Discussion in 'Religion' started by LFiess1942, Oct 13, 2014.
Some people when it comes to God, like behaving with bravado like Nimo.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Jesus allegedly redeems the sin of Adam from the Hebrew creation myth, yet the Hebrews disavow that any such Jesus ever existed. As Paine put it, Jesus ascended into heaven over Jerusalem yet not one eyewitness came forward to attest to it. Just as Christians proclaim the Eleven act as proxies for the world, not one person outside of the list of characters in thestory speaks for the residents of Jerusalem.
Oh grow up, Silly Child.
Just because you chose to treat some facts of history as fiction, does not necessarily mean that what you now believe is authentic truth.
The reverse is true. Just because you choose to treat fiction as historical fact does necessarily mean it is not true.
BIGFOOT - please don't quote scripture in a futile manner - you've heard the one about the word not coming back void? Saying people are all going to pay for not listening to the bible probably comes back void quite often, so why? The bible is not a proof text, it is an "unproof" text, which is pretty obvious if one is willing to look at it honestly. When you understand that, your mind can be put to good use. And i don't mean "one's mind" i mean your particular useful mind. And I don't mean rejecting religion or god, i just mean being sensible about it (at least in interaction with unbelievers.) In other words, I am advising you to separate ecstatic utterance from normal every-day speech. Sorry to seem overbearing, but I hate to see decent people waste time.
@lfiess - i think first you need to differentiate between human consciousness, which obviously exists, and an underlying consciousness or god-consciousness. Those two things are so drastically different it is important to exclude one or the other from initial premises, or at least not conflate them. Not saying you are personally conflating them, just that reading your ideas hasn't given me the delineation.
The point is, your mind is a law, which if you do not know how to operate it, can harm you. I think you cannot refute that. The other thing is, the bible goes far in letting you know how to operate it. You are from another world, and the bible is your manual.
The bible may be my manual, or your manual, but a manual that makes no sense to someone is useless to them. The issue here is that you have a relationship with something, whether it be a concept or a creator doesn't change the fact that your savior may not be speaking to someone else in the same way (almost certainly is not), but yet you expect to use the revelations you have received as some sort of lever of evidence, which they most certainly are not. Why would you do that?
And of course my mind operates under certain laws, there are just disagreements about which concepts are laws and which are conjecture. I can certainly refute most, or maybe all, metaphysical assignations of truth, depending on which side i want to argue. I don't think you can refute that the bible, if intended to be a simple manual, is an abysmal failure. I, for one, don't think the bible is a failure, quite the contrary, but trying to say it is laid out in a way that it answers more questions than it creates is not reasonable.
Which question mostly intrigues people throughout history? And I guess it might, it might thrust itself on you in the least expected moment. The question is, "Why Are We Here?" or rather, "Why Am I here?" People are different from other animals, because of their Rationalism.
And yet, if one were to be truly objective, and follow human life on earth; we would find that, at the end of his time, all human achievements are reduced to this: that Man is born, just like other creatures. He finds himself in a family surrounded by his loved ones, just like other creatures. He grows up, being cared for by his parents, or his guardians ,just like other creatures. He is prepared for independence by being educated, with skills of life, and how to survive, and about his kind, just like other creatures do. Once he grows up, man is given freedom, to set up his own family, just his parent were done. He looks after them, just as he was looked after. He teaches them, the ways of life, just as he was taught. His children gain their freedom, and independence, and go to raise their own, just as he did. Age catches up with him, and he passes on just like his parents did. His children repeat this cycle one generation after another. That’s what has been happening ever since man appeared on earth. If we were to examine this cyclic nature of man’s life, is this not exactly what happens , with the rest of creation, even those that live a day, or a week? So, why are we here? That is the Question which is answered by the bible. But the Bible itself is a puzzle. You must first connect all the bits correctly before it makes sense.
Bravo, good post.
I could easily say the question mankind mostly concerns himself with is "how?", not "why?" Philosophers may mainly ask why, but most people ask how. How do i get some food, make offspring, raise offspring, etc. What makes us human, and why we are here are secondary for most people. My point here is that the premises some people start from are not valid to everyone, and we shouldn't talk as if they are.
that is why i call it an unproof text. It is there to make you think - if it answers all the mundane and metaphysical questions, i feel it isn't being read with intelligence.
on that i agree, and that is part of why people quoting it shouldn't expect it to make sense to anyone who hasn't connected the bits "correctly".
I agree that most people are concerned with the "How" not the "Why" I am not trying to sound bombastic but this question is too mundane, too basic because it deal with what other animals are daily preoccupied with, because its connected with "survival" So, many people do turn philosophical and while their basics needs have been satiated, then what? Are we just another group of animals preoccupied with survival?
Relating to the original thread, i am just saying that although we may be poetic (or perhaps it is a good intuition) and say we have a spark of the divine, it isn't conclusive evidence. Like you mentioned earlier, one has to put the bits together correctly to create a valid analysis. Perhaps this feeling we have of being something "more than animal" is a piece of evidence for an analysis, but it certainly isn't sufficient as complete support.
