, here, there and elsewhere.

Yes, if one chooses (keeping with definition).

How do you mean - "if one chooses"? If God wants to doom you to hell for all eternity (starting now), there is nothing you can do against that, or can you?

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I am not sure what the "these" in your post is referring to - alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism and so on, or God and ideas of God?

What causes hurt?
a) infliction from another being
b) natural disaster
c) infliction of ones own mind
d) illness, sickness of the body.

How?
Perhaps it is is just me - but I think that alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, politics, violence and so on are not an instant sentence to eternal doom; it is possible to recover from them at least partly. They can have extremely negative effects on a person, surely.

It depend upon the effect it has on the particular individual.
For instance someone may feel so rotten after drunkenly running over an innocent child, that they become mentally unstable, and suicidal.

Whereas being told that since you haven't been baptized as an infant, your life might as well be over right now and you will surely burn in hell for all eternity, starting now, and that there is no land and no time and no help for you to hide from the wrath of God - that, I think, can do more damage than any amount of alcohol or violence.

Again it depends on the particular person, and how they view it.
But I agree it can be terrible, but no more terrible than the person who is on suicide watch for drink driving.

How do you mean - "if one chooses"? If God wants to doom you to hell for all eternity (starting now), there is nothing you can do against that, or can you?

It depends on whether you are refering to a whimsical god, or God in the scripture.
Whimiscal god, sure. Scriptoral God? I don't see how.

jan.

[greenberg]

What causes hurt?
a) infliction from another being
b) natural disaster
c) infliction of ones own mind
d) illness, sickness of the body.

All four. But then it also depends on what we understand by "suffering" and "self".
It is said that the soul cannot be hurt; but when it identifies with the body (or mind, emotions, possessions, relationships) and the body (etc.) is afflicted, the soul feels hurt - but that hurt is felt due to the identification with the body (etc.).

I am not sure though that this holds true for the case of the Christian understanding about souls who burn in hell. It appears they posit another kind of suffering, one that is not contingent upon being entangled into material existence, but one that the soul experiences directly or in-and-of-itself somehow. The possibility of this kind of suffering worries me. I'll post a thread on this.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

But then it also depends on what we understand by "suffering" and "self".


Regardless of what we may understand, or, decide, what constitutes suffering, we have all experienced it, and we will continue to experience it as long as we are alive.
While there are those who could give lavish explanations of suffering, nothing brings it home like seeing sufferation, or experiencing it.

It is said that the soul cannot be hurt; but when it identifies with the body (or mind, emotions, possessions, relationships) and the body (etc.) is afflicted, the soul feels hurt - but that hurt is felt due to the identification with the body (etc.).

This makes more sense.
We create our own situations, not that God punishes us because we don't believe in him.

I am not sure though that this holds true for the case of the Christian understanding about souls who burn in hell.

The christian idea of the "soul" is different, period.

It appears they posit another kind of suffering, one that is not contingent upon being entangled into material existence, but one that the soul experiences directly or in-and-of-itself somehow. The possibility of this kind of suffering worries me. I'll post a thread on this.

If the spirit soul experiences suffering, then it serves no purpose, as we don't need to die to achieve this.
That would mean God experiences great suffering, meaning that God is just a infinate version of us. What would be the point.
When you get right down to it, such an understanding is more super secular humanism than theistic.

jan.

[greenberg]

The christian idea of the "soul" is different, period.

It's not clear what Christians mean by "soul" ...
For example, I once asked a Mormon about these things, about who I really am. He replied "And if you don't even know that, then you have serious problems and should seek professional help, you need to go to a psychotherapist." A Protestant and a Catholic sent me off to a psychotherapist as well for that same issue.


If the spirit soul experiences suffering, then it serves no purpose, as we don't need to die to achieve this.
That would mean God experiences great suffering, meaning that God is just a infinate version of us. What would be the point.

Justice would be the point - the sort of justice that is in line with the notion that God birthed himself in the human form and killed himself or got himself killed, but it wasn't really a killing because he was resurrected, but we should think it was a killing for that's the way we can be saved ... or is it that Jesus, as the son of God, suffered the pains of crucifiction infinitely more than humans do, this is why his crucifiction isn't a "simple" crucifiction, but a divine, infinite crucifiction ...


Anyway, on the one hand, I find this rather stupid and agree with you when you say that "such an understanding is more super secular humanism than theistic". On the other hand, though, I find it hard to believe that this Christian belief that so many humans have invested so much into and so many humans and animals suffered so much from it, that this Christian belief is nothing but a stupid trifle, an error that simply took great proportions, but is an error nonetheless.

Just the other day as I was cleaning up, I came upon some astronomy magazines and took a quick glance inside - all those charts, telescopes, satellites, theories, so much time and money spent. I really find it hard to believe that humans could spend so much time and money on something that is actually insignificant.

I am still inclined to think that there is some great relevance in astronomy - and in most other fields of human endeavor, especially science and art - that justifies spending so much time and money on it, and that I am just too stupid to see this relevance.
I'd still sooner believe that I am stupid and limited, as opposed to believing that human society really is that stupid to spend so much time and money on things that don't really matter.

But perhaps I will have to rethink my position on this.

[draqon]

we humans and all species and all that exists and lives is God and God is us all and God is universe conscious of itself yet not conscious of the greater part it is of, a God it is part of, a universe in multitude of other universes and dimensions which make up each their own God but ultimately give rise to one unison consciousness, this goes on ad infinitum...and the higher hierarchy of God's existence the lower the consciousness of the parts making it...parts of the universe of God, us humans.

[swarm]

So the word god has no reall meaning then.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

So the word god has no reall meaning then.

Except when applied to IPU, of course.
1111

[Zap]

The God of God is human belief. Without it, He wouldn't exist.

