NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's clarify some ideas. I do not reject the possibility of a higher power. However, I do reject the notion that this power is worthy of our worship, because it must be bound by the same universal laws as we are. Why? Well...

--THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT--

-The atheist says that God cannot exist because it assumes that forces exist that are not bound by the laws of causality. If you are an atheist and believe in free will, I suggest you take a closer look at your beliefs.

-The believer says that fundamental laws - ie. quantum physics - are NOT fundamental, thereby making theoretical room for the existence of souls, free will, and a higher power. If you believe in both universal laws and God, I beg you to justify that.

I do not believe that there can be a third position. Do you believe that there are universal laws or not?

Gaah! /em bangs his head on his desk and spins in a tight circle

Enough of this crap! Who cares.

Do what you like. Don't expect everyone else to like it.

Let's clarify some ideas. I do not reject the possibility of a higher power. However, I do reject the notion that this power is worthy of our worship, because it must be bound by the same universal laws as we are. Why? Well...

--THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT--

-The atheist says that God cannot exist because it assumes that forces exist that are not bound by the laws of causality. If you are an atheist and believe in free will, I suggest you take a closer look at your beliefs.

-The believer says that fundamental laws - ie. quantum physics - are NOT fundamental, thereby making theoretical room for the existence of souls, free will, and a higher power. If you believe in both universal laws and God, I beg you to justify that.

I do not believe that there can be a third position. Do you believe that there are universal laws or not?


Essentially, being atheist does not cancel the belief in free wil or deny causality. In reality, the understanding of the first law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to animal behovior unto itself, as this is not a physical action. Though behavior can produce physical action, it is not always necessarily the case. Therefore free will and disbelief in cosmic entities, be they worthy of worship or not, are mutually exclusive.

Let's clarify some ideas. I do not reject the possibility of a higher power. However, I do reject the notion that this power is worthy of our worship, because it must be bound by the same universal laws as we are. Why? Well...

--THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT--

-The atheist says that God cannot exist because it assumes that forces exist that are not bound by the laws of causality. If you are an atheist and believe in free will, I suggest you take a closer look at your beliefs.

-The believer says that fundamental laws - ie. quantum physics - are NOT fundamental, thereby making theoretical room for the existence of souls, free will, and a higher power. If you believe in both universal laws and God, I beg you to justify that.

I do not believe that there can be a third position. Do you believe that there are universal laws or not?


There are no absolutes but God.

So then if I take that statement as being true, then this makes room for God and for fundemental laws of how the universe works.

There is substancial scientific evidance for things like gravity, electro/magnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. There is also strong evidance to suggest dark matter and dark energy exists, even though we have not actualy seen it or recorded it.

How though this in any way suggests the non existance of God is beyond my ability to comprehend. My faith suggests that God is apart of and apart from Gods creation.

So all that exists in either energy or matter(but matter is enrgy anyway) could consivably be called the body of God. The part that is a part from the universe is the inteligence, or perhaps the spirt of God.

This agnostic says that no one can or should know if such a high power exists. Anyone who says they know about god must not be trusted. Philosophy > Organized Religion

Worship, not necessarily. But the existence of a "God" worth listening to and fundamental physical laws aren't exclusive.

God is as subordinate to causality as everything else in this universe. So what? It still has an effect on everyone, and to act based on the wisdom of the "divine" brings positive consequence regardless of the limitations on God's own power.

An interesting question. This is one I am pleased to see for a change. Let me first state this question, what is so wrong with organized religion? I just do not understand why so many hate it.

I would say that agreeing with physics does not destroy God, to clarify. However, accepting the ideas of causality removes him from the equation, he would no longer be a directing God, rather a sort of watching things go God, not all that uncommon of a belief. I am curious how you define these universal laws, are these laws of physics? Morality? Both? Furthermore, simply because we work within a certain framework of being, must all things be limited to it as such, or must all things we observe be limited as such? In my opinion, the latter, as there could easily be a five dimensional thing, why I have made many equations for such in Multivariable Calc, yet I cannot see it. Does this invalidate it's existance as it no longer adheres to 4 dimensional physics? Absolutely not! So physics can maintain it's authenticity while a being outside of current physics can still exist. Is this reasoning incorrect? I challenge you to challenge me.

- Veritas

Free will can obviously not exist unless God does, since it means that our actions would be random and not determined by cause and effect.

An interesting question. This is one I am pleased to see for a change. Let me first state this question, what is so wrong with organized religion? I just do not understand why so many hate it.

Other than causing destruction on a global scale, blindly promoting allegience, and holding back the progress of man; no, I think it's fine.

Gaah! /em bangs his head on his desk and spins in a tight circle

Enough of this crap! Who cares.

Do what you like. Don't expect everyone else to like it.


AMEN

no pun intended

-The believer says that fundamental laws - ie. quantum physics - are NOT fundamental, thereby making theoretical room for the existence of souls, free will, and a higher power. If you believe in both universal laws and God, I beg you to justify that.


Its quite simple. There are enegies and forces that exist, but cannot be observed in the scientific standard. For example, intellegence. We have IQ tests, but these have been proven generally to be biased towards academic intellegence, which is not the only kind. IQ tests are inherriantly biased by the person who writes them. People would argue that intellegence is just a completed function of other physical forces, but I think that the self aware element of ourselves disproves that. We can make machines that can have comparable intellegent forces to us, but none that can actually be self aware.

Gaah! /em bangs his head on his desk and spins in a tight circle

Enough of this crap! Who cares.

Do what you like. Don't expect everyone else to like it.

1. Its an arguement based on logic. If you believe something to be true and someone else believes it is not true and that something is objectively observable or debateable then expect discussion. If something is subjective like music, then yes you would have a case for this. But this is a logic arguement. Its not a case of do what you like. Its a case of who can prove what

2. If you dont like it, dont post or enter the threat. Fairly simple

3. The fact that you have posted only contributes to the threads survival in three ways. Firstly by bumping it, secondly by people like me bumping in response to your point, and thirdly by all the other responses to my point and the continued cycle.