NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

What about the Big Bang?

What about the Big Bang?
That there had to be something foreign to the unverse, a God if you will, that did not need an original mover to move himseslf..and he is the original mover who gave the bing bang the movement it needed to...happen.

It doesn't disprove the bing bang, on the contray, it goes with it...it explains that orginal motion of energy given from a non-universe thing (some sort of God) to the bing bang...which then resulted in the creation of the universe.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

That something must have existed that we don't fully understand doesn't mean it has to be god.

It's like how if a magician shows you a trick and you can't work out how he did it, it isn't proof that magic exists. It means you don't fully understand how the situation (our universe/ rabbit out of hat) came to be.

Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

What if there was no origin point, and that there has been always a universe in motion?

Gravity doesn't pull objects toward Earth, little invisible pixies do. They are the original movers of apples.

And when it rains it's because God is crying. Why is God crying? Probably something you did. Tell that to little kids.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.First, you are assuming that Newtonian physics accurately describes the first second of the universe, which we know is not the case.

Second, you fail to even understand fully Newtonian physics. Things do not move because something hits them, they move because a force is exerted on them. Two stationary particles are perfectly able to exert forces on each other.

Third, how the hell is that a proof? A proof requires that a procedure that can show the failure of a hypothesis does not do so within statistical confidence.

What if there was no origin point, and that there has been always a universe in motion?
The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?

*reads horrible misspellings of "believe" in the poll options*

*throws self off a building in agony*

LOL...

I apologize. It's REALLLY late and I'm up studying philosophy and just had to post this.

I'm going back to reading and then to bed...I'll check on this thread tomorrow.

Refute.

Infinite regression.

Refute.

*reads horrible misspellings of "believe" in the poll options*

*throws self off a building in agony*

The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?


Holy crap! You've got a copy of the Universe Rules??!

What if there was no origin point, and that there has been always a universe in motion?

To add to TAI:

1) Einstein has already proved the universe is growing in size but is slowing in growth; and

2) That would defy the law of physics that states that all matter moves to a state of disorganization

The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?
No it doesn't. Everything in the universe exists pretty much indefinitely. Matter and Energy are conserved, meaning they are not created or destroyed (though conversion from one to the other is possible).

Also, what besides rhetoric mandates that the universe has to follow the same rules as the stuff inside of it?

Infinite regression.

Refute.

You're being silly, Gartref. If infinite regression were even a sound concept, that would mean there are infinite negative numbers. Thales of Miletus proved they stop at -8 x 10^456.

Secondly, it follows without any necessary evidence that its impossible for ontological primacy to be assigned to the universe unless it includes a sentient being that is specifically concerned with humanity.

Besides, an idea like rectilinear motion is hardly subject to complications related to space-time modeling. If it were, there would be an entire range of mathematics and physics grappling with the problem.

Nope, Atlantian Islands is correct. The fact of motion means there must be a Divine Being who pushed the first marble, and that Divine Being was never born and will never die, because you can have that property as long as you're worshipped.

You're being silly, Gartref. If infinite regression were even a sound concept, that would mean there are infinite negative numbers. Thales of Miletus proved they stop at -8 x 10^456.

Secondly, it follows without any necessary evidence that its impossible for ontological primacy to be assigned to the universe unless it includes a sentient being that is specifically concerned with humanity.

Besides, an idea like rectilinear motion is hardly subject to complications related to space-time modeling. If it were, there would be an entire range of mathematics and physics grappling with the problem.

Nope, Atlantian Islands is correct. The fact of motion means there must be a Divine Being who pushed the first marble, and that Divine Being was never born and will never die, because you can have that property as long as you're worshipped.

I think it sucks that the First Mover doesn't have to play by the Universe Rules.

The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?

So, a god can have existed forever and never die, but the universe or suprasets thereof can't?

Also, if you want to base your argument on the physics of motion, you might note that momentum is conserved, meaning that it is never really "born" and never really "dies", it just changes.

I think your "rules of the universe" don't seem to be based in a thorough or rigorous examination of the principals you are referencing.

I built an air-conditioner.As did I. I point it at my sack.

What if the Universe is merely a giant plate supported by a never-ending tower of giant turtles?

What if the Universe doesn't even exist, and we're just inside an extremely complex computer program?

If I think, does that me that therefore I am?

My proof of God is through simple experience. Often in the New Testament the Greek word pneuma is used to describe God as the Holy Spirit. Why is that? Because God is very much like a breath/wind. For example, lets say you have been locked inside all your life for what ever reason. You look out at the world through a window, but never open it. As you look out the window, you see something blowing through the trees. Everyday, you see people walking down the road, and you see the wind blow through their hair. Some days, you see the wind blow a hat off someones head. Other times, fierce storms come through and blow over trees. So, from your experience you don't know what the force is, or try to explain it away with some other idea. Or, if you believe it exists, then you are angry at it, for the wind damage. You think it is more of a cruel thing than a good thing. Yet, you cannot experience it for yourself, so you don't know the relief it brings from the heat of the day. Or the smile it brings to people, as it softly moves through their hair. The only way to feel that wind, is to open the window. But what is the window? That is for you to figure out. If you really want to know, look up Romans 3:23. That explains the window. How do you open then window? Read Luke 9:23. :)

To add to TAI:

1) Einstein has already proved the universe is growing in size but is slowing in growth; and

2) That would defy the law of physics that states that all matter moves to a state of disorganization

A slowing expansion doesn't rule out perpetual collapse/expansion in a cyclical dynamic.

As to the 2LT you reference, eventual maximal disorganization could be one point in the cycle.

Naturally, none of this means there isn't a God (or lots of Gods, or whatever). But the First Mover bit is uncompelling.

My proof of God is through simple experience. Often in the New Testament the Greek word pneuma is used to describe God as the Holy Spirit. Why is that? Because God is very much like a breath/wind. For example, lets say you have been locked inside all your life for what ever reason. You look out at the world through a window, but never open it. As you look out the window, you see something blowing through the trees. Everyday, you see people walking down the road, and you see the wind blow through their hair. Some days, you see the wind blow a hat off someones head. Other times, fierce storms come through and blow over trees. So, from your experience you don't know what the force is, or try to explain it away with some other idea. Or, if you believe it exists, then you are angry at it, for the wind damage. You think it is more of a cruel thing than a good thing. Yet, you cannot experience it for yourself, so you don't know the relief it brings from the heat of the day. Or the smile it brings to people, as it softly moves through their hair. The only way to feel that wind, is to open the window. But what is the window? That is for you to figure out. If you really want to know, look up Romans 3:23. That explains the window. How do you open then window? Read Luke 9:23. :)

I built an air-conditioner.

I think it sucks that the First Mover doesn't have to play by the Universe Rules.

Maybe God has an old edition or something.

Textbooks are expensive these days.

What I like is that God has to exist because the universe/multiverse/whatever can't cycle infinitely, that would be just silly...yet, naturally, God was always there.

pfft so what your saying is having one massively complex divine being is the most plausible solution

I prefer the hypothesis that love makes the world go round :)

SNIP

must be rather cold I'd imagine :p

My proof of God is through simple experience. Often in the New Testament the Greek word pneuma is used to describe God as the Holy Spirit. Why is that? Because God is very much like a breath/wind. For example, lets say you have been locked inside all your life for what ever reason. You look out at the world through a window, but never open it. As you look out the window, you see something blowing through the trees. Everyday, you see people walking down the road, and you see the wind blow through their hair. Some days, you see the wind blow a hat off someones head. Other times, fierce storms come through and blow over trees. So, from your experience you don't know what the force is, or try to explain it away with some other idea. Or, if you believe it exists, then you are angry at it, for the wind damage. You think it is more of a cruel thing than a good thing. Yet, you cannot experience it for yourself, so you don't know the relief it brings from the heat of the day. Or the smile it brings to people, as it softly moves through their hair. The only way to feel that wind, is to open the window. But what is the window? That is for you to figure out. If you really want to know, look up Romans 3:23. That explains the window. How do you open then window? Read Luke 9:23. :)

Heartfelt, Z, but I get almost exactly the same pitch with all the same genuine belief and all the same nebulous "proof" from every other religion.

Yours could be the one, very possibly, but what you've put forward here isn't any different from what other religions pitch. Just different names and chapter numbers.

Heartfelt, Z, but I get almost exactly the same pitch with all the same genuine belief and all the same nebulous "proof" from every other religion.

Yours could be the one, very possibly, but what you've put forward here isn't any different from what other religions pitch. Just different names and chapter numbers.

Ah, but look at other religions. What do they preach? They preach things that appeal logically to human sense. That is because it is made by humans. However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that. Deny yourself? Sell all your possessions? You can't save yourself? At least all religions have some sort of path or way that you can save yourself. There is something about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Christ that screams more than just human imagination, but rather divine creation.

Ah, but look at other religions. What do they preach? They preach things that appeal logically to human sense. That is because it is made by humans. However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that. Deny yourself? Sell all your possessions? You can't save yourself? At least all religions have some sort of path or way that you can save yourself. There is something about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Christ that screams more than just human imagination, but rather divine creation.