[draqon]

So the word god has no reall meaning then.

God is basically a dimensional summation of consciousness.

[lightgigantic]

The God of God is human belief. Without it, He wouldn't exist.
without belief, would electrons exist?

[PsychoticEpisode]

without belief, would electrons exist?

Hey you never know. I take great comfort knowing that God may be pulsating at 120v AC right now into my pc.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Perhaps, if enough people stop believing in the universe, it will cease to exist.
1111

[swarm]

God is basically a dimensional summation of consciousness.

So god meaningless gibberish?

[lightgigantic]

Hey you never know. I take great comfort knowing that God may be pulsating at 120v AC right now into my pc.

without a belief in electrons, who knows what crazy stuff you would imagine to be taking place

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps, if enough people stop believing in the universe, it will cease to exist.
1111
if enough people stop believing in aspects of the universe, they will have no means to begin to approach those aspects ...

[PsychoticEpisode]

Does anyone have proof that God has a God? Does anyone have proof He doesn't?

I don't think anyone can answer either question with absolute certainty. So in keeping with my believer friends logic I'll will state right here and now that yes God does have a god, if for no other reason than God must have come from something. Never mind God's god, he's been here since time immemorial.

[lightgigantic]

Does anyone have proof that God has a God? Does anyone have proof He doesn't?

I don't think anyone can answer either question with absolute certainty.
what makes you so certain?
:D

[laladopi]

your question is dull and boring. how pathetic if you cant see passed that. shallow

[laladopi]

god isnt someone to bow to in flesh, god is everything he is the goodness in your heart and everything beyond that. thoughts are infinite.

[11parcal]

god isnt someone to bow to in flesh, god is everything he is the goodness in your heart and everything beyond that. thoughts are infinite.

So you have no problem about my belief in the flying spaghetti monster? Since I think he's real he must be, right? I believe in my heart that my school janitor is God, does that make him God? Didn't think so.

[John99]

I believe in my heart that my school janitor is God, does that make him God? Didn't think so.

Have you witnessed any miracles?


Didn't think so....

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Have you witnessed any miracles?
Didn't think so....

Neither have you.
1111

[draqon]

John99 and StrangerInAStrangeLa have you not witnessed your own life or do you not see your own life as a miracle? So being created is not a miracle anymore?

[laladopi]

see, draqon everyone cant look beyond themselves.

[laladopi]

if an aids vaccinate was finally created that would sure as hell be a miracle to society.
the gift of life, is incomparable with anything else and should think about that.

[laladopi]

theres more everything then just knowledge any given person knows. its if you choose to go passed what you know then your fine, if you dont its ignorance.

[laladopi]

and is selfish

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

John99 and StrangerInAStrangeLa have you not witnessed your own life or do you not see your own life as a miracle? So being created is not a miracle anymore?

If life itself is a miracle, what's not a miracle? What use is the word?
Created by what?

if an aids vaccinate was finally created that would sure as hell be a miracle to society.
the gift of life, is incomparable with anything else and should think about that.

As was the miracle of less spreading of disease thru doctors washing their hands? The miracle of electricity & automobiles & telephones? The miracle of heart transplants? The miracle of men walking on the moon? The miracle of a golf ball bouncing off a tree, skipping across water, hitting a rock & landing in the hole? The miracle of an absurd book of lies, foolishness & cruelty being treasured & revered by so many people for so many centuries? The miracle of IPU? The miracle of condoms? The miracle of orgasm? The miracle of me surviving something that killed others? The miracle of "the sun coming up every morning"?
The miracles of AIDS & other horrible diseases?

see, draqon everyone cant look beyond themselves.

theres more everything then just knowledge any given person knows. its if you choose to go passed what you know then your fine, if you dont its ignorance.
and is selfish

Pluck the beam from thine eye.
1111

[John99]

if an aids vaccinate was finally created that would sure as hell be a miracle to society.
the gift of life, is incomparable with anything else and should think about that.

Cured for AIDS.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/53/26483/bone-marrow-transplant-potentially-linked-aids-cure.html

[swarm]

do you not see your own life as a miracle? So being created is not a miracle anymore?

It never was.

[laladopi]

mr. 1111 created is a whole world within its self, each person has been created and given what they have recieved whether throught technology or environment and everything in your path was created for you. the miracles of society based things were a complete creation once in its time. created and beyond that.

[laladopi]

if your already righteous in the whole based eternity given a gift of live and recieving it, great quote!

[laladopi]

and if you are not judge because you know in the end they will get what they deserve, for being selfish. and if what your saying is true the isnt it the truth you speak?

[laladopi]

i will continue to argue back unless what im saying to you is offensive. but you could be curious and putting my word to the test in your mind. using it as a thought

[laladopi]

i know im wasting my breath onto deaf ears.

[laladopi]

you can intellectualize the worth of your life?
in two sentences.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I think I need a UN translator.
1111

[Ripley]

God doesn't have a God because God is a procedure. A process begins as something else—and will ultimately lead to something else. God couldn't have led Himself to God.

But has God led any of you elsewhere away from Him?

[Ripley]

Unless God is the procedure itself.

[Ripley]

Right. I said that already. :m:

[Ripley]

No I meant the whole entire process—not just one of the individual procedures themselves.

[Ripley]

Oh fuck off Ripley.

[Ripley]

No seriously. I'm not sure whether I should place God, the idea, among the procedures, or place Him as the manifestation of process itself.

[Ripley]

Blank.

I like both.

Dilemma.

[Ripley]

Ah big deal.

[Ripley]

You see, a process manifests as individual events.

Yet individual events are experienced apart from the whole.

---------------

So what?

---------------

Just a patch of a process I'm attempting to pass.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Are you having fun?
1111