Anyway, this consciousness premise is still certainly better than clearly illogical premises like the "watchmaker" thing. A galaxy is more complex and precise than any watch, but looking up in the sky can mean something different to different people - it doesn't have to create a feeling of "god did that". It isn't proof. All these hints we humans receive of the metaphysical are less like proof and more like the evidence you receive watching the actions of a person. They do x, y, and z. It leads you to think they have a certain intention, but it isn't proof of the intention.
There are many hints of intelligence behind creation, but of course most people need "hard evidence" You cannot dismiss some of the insights of scientists like Dr Paul Davies who states; “ If nature is so “clever” as to exploit mechanism that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of Intelligent Design behind the universe? If the worlds finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? ( See Dr Paul Davies Super Force: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984 ) But then, the "hard" evidence that we have of Intelligence is of course Human Intelligence, and his Rationalism. Why are we not like the rest of animal kingdom? And why, despite our special intelligence, we are mostly the species that endangers the earth? shouldn't our intelligence show us that we should be better protectors of life?
absolutely not hard evidence. Soft evidence maybe. You overreach here if you expect to use this as proof of anything more than the thing itself existing.
Blind chance is a straw man. There is no blind chance, there are universal laws by which things are organized and develop. The source of the laws (if there is an actual source), can be discussed, but don't get sucked up into the sloppy wording of the "experts" who misguide people about what others believe. There is no reality that must be, other than the fact that we are, the laws are. The fact that we can recognize patterns is not proof that there is something behind them. I imagine you don't believe constellations are anything more than man's pattern making ability at work, as they seem to be a result of people not realizing that each of the stars in the constellations are actually nowhere near the other stars. This "unreal" pattern matching is an undeniable phenomenon. I am not saying that the other patterns mankind sees are all "unreal", but don't pretend mankind has never seen things "behind the curtain" that aren't real.
The problem with this type of concrete thinking is that you can easily flip it around. You are basically working a similar argument to "things are so bad god can't exist," just from the other side. When you see that there are choices to be made in how to view things, you take responsibility, and you don't get to see people's insights as things one "cannot dismiss". Maybe it is a little harder to live, being led is probably easier, but I think you can see it as part of accepting oneself as fully human and not simply animal.
The four Nitrogenous bases of the gene, which determine the inherited characteristics of all living things. i.e (A), thymine(T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C) combine with specificity in groups of three reefed to as codons, that specify which of the 20 amino acids goes into the protein There are rules regarding how these bases can pair. These rules make this specified combination appear as a “language” of life. Quarks, gluons, mesons, Byrons, muons, and electrons, combine with specificity which is governed by laws suggesting a language, in order to form the differentiated mater that we observe.
So, just because matter and life has been manifested as information systems with a language we now do not understand does not infer none existence of an Intelligence behind it all. In fact, these specifications should provoke our curiosity to wonder!
i would not say there is hard evidence that there is no creator. Believe me, 1,000 of the posts i have written on here are probably arguing against that idea. I would say that so-called hard evidence is a usually a sword that cuts both ways (if it cuts at all), although people generally imagine it as something that cuts in one direction. Like i said before, if you can say, "things are so cool God must exist," someone else who is having more difficulty, or is compassionate towards some of what is happening in the world can say, "things are so bad, God can't exist". I personally prefer not to depend upon ideas that can turn against you at any moment.
I also think it is very important to recognize that our analysis does not create reality. Humans could have said "black" was "white" and had no influence on the light itself. We could have been nocturnal beings if the earth was "designed" a certain way. We would have a totally different narrative, and yet the laws behind it all would be the same.
I know the most confounding question about existence of God, is the question of evil an human suffering. But Logic tells me that a logical God, who created logically reasoning human being, must of necessity be logical. And if God is logical, and He exists, He too, in order to be logical, and explain suffering, must also be a God who share human suffering. But of course, God who "hides" from man, does not appear to make sense. And yet, people never consider that God "hides" because we might not bear His countenance with our human failings.
Many, many people have considered that. It is in the Bible. But, God doesn't have to physically show up - God could just speak plainly while maintaining a safe distance… or could have "designed" us with better mental machinery, with fewer flaws. That is not God's way, obviously, which is why I don't pretend it is God's way. God clearly wants us to be challenged, and our greatest challenge, maybe since the control of fire, has been ourselves. Unfortunately, most people can't reach logical conclusions, and religion, which could be a tool for understanding, is often just used to muddy the water.
It seems to me that the metaphor of "language" here is misplaced and tendentious. Languages are deliberately constructed for the purpose of communication.
There is no objective (i.e. scientific) evidence that any of the things you mention have been deliberately constructed, nor that they have an intended purpose, nor that they are for communication. I realise why creationists like the term, as it leads nicely to the notion of "information" and thence to the bogus ideas of Dembski et al. But it is flawed at the outset.
Separate names with a comma.