Joseph Heller is God, then?

Joseph Heller is God, then?

Explain?

Explain?

You're using irrationality to prove rationality. It's a catch 22.


However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that.

With that logic, Scientology has got to be true.

If infinite regression were even a sound concept, that would mean there are infinite negative numbers. Thales of Miletus proved they stop at -8 x 10^456.
Wait, what?

Ah, but look at other religions. What do they preach? They preach things that appeal logically to human sense. That is because it is made by humans. However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that. Deny yourself? Sell all your possessions? You can't save yourself? At least all religions have some sort of path or way that you can save yourself. There is something about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Christ that screams more than just human imagination, but rather divine creation.

I'm sorry, are you actually saying that Christianity is true because it makes no sense?

No it doesn't. Everything in the universe exists pretty much indefinitely. Matter and Energy are conserved, meaning they are not created or destroyed (though conversion from one to the other is possible).

Also, what besides rhetoric mandates that the universe has to follow the same rules as the stuff inside of it?

It is true that mass and energy can not vanish, they can only transform. But it is also true that due to the law of entropia, all mass and energy are transferring to eventually be heat. So in the end, the universe will be just photons flying around in the emptiness of space. Or before that the universe collapses due to gravity. But yet again, it will be just photons flying around.

You're using irrationality to prove rationality. It's a catch 22.

Ah. Well, think about it though. If there was a diety of some sort, what would they rather their followers do? Would they rather their followers to live carnal lives that do not really separate them from the rest of humanity. And in most cases, the rest of humanity apart from a religion's followers are considered infidels or heathen of some sort. Why would a god want you to live like them essentially?

On the other hand, Chrisianity teaches something so different. First, it teaches that only the divine being can save us from the iniquities of life. It more or less takes an aspect of control away from humans, and people don't like that. they want to save them self by either following the law, the pillars of faith or something like that. However, they have to bend over backwards to try and save themselves. Christianity, you have to accept a gift from the divine God, and as a result, you show your loyalty and gratitude by doing things to please Him. And these things are definitely things that seclude you from what the rest of humanity wants you to do.

So, if there is a God, Christianity seems like the only place to look, because its a life of purity, righteousness, love, grace, etc...

Ah, but look at other religions. What do they preach? They preach things that appeal logically to human sense.

Really? Which religions have you been studying? Some of the don't, Z.


That is because it is made by humans. However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that. Deny yourself? Sell all your possessions? You can't save yourself?

If someone were to show you the existence of prior teachings religions that also preached these things, will you acknowledge that those religions must be true? Or does this line of reasoning only support the conclusion you already want?


At least all religions have some sort of path or way that you can save yourself. There is something about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Christ that screams more than just human imagination, but rather divine creation.

Hmm, other religions where we are redeemed by something other than ourselves, a resurrected son of a God, you're really sure these things are unique and unprecedented?

Again, if you were shown other philosophies and teachings that included resurrection, redemption by sacrifice, etc, will you then take those religions to be true, or is there a double standard here?

Wait, what?

Sorry, that was in jest. I was actually supporting Gartref's point.

The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?

No, no. You're thinking too small. One of the theorized ends of the universe is that it will eventually stop expanding and start collapsing, leading to the big crunch where everything smacks into a superdense area.

But who's to say that this is the one and only universe? This could be universe #23423 for all we know, each new universe birthed from the superdense particle much like how a star is born from super-compacted stellar gas.

Or there really could have been nothing. True nothingness, no time, no elements, zip. I suppose you could say it had an infinite value of potentiality.

Really? Which religions have you been studying? Some of the don't, Z



If someone were to show you the existence of prior teachings religions that also preached these things, will you acknowledge that those religions must be true? Or does this line of reasoning only support the conclusion you already want?



Hmm, other religions where we are redeemed by something other than ourselves, a resurrected son of a God, you're really sure these things are unique and unprecedented?

Again, if you were shown other philosophies and teachings that included resurrection, redemption by sacrifice, etc, will you then take those religions to be true, or is there a double standard here?

Just a quick rundown. Islam, preaches you essentially save yourself through following the pillars of faith. Of course, there is a chance that Allah will not heed what you have done, and still send you to hell. Buddhism teaches that you save yourself through enlightenment. In some later forms of it, the bodhisattva's can help guide you to enlightenment(iirc), but you still have to make the jump on your own, basically. Name other religions. I can shoot them all down in how they appeal to man's desires, rather than the desires of God.


I'll even go one better. TG me, you or anyone else, with your disproving Christianity as the one true faith from God. I don't want to hijack the thread.

Just a quick rundown. Islam, preaches you essentially save yourself through following the pillars of faith. Of course, there is a chance that Allah will not heed what you have done, and still send you to hell. Buddhism teaches that you save yourself through enlightenment. In some later forms of it, the bodhisattva's can help guide you to enlightenment(iirc), but you still have to make the jump on your own, basically. Name other religions. I can shoot them all down in how they appeal to man's desires, rather than the desires of God.


I'll even go one better. TG me, you or anyone else, with your disproving Christianity as the one true faith from God. I don't want to hijack the thread.

Have you ever wondered, that if God made man his own image, (Oklahoma accent: Like the Biible saays.) then maybe man has the same desires than God? Jesus liked to party, dance and drink wine, like pretty much every other man back then. He loved his mother, family (he had many brothers, too) and close people. Well he loved his enemies, too, but pacifism is an old invention. So he was very human like, even though he was halfly a god.

Ah. Well, think about it though. If there was a diety of some sort, what would they rather their followers do? Would they rather their followers to live carnal lives that do not really separate them from the rest of humanity. And in most cases, the rest of humanity apart from a religion's followers are considered infidels or heathen of some sort. Why would a god want you to live like them essentially?

On the other hand, Chrisianity teaches something so different. First, it teaches that only the divine being can save us from the iniquities of life. It more or less takes an aspect of control away from humans, and people don't like that. they want to save them self by either following the law, the pillars of faith or something like that. However, they have to bend over backwards to try and save themselves. Christianity, you have to accept a gift from the divine God, and as a result, you show your loyalty and gratitude by doing things to please Him. And these things are definitely things that seclude you from what the rest of humanity wants you to do.

So, if there is a God, Christianity seems like the only place to look, because its a life of purity, righteousness, love, grace, etc...

First you seek to prove Christianity by avowing that it's principles are divine and couldn't be thought up by humans. Then in this post you proceed to humanly speculate on how God wants us to act. As a human, you didn't seem to have any trouble coming up with all the philosophies that only a divine creautre could conjure. Either you're a human tautologist or a God yourself.

Ah. Well, think about it though. If there was a diety of some sort, what would they rather their followers do?

A diety, a priori, is largely beyond reasonable conjecture. If you think can plausibly model or predict the behaviour of that kind of being, go ahead, but its basically putting the constraints of your assupmtions on the activities of something we can't really comprehend. Not saying you can't, but its going to be speculative at best.


Would they rather their followers to live carnal lives that do not really separate them from the rest of humanity. And in most cases, the rest of humanity apart from a religion's followers are considered infidels or heathen of some sort. Why would a god want you to live like them essentially?

Maybe a God thing has priorities and reasoning that are not identical to yours.


On the other hand, Chrisianity teaches something so different. First, it teaches that only the divine being can save us from the iniquities of life.


So, you're saying that only Christianity teaches that "only the divine being can save us from the iniquities of life." You don't think any other religions teach that?


It more or less takes an aspect of control away from humans, and people don't like that.

And other religions don't teach giving an aspect control to a "god"? To "Submit" to his will, per se? What's the arabic word for submit...


they want to save them self by either following the law, the pillars of faith or something like that.

A law? Like, sin must be paid for with torture and blood and death, either yours or an innocent persons? Faith? Like, faith in somebody else dying and being reborn? Yeah, they all want you to be saved by something like that.


However, they have to bend over backwards to try and save themselves. Christianity, you have to accept a gift from the divine God, and as a result, you show your loyalty and gratitude by doing things to please Him. And these things are definitely things that seclude you from what the rest of humanity wants you to do.

So, if there is a God, Christianity seems like the only place to look, because its a life of purity, righteousness, love, grace, etc...

And if you could be shown that all these ideas are present in various other religions, will you convert?

Wow...so a religion that claims they are the only place to look for purity, righteousness, love, grace...yeah. Won't find that in any other religions...

I'm sorry, are you actually saying that Christianity is true because it makes no sense?

oh my...

worst...argument...ever

Do you see how circular your argument is? "My religion is true because it follows the desires of God, which I know to be the desires of God because my religion is true."

Oh come now, you can't take circular logic and hypocrisy away from the religious. That's all they have!

it's the most amusing thing in the world, watching someone try to "prove" their "faith".

Just a quick rundown. Islam, preaches you essentially save yourself through following the pillars of faith. Of course, there is a chance that Allah will not heed what you have done, and still send you to hell.

But their "pillars of faith" are still rules set down by (they believe) their God. You claimed they were doing only what man wants. So why is it when you follow the rules of your religion (whether putting innocent blood on yourself so somebody else can pay for your acts or whatever) thats fine, but its a flaw for other religions to do the same?


Buddhism teaches that you save yourself through enlightenment.

So why is enlightenment a worse method of being "saved" then beliving in the tortured death of the innocent as the best way to deal with people's mistakes?


In some later forms of it, the bodhisattva's can help guide you to enlightenment(iirc), but you still have to make the jump on your own, basically.

Doesn't a Christian have to make their own jump to believe in Jesus? Its called personal choice, and it SHOULD be present in religion.


Name other religions. I can shoot them all down in how they appeal to man's desires, rather than the desires of God.

Every religion believes that their practice reflects the desires of God, and Islam includes denying yourself, love, faith, all the things you talked about.

Do you see how circular your argument is? "My religion is true because it follows the desires of God, which I know to be the desires of God because my religion is true."

Then, you point at things that are present in other religions, but in other religions, you call the exact same principles merely the desires of man.


I'll even go one better. TG me, you or anyone else, with your disproving Christianity as the one true faith from God. I don't want to hijack the thread.

Okay, not hijacking the thread is something I can agree with. You've been polite, which is refreshing. If you've put on more by the time I've put all this up, I'll try to answer it before I go to bed.

Jocabia doesn't cling to such emphatically flawed reasoning.

Because Jocabia does the only intellectually honest thing. Believes something, but then recognizes he has no logical or rational way of justifying that belief.

Which...is fine, if you're into that sort of thing. NEver had much constitution for it myself, but that's ok. It's one thing to recognize you have faith, but that this faith is, inherently and by definition, irrational. It is an entirely seperate thing to try to justify your faith as anything else but.

You end up like Zilam here, trying desperately to explain how your little book of stories is different than everybody elses little book of stories. And when yo utry to do the impossible, you end up doing things like ignoring evidence, and inventing differences that aren't there, like some nonsense about christianity MUST be true because all the other religions put salvation into the hands of "the people" and make it the choice of "the people" whereas in christianity redemption comes "from god" and to believe in christianity is to believe that you personally don't have control over your salvation, and obviously no person would want that enough to make it up, so it MUST be true.

except for two small problems:

1) making the choice to worship jesus is as much in my power and in my control as making the choice not to go raping and pillaging today

2) if you look at historical evolution of "the church", and realize that the church set itself up as the conduit of the people to god, and begin to think of religion as an institution of those in power to remain in power, making salvation only possible through god, and putting yourself as the intermediary between the people and god...seems like a very smart, and very human, thing to do.

First you seek to prove Christianity by avowing that it's principles are divine and couldn't be thought up by humans. Then in this post you proceed to humanly speculate on how God wants us to act. As a human, you didn't seem to have any trouble coming up with all the philosophies that only a divine creautre could conjure. Either you're a human tautologist or a God yourself.

My usual sarcasm aside, you just utterly nuked Atlanian Island's whole theme.

Oh come now, you can't take circular logic and hypocrisy away from the religious. That's all they have!

it's the most amusing thing in the world, watching someone try to "prove" their "faith".

But that's the thing, they don't all act like that.

Jocabia doesn't cling to such emphatically flawed reasoning. I know there are religious people on this board that can do better than this (this being both the OP and Zilam's "Only my religion teaches love" pitch).

Because Jocabia does the only intellectually honest thing. Believes something, but then recognizes he has no logical or rational way of justifying that belief.

Which...is fine, if you're into that sort of thing. NEver had much constitution for it myself, but that's ok. It's one thing to recognize you have faith, but that this faith is, inherently and by definition, irrational. It is an entirely seperate thing to try to justify your faith as anything else but.

You end up like Zilam here, trying desperately to explain how your little book of stories is different than everybody elses little book of stories. And when yo utry to do the impossible, you end up doing things like ignoring evidence, and inventing differences that aren't there, like some nonsense about christianity MUST be true because all the other religions put salvation into the hands of "the people" and make it the choice of "the people" whereas in christianity redemption comes "from god" and to believe in christianity is to believe that you personally don't have control over your salvation, and obviously no person would want that enough to make it up, so it MUST be true.

except for two small problems:

1) making the choice to worship jesus is as much in my power and in my control as making the choice not to go raping and pillaging today

2) if you look at historical evolution of "the church", and realize that the church set itself up as the conduit of the people to god, and begin to think of religion as an institution of those in power to remain in power, making salvation only possible through god, and putting yourself as the intermediary between the people and god...seems like a very smart, and very human, thing to do.

I'm on board, Neo, I just have more regard for those religious people who admit their faith is just faith and don't tell me all about how they can "shoot down" all the other religions and prove theirs.

Basically, though, I'm towards your end of the pool on this one.

The point has been lost just slightly. To recap: God must exist to have set the creation of the universe into motion.

...which is simply not true, because it assumes that the Universe is a closed system. This universe, for starters, could be an infinite cycle of explosion, expansion followed by slowing and eventual contraction into the original singularity. As it turns out, we don't think this will happen: the universe is accelerating as it expands, for no reason anyone particularly understands.

Secondly, this universe is likely birthed from another, likely with entirely different physical rules. Given that we're not qualified to understand our own universe, it's unlikely you can lay any constraints on what might happen in other universes.

As a simple example, time might run in the opposite direction in another universe, and that this universe created that universe which created this... and so on. Time isn't linear, may not exist at all in extra-universal events and trying to understand events in places that aren't shaped by any of the physical rules we rely on is horrendously unintuitive, if at all possible.

I refuse to give in to the classic "If we don't understand it, God did it" argument that has been used since the dawn of time.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.


Well, I could refute this by attempting to explain Universal Gravitation or quantum mechanics, both of which produce or alter motion without measurable force.

But I think that for dramatic effect, I will refute your argument with a leap of logical deduction identical in magnitude to your own:

In the following video, you witness numerous objects in motion whose motion is often random and unpredictable. Often the destination of these objects are not their original intended destination. Such chaos suggests that if there is a Supreme Being, he cares not for the destination, but for the motion alone. In such a chaotic universe, how does one prove anything? Now the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0BOOgW7rHE

:D

You're being silly, Gartref. If infinite regression were even a sound concept, that would mean there are infinite negative numbers. Thales of Miletus proved they stop at -8 x 10^456.

Secondly, it follows without any necessary evidence that its impossible for ontological primacy to be assigned to the universe unless it includes a sentient being that is specifically concerned with humanity.

Besides, an idea like rectilinear motion is hardly subject to complications related to space-time modeling. If it were, there would be an entire range of mathematics and physics grappling with the problem.

Nope, Atlantian Islands is correct. The fact of motion means there must be a Divine Being who pushed the first marble, and that Divine Being was never born and will never die, because you can have that property as long as you're worshipped.
Well, i'm done yawning. Oh, and stop swerving my hearing from ear to ear, would you? I know that helps you control the passive listening thing, but i was listening to my neighbors have hate sex at the same time as Law And Order: SVU.

Here's a very simple refuting:

the law that something can't come from nothing is a law of this universe. The lawsof this universe were not binding before the universe existing. While nothing in this universe can simply come into existance from nothing, there is nothing that bound this rule to the creation of the universe, as the universe did not exist to so bind.

The point has been lost just slightly. To recap: God must exist to have set the creation of the universe into motion.

...which is simply not true, because it assumes that the Universe is a closed system. This universe, for starters, could be an infinite cycle of explosion, expansion followed by slowing and eventual contraction into the original singularity. As it turns out, we don't think this will happen: the universe is accelerating as it expands, for no reason anyone particularly understands.

Secondly, this universe is likely birthed from another, likely with entirely different physical rules. Given that we're not qualified to understand our own universe, it's unlikely you can lay any constraints on what might happen in other universes.

As a simple example, time might run in the opposite direction in another universe, and that this universe created that universe which created this... and so on. Time isn't linear, may not exist at all in extra-universal events and trying to understand events in places that aren't shaped by any of the physical rules we rely on is horrendously unintuitive, if at all possible.

I refuse to give in to the classic "If we don't understand it, God did it" argument that has been used since the dawn of time.

You're right, we got way off topic.

Gartref had mentioned infinite regression, somebody else mentioned the multiverse (probably not the right term, my bad), and a there was some effort to cast doubt on using the premise of motion to somehow prove a religion, since there are any number of other plausible models.

Anyway, much fluffles for putting us back on thread road!

Here's a very simple refuting:

the law that something can't come from nothing is a law of this universe. The lawsof this universe were not binding before the universe existing. While nothing in this universe can simply come into existance from nothing, there is nothing that bound this rule to the creation of the universe, as the universe did not exist to so bind.
Beautiful. *bows*

I cant belive how many people voted they dont believe in god...
You dont wish to go to a better place after death??
oh well not my decision.
Speaking of votes, keep us well apprised, if you would, of any future posting activity ... noting this being your ionian and all.

Ah, nothing like the gruffly jovial musings of Jerry Orbach, punctuated with the acrimonious grunting of a two people that don't realize they can break up and still screw.
This one had gimp masks and cutting emos, strangely enough.

Ah, nothing like the gruffly jovial musings of Jerry Orbach

Jerry Orbach was Law and Order, not Law and Order SVU!

SVU had..um...that asian psychologist guy you kinda sorta think is gay...

This one had gimp masks and cutting emos, strangely enough.

yeah well that's SVU for you. They really should change the name to Law and Order: Let's see how much fucked up shit we can get on network tv this week

Well, i'm done yawning. Oh, and stop swerving my hearing from ear to ear, would you? I know that helps you control the passive listening thing, but i was listening to my neighbors have hate sex at the same time as Law And Order: SVU.

Ah, nothing like the gruffly jovial musings of Jerry Orbach, punctuated with the acrimonious grunting of a two people that don't realize they can break up and still screw.

I cant belive how many people voted they dont believe in god...
You dont wish to go to a better place after death??
oh well not my decision.

Jerry Orbach was Law and Order, not Law and Order SVU!I think he guest starred in this one ... in a gimp mask.

SVU had..um...that asian psychologist guy you kinda sorta think is gay...It's DEFINITELY got Ice-T (Cop Killer) in it.
o.9

yeah well that's SVU for you. They really should change the name to Law and Order: Let's see how much fucked up shit we can get on network tv this weekI'm all for forensics, and law enforcement and such, but this show makes me feel BAD every time i watch it. There's no winning. And even if there's "justice", it's still not worth it. You're right, it is pretty fucked up.

I cant belive how many people voted they dont believe in god...
You dont wish to go to a better place after death??
oh well not my decision.

Speaking as someone who believes in God and the afterlife, I don't give a fuck about what exists after death. Why should I? I have all the tacos I want right here. :)

I cant belive how many people voted they dont believe in god...
You dont wish to go to a better place after death??
oh well not my decision.

I have never been able to understand how a conscious decision can be made to believe in something inherently unbelievable. Sounds more like wishful thinking than actual belief.

Speaking as someone who believes in God and the afterlife, I don't give a fuck about what exists after death. Why should I? I have all the tacos I want right here. :)

Living example. *bows*

I cant belive how many people voted they dont believe in god...
You dont wish to go to a better place after death??
oh well not my decision.

Because naturally, one should base one's beliefs on what you would gain by assuming the belief to be true...

And by that reasoning, since the Raelian religion offers me a place I like better, I should believe in Rael!

First I will get it out of the way and say I believe in multiple Gods and that they are not in fact perfect and have their own individual motives for everything.

Anyways i think is is both stupid and foolish to try to prove the existence of God(s). Just as it is stupid and foolish to try to prove the lack of a God(s) in the universe.

Why would you want to prove that there is a God anyway? To convince others? To what end? If someone doesn't want to believe in higher powers, let them be. If someone wants to believe in a higher power, let them also be. I don't understand this immature need to convince others of something that really concerns no one but yourself.

I have a pet dog named Buttons. I know I do. Why must I try to convince you that I really do have a dog and that his name really is Buttons? Why must you try to convince me and others that I'm making him up? If I want to say I have a dog let me.

I have a dog named Buttons. Deal with it. ;p

May I be the first to say 'It's turtles all the way down'.

May I be the first to say 'It's turtles all the way down'.You indeed may be the first to say it. Quite possibly the last too, at least in this thread. Unless there's a predictable response to this post *wink*

Jerry Orbach was Law and Order, not Law and Order SVU!

SVU had..um...that asian psychologist guy you kinda sorta think is gay...

This one had gimp masks and cutting emos, strangely enough.

wow, poor asian gay psychologist...kept out of both Christianity AND Scientology....


Cutting emos...better than butchering emus.

Speaking as somebody picking a law school offer for September, I can tell you my highest hope is to one day be the grizzled, exhausted, joyless old veteran who makes the needlessly acerbic and cynical comment as everybody leaves the office in the closing scene.
Why not go for real estate?
http://www.theaspectratio.net/90sglenngary.jpg

First I will get it out of the way and say I believe in multiple Gods and that they are not in fact perfect and have their own individual motives for everything.

Anyways i think is is both stupid and foolish to try to prove the existence of God(s). Just as it is stupid and foolish to try to prove the lack of a God(s) in the universe.

Why would you want to prove that there is a God anyway? To convince others? To what end? If someone doesn't want to believe in higher powers, let them be. If someone wants to believe in a higher power, let them also be. I don't understand this immature need to convince others of something that really concerns no one but yourself.

I have a pet dog named Buttons. I know I do. Why must I try to convince you that I really do have a dog and that his name really is Buttons? Why must you try to convince me and others that I'm making him up? If I want to say I have a dog let me.

I have a dog named Buttons. Deal with it. ;p


Having a dog named Buttons doesn't give you the right to kill your neighbors because Buttons told you to. *nod*

First I will get it out of the way and say I believe in multiple Gods and that they are not in fact perfect and have their own individual motives for everything.

Anyways i think is is both stupid and foolish to try to prove the existence of God(s). Just as it is stupid and foolish to try to prove the lack of a God(s) in the universe.

Why would you want to prove that there is a God anyway? To convince others? To what end? If someone doesn't want to believe in higher powers, let them be. If someone wants to believe in a higher power, let them also be. I don't understand this immature need to convince others of something that really concerns no one but yourself.

I have a pet dog named Buttons. I know I do. Why must I try to convince you that I really do have a dog and that his name really is Buttons? Why must you try to convince me and others that I'm making him up? If I want to say I have a dog let me.

I have a dog named Buttons. Deal with it. ;p

Is this the same Buttons that is lobbying against gay dog marriage, stem dog cell research, dog abortion rights, and is against my right to drive to Mexico and bang short chubby women?

If not, disregard.

I'm all for forensics, and law enforcement and such, but this show makes me feel BAD every time i watch it. There's no winning. And even if there's "justice", it's still not worth it. You're right, it is pretty fucked up.

Speaking as somebody picking a law school offer for September, I can tell you my highest hope is to one day be the grizzled, exhausted, joyless old veteran who makes the needlessly acerbic and cynical comment as everybody leaves the office in the closing scene.

I believe if a god existed, It would be intolerant of poor spelling with the vast majority of resources available to someone creating such a poll.

Seems like a small thing, but illiteracy will bite you in the ass every time.

Odam
Odarn
Ogolly

Is this the same Buttons that is lobbying against gay dog marriage, stem dog cell research, dog abortion rights, and is against my right to drive to Mexico and bang short chubby women?

If not, disregard.


Are most of our religions on NSG Christianity?

If not disregard your disregard.

Heheehee...if I work in the Bible Belt, I can practice the ABC from that movie, but change it to "Always Be Christian"...

Jesus, if you are alive, that was a joke. Smoke weed until its funny.

Is there enough weed? :confused:

Are most of our religions on NSG Christianity?

If not disregard your disregard.

I would guess most of the proselytizing bunch here are Christian, but I could be wrong.

The back on forth on this thread, though, had a substantial part with Zilam that dealt specifically with Christianity.

So disregard my regard for guarding Gartref's gourds. And, uh, God.

Having a dog named Buttons doesn't give you the right to kill your neighbors because Buttons told you to. *nod*

Well, I've always been against killing in the name of religion; tho if I had to kill to protect Buttons, then i suppose it would be justifiable.

(For those of you lost killing in name of religion is bad, killing in order to protect religion might not always be bad, idk.)

Why not go for real estate?
http://www.theaspectratio.net/90sglenngary.jpg

Heheehee...if I work in the Bible Belt, I can practice the ABC from that movie, but change it to "Always Be Christian"...

Jesus, if you are alive, that was a joke. Smoke weed until its funny.

Is there enough weed? :confused:

*the sound of one hand clapping*

Well, I've always been against killing in the name of religion; tho if I had to kill to protect Buttons, then i suppose it would be justifiable.

(For those of you lost killing in name of religion is bad, killing in order to protect religion might not always be bad, idk.)

I have this dog, and I originally bought him to train to protect the house, but now I like him so much, I don't want to risk him against an assailant...

Is there enough weed? :confused:

I imagine it works like this. Jesus, Little Mo (Moses), Mary, and Big Mo (Mohamad) pass the joint around, and with increasing incoherence, lament how bad the joke was while watching the original Battlestar Galactica.

Eventually, they are so high, they forget what they were talking about, and the fact that they can't remember becomes funny.

I would guess most of the proselytizing bunch here are Christian, but I could be wrong.

The back on forth on this thread, though, had a substantial part with Zilam that dealt specifically with Christianity.

So disregard my regard for guarding Gartref's gourds. And, uh, God.

Yeah there are a bunch of stupid religious people out there in the world. There are also a bunch of stupid atheists in this world. It still doesn't make any of those problems you listed the fault of religion as a whole. My religion certainly hasn't done any of that and neither has Buddhism or Wicca or Shinto or Jainism or Taoism or Zoroastrianism etc.

Besides, it doesn't negate the stupidity of proving the existence or non-existence of higher powers.

Speaking as somebody picking a law school offer for September, I can tell you my highest hope is to one day be the grizzled, exhausted, joyless old veteran who makes the needlessly acerbic and cynical comment as everybody leaves the office in the closing scene.

So you want to play a lawyer on TV?

Looks lost

Odam
Odarn
Ogolly

I have this dog, and I originally bought him to train to protect the house, but now I like him so much, I don't want to risk him against an assailant...

Ya, dogs are great. :) (this sentence wasn't about religion lol :) )

I imagine it works like this. Jesus, Little Mo (Moses), Mary, and Big Mo (Mohamad) pass the joint around, and with increasing incoherence, lament how bad the joke was while watching the original Battlestar Galactica.

Eventually, they are so high, they forget what they were talking about, and the fact that they can't remember becomes funny.

Amen. :)

I'm pretty sure my dog is an atheist. Every time I talk to her about God, she looks at me funny and says : "Prooooof!?"

Yeah there are a bunch of stupid religious people out there in the world. There are also a bunch of stupid atheists in this world. It still doesn't make any of those problems you listed the fault of religion as a whole. My religion certainly hasn't done any of that and neither has Buddhism or Wicca or Shinto or Jainism or Taoism or Zoroastrianism etc.

Besides, it doesn't negate the stupidity of proving the existence or non-existence of higher powers.

In my posts, I was trying to address the OP (and later Zilam's) reasoning in trying to prove their religion (something you also find fault with).

I also never claimed to prove anybody's God as necesarrily non-existant (I even said once that the other poster's religion could be true, conceivably).

As for Buttons, if he doesn't do those things I listed, then like I said, disregard. That's why I included that bit.

I would also point out that in this thread, I specifically stated that not all religous people are like that, citing Jocabia as a good example.

Next time, I will try to be more clear with the kind of religious people I am complaining about, but I never claimed to prove the non-existence of any God, and my comments were directed at those religious folks that impose impose their religious views with the weight of law.

If that's not you or Buttons, like I said, disregard.

People (smarter than anyone posting here) have been trying to come up with irrefutable logical proofs for the existence of an Abrahamic god for thousands of years. If any of them were any good, we'd all be Jewish/Christian/Muslim by now.

So it's generally a safe bet that any such argument has been comprehensively shot down in flames long ago, with multiple refutations published somewhere pretty easy to find - no real need to bring it here to have it done all over again, assuming you have access to even a half decent philosophy encyclopaedia or to the internet.

I apologize. It's REALLLY late and I'm up studying philosophy and just had to post this.

You're gonna fill up the whole forum if you start a new thread for every new idea you read under those circumstances.

Ya, dogs are great. :) (this sentence wasn't about religion lol :) )

S'okay, we're so far off thread topic in some of these posts, the fact that dog is an anagram for god is at least something, heh.

the pretention of supposing a need for something to exist, does not prove the existence of anything. nor does it disprove the existence of anything. nor does a nonproof prove anything, nor, for that matter: is there really any such thing as an actual absolute proof of anything, or rather, only gretter and lesser preponderances of evidence?

we can however, feel and experience many things we need not even pretend to know anything at all about in order to do so.

thus many unseen things may very well exist and quite probably do. it is also quite probable that few if any of them intend us any harm.

among unseen things are those which are sentient, ok that's supposition, but not unreasonable supposition. like those which are seen, there's no reason to assume they don't come in all sizes, great and small.

so if you have all sizes, great and small, of unseen awairnessess, it is all but inevitable there will be one, or a very small number, who are simply bigger then all the rest of them.

now how much if anything any of them had to do with what we can see and measure and attempt to draw conclusions from, is also, and likely eternally to remain, unseen and indeterminate.

with or without proof, those i've met give great hugs and are not at war with anyone.

but do leave it up to us, do avoid screwing up for ourselves what we can see and have to live with every day.

=^^=
.../\...

So you want to play a lawyer on TV?

Looks lost

Odam
Odarn
Ogolly

Yeah...I couldn't get into the drama program because I refuse to do a 15 minute excercise where I "pretend to be everything and nothing at the same time"....so I took the LSAT instead, and here I am.

I figure a Juris Doctorate will get me an audition.

In my posts, I was trying to address the OP (and later Zilam's) reasoning in trying to prove their religion (something you also find fault with).

I also never claimed to prove anybody's God as necesarrily non-existant (I even said once that the other poster's religion could be true, conceivably).

As for Buttons, if he doesn't do those things I listed, then like I said, disregard. That's why I included that bit.

I would also point out that in this thread, I specifically stated that not all religous people are like that, citing Jocabia as a good example.

Next time, I will try to be more clear with the kind of religious people I am complaining about, but I never claimed to prove the non-existence of any God, and my comments were directed at those religious folks that impose impose their religious views with the weight of law.

If that's not you or Buttons, like I said, disregard.


Ok, np. :) Nice to meet you btw.

Edit: Wasn't the OP's 'proof' St.Anselm's theory of Cosmetology or something like that?

Evidence for existence of a God: My girlfriend.
Evidence that God really doesn't like me: My girlfriend.

Therefore, God exists, and I'd like God's email address / phone number to ask him / her some very pointed questions. Second on the list will be "Cancer - why?".

among unseen things are those which are sentient, ok that's supposition, but not unreasonable supposition...

Just my opinion, but that seems like a freakin huge supposition.

That's what she said.



I'm sorry, I'm going to bed now.

That's "ory", not "ion".
*shakes head*
*alters hearing*

Ok, np. :) Nice to meet you btw.

Nice to meet you, too, although I'm slowly being reabsorbed into Straughn's neural tissue, so I won't be around long.

Much regards to you and Buttons :)

Ok, np. :) Nice to meet you btw.

Edit: Wasn't the OP's 'proof' St.Anselm's theory of Cosmetology or something like that?

Oooooh, niiice!!!

Yeah, I don't think the OP was trying to sell it as original, since he/she has to know that a lot of people on the thread will have seen the same thing pitched.

He/she described it as something he learned.

Seriously, though I think it was St. Augustine's Theory of Scientology.

Just my opinion, but that seems like a freakin huge supposition.

That's what she said.



I'm sorry, I'm going to bed now.

Oooooh, niiice!!!

Yeah, I don't think the OP was trying to sell it as original, since he/she has to know that a lot of people on the thread will have seen the same thing pitched.

He/she described it as something he learned.

Seriously, though I think it was St. Augustine's Theory of Scientology.

Hmm could be that too. I'll check, one sec... well wikipedia seems to think it's Aristotle's theory, but that doesn't sound right.

:D

Either that or he exploded and we are God's guts.

I'm probably the left testicle. :)

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

:p
Yeah, sure, and due to the law of action and reaction He is now flying away from us backward. Which is just fine.

:p
Yeah, sure, and due to the law of action and reaction He is now flying away from us backward. Which is just fine.

:D

Either that or he exploded and we are God's guts.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.
This is only if you assume a linear model of temporal causality. If time can loop back on itself - that is, time travel is a feasibility - then your assertion becomes unnecessary.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

Or, since logic seems to dictate an original exception to the cause-effect rule, the universe itself could be that exception. Why create an extra step and assume that something outside the universe exists?

I no longer believe in any dieties. I've tried many different ones and I'm still fat.

I no longer believe in any dieties. I've tried many different ones and I'm still fat.

You need to pray to Jared.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.There is no proof in this statement, merely assumptions that are toted as proof, particularly the bolded part. Argument refuted.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

Moves... it depends from the inertial frame of reference you're choosing (now find an inertial frame of reference, lol).

Also, forces don't make objects move. Forces make rigid objects accelerate (discounting friction, elasticity, etc, etc).
An object not subject to the action of a force continues in its previous state, i.e. rectilinear movement at constant speed (in Newtonian mechanics) or, in general relativity, following a geodetical trajectory through the Minkowsky space (space-time) that has minimum relativistic action (Maupertuis principle applied to general relativity).


The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

No. Ockham's razor here. Even assuming that there is a "prime cause" of movement... why should it be a "being"? Also, why do you assume that there is a "prime mover"? Why not an Universe perpetually oscillating between big bangs and big crunches (or sgnab gib)?
Also, the idea of "prime mover" is strictly dependant of the principle of causality, which is a principle (hence, an inductive a priori categorisation of human perception), not a law (inductive a posteriori) or a theorem (deductive a posteriori).

Face it, the "prime mover" proof of the existance of some kind of godly being fails, as do all ontological proofs. See Immanuel Kant, "Kritik der reinen Vernunft".

I cant belive how many people voted they dont believe in god...
You dont wish to go to a better place after death??
oh well not my decision.

Dunno about you, but I'll probably go to a small square in a cemetary somewhere, or to be more precisely, about 2 meters under that spot.
Or I might be cremated, haven't decided yet really.

What kind of place did you have in mind? Burial at sea?

I cant belive how many people voted they dont believe in god...
You dont wish to go to a better place after death??
oh well not my decision.I wish to have enough money in my bank account to live comfortably without having to work, but interestingly enough, that has no impact on reality ;)
Likewise, I wish I could jump out of a window and fly, but that doesn't mean I will, nor will me wishing to do so increase or decrease the chances of me flying.

Some posters have an interesting (and very inaccurate) definition of what 'proof' is.

Some posters have an interesting (and very inaccurate) definition of what 'proof' is.

The proof is in the pudding.

*pushes you in*

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

To take the fact that we cannot grasp the beginning of existence and then use that to say there *must* be a god is a logic gap that not even Evil Knievel could've jumped.

You need only look at old myths from ancient cultures: Struggles of sun gods against night, veneration of volcanic gods to prevent eruptions, 'possession' that was likely nothing more than seizures.. All through its history, humanity has taken its gaps in scientific understanding and filled them in with some kind of supernatural or divine belief. To think that we've arrived at such a pinnacle of knowledge that anything we don't know automatically *must* be godly in nature.. well, that's exactly what a lot of our predecessors did when they made the ridiculous assumptions that we look back on today.

The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?

As a believer in 'God' myself I have to say that even 'God' doesn't follow his own rules.

I personally believe that what most Christians would call God is not how the Bible describes 'him'. I also believe that in life, to get anywhere, you have to take action yourself. You can pray to 'God' all you want, but at the end of the day most Christians will declare that anything that happens is "God's will". So my philosophy in regards to praying is "if it's God's will, then God will do what he wants anyway, so why should I bother asking for something if he's gonna do what he wants anyway".

Summarising, yes I believe there is a 'God', but I'd sooner follow the dictionary than the Bible.

FYI, it's spelt "believe" not "beleive"

Sorry, that was in jest. I was actually supporting Gartref's point.
:p

It's not like I'm bad at maths, it's just that at some point I cease to see the usefulness of it...stuff like that is just a little beyond that point. But yeah, I was a bit sceptical, since I didn't think negative numbers were around in Greek days.

The old immovable mover of Thomas Aquinas? That has been dealt with many times. Richard Dawkins deals with it and the other 4 "proofs" in "the god delusion" for example. THere are a range of sites for you if you wnat to look for other flaws.

Here are the classics:

1. If you go outside the bounds of the universe, you go beyond time (which was created by the big bang) ergo there is either infinate time or none. If none there is no cause (not even God) as cause-and-affect relationships are temporal in nature. If infinate there need not be a "first mover".

2. Unless you are a pantheist (eg. einstein, one who believes that God is a fancy name for the laws of nature) you cannot prove that the cause was unconcious - just like gravity is not a God, just a natural effect

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

there is nothing there that necessarily requires a 'being'.

refuted.

The proof is in the pudding.

*pushes you in*

Mmm...chocolate...

The correct answer is: WE DONT HAVE THE SENCES REQUIRED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. PERIOD. ITS LIKE ASKING A SPIDERS OPINION ABOUT A CHESS MOVE.

SO EITHER ASK A QUESTION WE HAVE THE BIOLOGICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE AND ABILITY TO ANSWER OR JUST GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY. END OF STUPID DEBATE.

I strongly suspect, in the same way a spider crawls along and has no concept that an internet exists, we crawl around and there are all sorts of things that are also around us that we can not detect simply because we are not biologically designed to do so. A spider can crawl around on a computer keyboard, it can touch a server, but it could never conceive of the concept of a nebulous internet. I have no reason to believe that humans dont suffer from the same constraints that we see in every other living creature on the planet. This isnt a justification for ghosts or another way of describing a god or any other such nonsence. I think the concepts we dont see/hear/understand are beyond even the ability of our language to even describe to each other.

That's a very bad understanding of physics ;)

Motion can appear from other form of energy. You can easily see that with a magnet, for example.

So the only thing that is required is existence of energy (and of matter). Well, even if physics can't really solve them, the existence of primal formals of energy (and of matter, which is just a form of energy, E=mc²), is a much lower prerequisite than the existence of conscious "god". So while neither science nor religion does answer to "how did energy/god appear ?" one breaks down anything complex to a very simple thing "energy", while the other just explains the complexity of universe by... something as complex, if not more, that is an intelligent omnipotent entity.

The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?

That's not true either. All physical theory contain the principle of *conservation* of energy/matter. As Lavoisier said: "rien ne se créé, rien ne se perd, tout se transforme" ("nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed").

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

seems to me that it proves a prime mover must exist. scientifically that is the big bang the origins of which are unknown.

i dont see that a mover is the same thing as a god.

seems to me that it proves a prime mover must exist. scientifically that is the big bang the origins of which are unknown.
.

Im a heathen who is Mr. Science and all that entails. The problem with science is that it is basically the study of the observable. When we start to get to the beginning of the Big Bang and to the limit of the observable (in one way) science breaks down and no longer becomes a reliable methodology. Its difficult to use science to describe something that by definition may be unscientific.

Ok, np. :) Nice to meet you btw.

Edit: Wasn't the OP's 'proof' St.Anselm's theory of Cosmetology or something like that?

is that the theory that states that redheads should never wear coral lipstick?

is that the theory that states that redheads should never wear coral lipstick?
LOL. I laughed. :D

Anyway, it's based on St. Aquinas and Aristotle's theory of cosmicology.

Anselm is on the theory of Ontology.

Im a heathen who is Mr. Science and all that entails. The problem with science is that it is basically the study of the observable. When we start to get to the beginning of the Big Bang and to the limit of the observable (in one way) science breaks down and no longer becomes a reliable methodology. Its difficult to use science to describe something that by definition may be unscientific.

uhuh. which is why the origins of the big bang are unknown.

Ah, but look at other religions. What do they preach? They preach things that appeal logically to human sense. That is because it is made by humans. However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that. Deny yourself? Sell all your possessions? You can't save yourself? At least all religions have some sort of path or way that you can save yourself. There is something about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Christ that screams more than just human imagination, but rather divine creation.

I don't know if someone has addressed this yet as I haven't the time to read the rest of the thread now, but slaves create this kind of perversion. Most religions don't appeal that much to a logical human sense, and you ought not assume otherwise. They appeal to some kind of inversion or other, generally, some kind of "spiritual rationalization" of a slick world at which they clutch with just the tips of their fingers. It's the last knot in the rope to avoid falling into the despair of life generated by you preachers of death.

What if it isnt the object that is moving. What if the object just stops and its the rest of the universe thats moving?

Nothing in our universe actually moves, that's just an illusion created by His Noodly Holiness to fool us all into disbelieving in pasta. So therefore, because nothing moves, there need be no mover(s) and therefore, no Creator-thing.

Ah, but look at other religions. What do they preach? They preach things that appeal logically to human sense. That is because it is made by humans. However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that. Deny yourself? Sell all your possessions? You can't save yourself? At least all religions have some sort of path or way that you can save yourself. There is something about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Christ that screams more than just human imagination, but rather divine creation.

Sounds like Buddhism more than Christianity...

That there had to be something foreign to the unverse, a God if you will, that did not need an original mover to move himseslf..and he is the original mover who gave the bing bang the movement it needed to...happen.

It doesn't disprove the bing bang, on the contray, it goes with it...it explains that orginal motion of energy given from a non-universe thing (some sort of God) to the bing bang...which then resulted in the creation of the universe.

If this "god" didn't need an original mover... why does big bang need a cause?

How did the world start?
-big bang
What caused the big bang?
1) don't know
2) god
#1 is final
#2 needs to continue
What caused god?
-I don't know

I choose to skip that unnecessary god-step and go straight to I don't know

First, you are assuming that Newtonian physics accurately describes the first second of the universe, which we know is not the case.
This isn't Newtonian physics, it's Aristotelian physics.
Although Aquinas plagiarized it to "prove" the Christian God, the original passage in Aristotle was trying to determine *how many* gods there were, by counting how many independent sources of motions there appeared to be in the heavens, concluding that either 47 or 55 looked like the best candidates for the correct number of gods.
It is suspected that this passage is a later interpolation, by some follower of Aristotle rather than Aristotle himself, whose arguments tended not to be quite this lame.

So... to summarise the OP:
Something is happening, I'm not sure why, therefore God is responsible.

Come back Pascal's Wager, all is forgiven.

The correct answer is: WE DONT HAVE THE SENCES REQUIRED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. PERIOD. ITS LIKE ASKING A SPIDERS OPINION ABOUT A CHESS MOVE.

SO EITHER ASK A QUESTION WE HAVE THE BIOLOGICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE AND ABILITY TO ANSWER OR JUST GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY. END OF STUPID DEBATE.
(Snipped, reasonable explanation)
.

But some spiders might know about chess. I think you meant 'sciences'.
Besides chess is equally an idea as spiders are (from a human perspective), so either of them being confused about the other is likely to happen.
Perhaps our ideas of spiders are incorrect, maybe they can think, maybe chess moves have emotions too.

Interesting idea though, i like it. Is this a similar argument as, you can't understand chess by looking at it atom by atom, because it's an idea, so you can't be predetermined specifically to question whether chess exists or not, but through experience you can tell what chess is which raises the question of whether chess is real or a figment of your imagination.
(I apologise if i didn't make sense, i try my best to make it clear)
I would play outside but i'm afraid of traffic, and the pollution.

Evidence for existence of a God: My girlfriend.
Evidence that God really doesn't like me: My girlfriend.

Therefore, God exists, and I'd like God's email address / phone number to ask him / her some very pointed questions. Second on the list will be "Cancer - why?".

Because God hates you.
I mean think about it if a God does exist, and a God does have ultimate power perhaps he hates you. Or God is completely different from us so has different ideas of us, the same way we might view different types of bacteria fighting it out, this God might view us, wondering which will buy him the best cure for the disease he has.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

Where to begin?

1. Cause and effect is an inductive generalisation, we have no way of knowing it to be universal.

2. We actually have good reason to suspect that the laws of the Universe didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, so cause and effect goes out of the window.

3. There are interpretations of Quantum theory which allow for motion without cause.

4. We don't even know if it's possible for there to be a 'before the Big Bang', any more than there can be a anywhere north of the North Pole.

5. But the most crushing hole in the argument is this: even if we accept that the cause of this Universe came from outside of the Universe, why must this cause have any of the characteristics which we ascribe to 'God'? It needn't be intelligent (or even conscious), omniscient or omnipotent. Why then should we call it a God?

Refuted.

The would contradict the rules of the universe, because everything in the universe is born and expires, why wouldn't the universe follow it's own rules?

"All humans are made up of cells, cells reproduce asexually, therefore humans must reproduce asexually. Why wouldn't humans follow their own rules?"

You can't extrapolate from the properties of parts of a thing to the properties of the whole. Read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Something I've learned:Learning implies understanding, something you evidently cannot claim in this case - no offence intended.

Either everything needs a mover, or an unmoved mover can exist. Both cannot be true as they contradict each other.

That aside, you're making a classic God-of-The-Gaps argument. Rather than facing that you don't know the explanation for phenomena X, you assign God as the explanation. Assuming you like your God, that is a dangerous habit to get into, because it means your God vanishes at the rate of human ignorance.

Of course, you're also ignoring simpler explanations. For example, if the universe is the debris of an explosion, whatever blew up must have been highly compact. Enough so to be susceptible to quantum level events. Since some of those don't depend on deterministic causality, it seems to be possible that they could have caused this compact pre-universe to become unstable and blow up.

Do consider it for a moment, for as far as anyone knows, is is a possible explanation of universal origins, and since it involves no unknown mystic entities, it seems rather more plausible than most religions' explanations of the same. But if that is your God, it is a ridiculously tiny one, one that randomly came into being for a fraction of a second, and that now haven't existed for billions of years. Arguably, you'd be better off worshipping a teacup.

To add to TAI:

1) Einstein has already proved the universe is growing in size but is slowing in growth; and

2) That would defy the law of physics that states that all matter moves to a state of disorganization

This has probably been covered already, but 1) is simply not true. Present evidence suggests that not only is the universe expanding, but that it is doing so at an accelerating pace. See dark energy and dark matter for reference.

"All humans are made up of cells, cells reproduce asexually, therefore humans must reproduce asexually. Why wouldn't humans follow their own rules?"

You can't extrapolate from the properties of parts of a thing to the properties of the whole. Read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

I believe the formal name for this is a "fallacy of composition."

Of course, you're also ignoring simpler explanations. For example, if the universe is the debris of an explosion, whatever blew up must have been highly compact. Enough so to be susceptible to quantum level events. Since some of those don't depend on deterministic causality, it seems to be possible that they could have caused this compact pre-universe to become unstable and blow up.
Interesting suggestion. It does, however, beg the question of whether the system of physics which quantum mechanics models predates the first quantum particle.

Sounds like Buddhism more than Christianity...

And the Hindu would argue they're both the same. :p

My proof of God is ... :)

LOL

Ah, but look at other religions. What do they preach? They preach things that appeal logically to human sense. That is because it is made by humans. However, look at christianity, there is no way that man could have made up something like that. Deny yourself? Sell all your possessions? You can't save yourself? At least all religions have some sort of path or way that you can save yourself. There is something about the life, death, teachings, and resurrection of Christ that screams more than just human imagination, but rather divine creation.

Man couldn't come up with that?

You're silly Zilam :D

I believe the formal name for this is a "fallacy of composition."

*proffers cookie*

*proffers cookie*

*does the happy dance*

*hungrily devours cookie*

Yay!

I much prefer Stephen Hawking's assesment of the Universe: that it is finite, but endless. A 4-D analogy of a circle. Finite, but endless.

Hey, the Big Bang was proposed by the Catholic Church. Did anyone else know that?

Oh, at my last check, the "Did Jesus exist?" thread was nearing 4000 posts. We aren't going to have another endless debacle here, are we?

Refute.

The laws of the universe only apply once the universe has already come into existence. Beforehand, there is no reason to assume anything about the necessary character of the "spark" that caused the rest.

It could be God, sure. But it could also--and just as easily--be something we can't imagine.

Aw, you guys make me feel all funny in the pants.

My belief is rational, it just requires a leap of faith, NA. I can give reasons for that faith and how it serves me. I simply can't show evidence I'm right. Lacking evidence isn't the same as lacking reason. You can't show any discord with reason. That I accept that it requires a leap of faith and actually relish this, in fact, is exactly why it is reasonable.

The laws of the universe only apply once the universe has already come into existence. Beforehand, there is no reason to assume anything about the necessary character of the "spark" that caused the rest.

It could be God, sure. But it could also--and just as easily--be something we can't imagine.

Yes, exactly. Arguing it must or must not be God is really argumentum ad ignorantum. (I probably mangled that spelling but I hadn't filled my latin quota for the day, which is one term.)

My belief is rational, it just requires a leap of faith, NA. I can give reasons for that faith and how it serves me. I simply can't show evidence I'm right. Lacking evidence isn't the same as lacking reason. You can't show any dischord with reason. That I accept that it requires a leap of faith and actually relish this, in fact, is exactly why it is reasonable.
Emboldened part excepted, that's fair enough. But dischord can be referenced in a system based on reason as long as it is within that part of the system that is deemed uncertain or irreduceable. My lack of belief is rational for precisely that reason; I make no assertions about that which I do not know save in as much as it relates to that which I do know, and am content in doing so. That such a system remains functionally expressive without need of faith is exactly why it, too, is reasonable.

Oh, at my last check, the "Did Jesus exist?" thread was nearing 4000 posts. We aren't going to have another endless debacle here, are we?

Well that was centred around Christianity.
This is centred on God in general, big difference, because believing in a God is easier than putting belief into a Christian God.
So i'm quite happy to see this go on forever.

From my perspective, there are three possibilities:

1: Supreme Being caused the Universe to come into being.
2. The Universe just came into being out of the void.
3. Infinite regression.

All three are wildly counterintuitive. But saying God did it is not a very good explanation. Plus, it's just a modified version of the third possibility.

So it comes down to two possibilities, three and two. There is nothing contradictory about an infinite series (I believe Russell proved this), so I say the third possibility is the least absurd of the two. That said, particles have been observed coming into existence ex nihilo in vacuums, so the second possibility isn't impossible. Maybe they came from the fourth spatial dimension? Still, that's just speculation so I'm going to say the third possibility is correct.

I believe both what scientists have proven, along with that there is a god. the reason is simple but hard to explain however I will try my hardest to explain it.

It comes with the basic question of asking what happens before and what created what. biggest question who made the space we live in and how could it have existed before then? as the basic rule of alchemy where you cant create something from nothing it states that to make something something else must be "destroyed". on a related factor, with the quote [made by I have no clue] "To every end there is a new beginning" it leads to the question of what ended before the beginning of our universe. what could have created the concept of space and dimensions who could have made "something from nothing?" Sir Isac Newton believed that god and science were one and the same, I learned that recently, however I thought of this theory for my self a couple of years ago when I was 13-14 (note: I am 18 and will be turning 19 this august). Unlink Newton however i am not going to 1. spend my life devoted to science, and 2. I don't think the the only possibility for a god is the Christian god. so in a way I am agnostic.

I believe both what scientists have proven, along with that there is a god. the reason is simple but hard to explain however I will try my hardest to explain it.
okay.

It comes with the basic question of asking what happens before and what created what.
you mean all events have had a prior cause, which can be linked all the way back through time?

biggest question who made the space we live in and how could it have existed before then?
Random chance?

as the basic rule of alchemy where you cant create something from nothing it states that to make something something else must be "destroyed".
Perhaps, but this is from our experiences, just because we don't know of any substance that can be created from nothing doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't any.

on a related factor, with the quote [made by I have no clue] "To every end there is a new beginning" it leads to the question of what ended before the beginning of our universe.
How so?
There must have been a beginning for this other thing, if there wasn't it proves this theory wrong.

what could have created the concept of space and dimensions who could have made "something from nothing?"
Tricky question that, i don't think anyone really knows.

Sir Isac Newton believed that god and science were one and the same, I learned that recently, however I thought of this theory for my self a couple of years ago when I was 13-14 (note: I am 18 and will be turning 19 this august). Unlink Newton however i am not going to 1. spend my life devoted to science, and 2. I don't think the the only possibility for a god is the Christian god. so in a way I am agnostic.

You could be right, there may be no Christian God, but there could be a God in general (As in a creator).
There are many many arguments and theories about God.
I think the best one is to doubt there is a God, but not dismiss the idea altogether.
The idea that everything comes from something else is flawed, the universe must have had a beginning somewhere to be created, if it is eternal that makes things even more complicated.

This next bit i'm not sure about but you got me thinking.
I wonder i suppose one thing that comes from nothing is your thoughts, although you are conditioned from a young age to think in a certain way and your Genetics affect your brain to some extent (ie certain disorders of the mind are caused by Genetics), there is no real explanation for where our thoughts come from. A possible response could be God controls our thoughts.

That there had to be something foreign to the unverse, a God if you will, that did not need an original mover to move himseslf..and he is the original mover who gave the bing bang the movement it needed to...happen.
Why? Since the universe includes among its contents the rules that govern it, you can't apply those rules to the creation of the universe since the rules didn't yet necessarily exist.

Even if spontaneous action is impossible in the universe, that doesn't preclude spontaneous action from having been possible at the moment of creation.

But more importantly, I want to object to the two nonsensical options in your poll. Either you beleive in a god or you don't, but you can't be unaware of whether you believe in one. Belief happens entirely inside your own mind; you have to be aware of it. The statement "I'm not sure if I believe in god." can't ever be true for any conscious human ever.

The statement "I'm not sure if I believe in god." can't ever be true for any conscious human ever.
If you don't know what "god" means, how can you be sure that something you believe in (assuming you believe in something) isn't it?

If you don't know what "god" means, how can you be sure that something you believe in (assuming you believe in something) isn't it?
Well said. Okay, in that case this might make sense.

Somehow I doubt the people who chose those items in the poll are making that fine a point, though.

Aw, you guys make me feel all funny in the pants.

My belief is rational, it just requires a leap of faith, NA. I can give reasons for that faith and how it serves me. I simply can't show evidence I'm right. Lacking evidence isn't the same as lacking reason. You can't show any discord with reason. That I accept that it requires a leap of faith and actually relish this, in fact, is exactly why it is reasonable.
Isn't a leap of faith in itself necessarily unreasonable?

My belief is rational, it just requires a leap of faith, NA. I can give reasons for that faith and how it serves me. I simply can't show evidence I'm right. Lacking evidence isn't the same as lacking reason. You can't show any discord with reason. That I accept that it requires a leap of faith and actually relish this, in fact, is exactly why it is reasonable.

People make a conscious leap of faith to believe because of reasons. These reasons are the beneficial utilities of their belief - Peace, Comfort, Meaning, etc...

To me, this shows not that the belief is reasonable in itself, only the act of believing in it. The belief then, is nothing more than a placebo willingly swallowed to relieve the aches & pains of our frightening existence.

By this philosophy any belief is reasonable if it makes you feel good. Just because you can rationalize your beliefs, it doesn't make them rational.

People make a conscious leap of faith to believe because of reasons. These reasons are the beneficial utilities of their belief - Peace, Comfort, Meaning, etc...

To me, this shows not that the belief is reasonable in itself, only the act of believing in it. The belief then, is nothing more than a placebo willingly swallowed to relieve the aches & pains of our frightening existence.

By this philosophy any belief is reasonable if it makes you feel good. Just because you can rationalize your beliefs, it doesn't make them rational.

Only if you assume the belief is false and has no inherent values. By definition a placebo only works in ways you believe it will work. You assume that there is no inherent good in the belief, and generally insinuate it's false, something you can't know.

Assuming they are false is no more valid than assuming they are true. I recognize that my leap of faith. You mask yours. Which of us is being more rational.

Isn't a leap of faith in itself necessarily unreasonable?

Nope. Isn't a leap of faith necessarily reasonable?

(See I can just make presumptive questions with no actual substance as well. Let me know when you've got something to discuss.)

Only if you assume the belief is false and has no inherent values.

No. Whether it is true or false makes no difference. Most often, the reasons given for a belief are the benefits gained through believing. If your reasons for believing don't fall into this catagory, then it doesn't apply to you.

But I bet they do. These inherent values you talk about - what are they? Are they beneficial to you any way? Do they make you sleep better at night? Do they give you any comfort?

By definition a placebo only works in ways you believe it will work. You assume that there is no inherent good in the belief, and generally insinuate it's false, something you can't know.

Then I guess I should buy every quack cure-all advertised on TV. Because I just can't know if they work or not. If I assume they're probably snake-oil, well that's a pretty big leap of faith, I guess.


Assuming they are false is no more valid than assuming they are true. I recognize that my leap of faith. You mask yours. Which of us is being more rational.

I am, of course. It is not a leap of faith to fail to believe in something that is, on it's face, quite unbelievable. You make a conscious decision to believe in a magical creature. I don't. I actually find the whole thing a bit silly. I know my life would be easier if I believed in magic crearures and cosmic plans - but I just can't take a leap that huge. Not taking the leap doesn't mean I leaped in the opposite direction - and I think you know that already.

Then who created the creator to get things going in your "theory"?

Then who created the creator to get things going in your "theory"?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am so sick of the assertion that non-belief requires a leap of faith. It doesn't.

Let me ilustrate this with an example. Gartref, Jocabia and Fass are stting around the dorm room and Straughn rushes in, drunk off his ass. He proceeds to tell us a slurred story about a movie he saw tonight. He went to see "The Other Boleyn Girl" and he claims there is a 10 minute hot all-nude lesbian sex scene between Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson.

Well I want to believe very badly. It is in my best interest to believe. Believing this would improve my life greatly. So even though it sounds far-fetched. I believe it.

Fass, on the other hand, doesn't believe it, because it's totally unbelievable. First off, they play sisters in that movie. Second, he thinks Natalie Portman would probably not do that scene even though Scarlett would. And finally, Fass just doesn't care because it doesn't really matter a whole lot to him.

Jocabia is neutral on the whole story. He announces that he finds it a bit far-fetched but can't know for sure that it's B.S. until he has proof. Then he leaves to report Straughn for being drunk in the dorm.


So you see, any story is either true or false - two choices.

But your belief in that story has three choices - Believing, denying or neutral(not believing but also not denying the possibility)

I hope this settles the issue. :)

I am so sick of the assertion that non-belief requires a leap of faith. It doesn't.

Let me ilustrate this with an example. Gartref, Jocabia and Fass are stting around the dorm room and Straughn rushes in, drunk off his ass. He proceeds to tell us a slurred story about a movie he saw tonight. He went to see "The Other Boleyn Girl" and he claims there is a 10 minute hot all-nude lesbian sex scene between Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson.

Well I want to believe very badly. It is in my best interest to believe. Believing this would improve my life greatly. So even though it sounds far-fetched. I believe it.

Fass, on the other hand, doesn't believe it, because it's totally unbelievable. First off, they play sisters in that movie. Second, he thinks Natalie Portman would probably not do that scene even though Scarlett would. And finally, Fass just doesn't care because it doesn't really matter a whole lot to him.

Jocabia is neutral on the whole story. He announces that he finds it a bit far-fetched but can't know for sure that it's B.S. until he has proof. Then he leaves to report Straughn for being drunk in the dorm.


So you see, any story is either true or false - two choices.

But your belief in that story has three choices - Believing, denying or neutral(not believing but also not denying the possibility)

I hope this settles the issue. :)

I can't sig this post (Not enough space). However, I have noted it.

I can't sig this post (Not enough space). However, I have noted it.

Drats! I never get sigged! :p

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

First, you are assuming that Newtonian physics accurately describes the first second of the universe, which we know is not the case.

Second, you fail to even understand fully Newtonian physics. Things do not move because something hits them, they move because a force is exerted on them. Two stationary particles are perfectly able to exert forces on each other.

Third, how the hell is that a proof? A proof requires that a procedure that can show the failure of a hypothesis does not do so within statistical confidence.

First of all Posi you clearly have not read what hes saying carefully because he never says that something actually "hits" them - he's saying a force is exerted on them, exactly what you're saying.

Second, your comment about a "proof" is totally unfounded, as he is speaking on theory originating from that which he thinks is already established. There is such a thing as theoretical physics. Einstein did quite a bit of it.

However, you do have a point about Newtonian Mechanics being an approximation good for normal life but not neccesarily that descriptive, especially since in this case no good limit relationship has been established.

I am so sick of the assertion that non-belief requires a leap of faith. It doesn't.

Let me ilustrate this with an example. Gartref, Jocabia and Fass are stting around the dorm room and Straughn rushes in, drunk off his ass. He proceeds to tell us a slurred story about a movie he saw tonight. He went to see "The Other Boleyn Girl" and he claims there is a 10 minute hot all-nude lesbian sex scene between Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson.

Well I want to believe very badly. It is in my best interest to believe. Believing this would improve my life greatly. So even though it sounds far-fetched. I believe it.

Fass, on the other hand, doesn't believe it, because it's totally unbelievable. First off, they play sisters in that movie. Second, he thinks Natalie Portman would probably not do that scene even though Scarlett would. And finally, Fass just doesn't care because it doesn't really matter a whole lot to him.

Jocabia is neutral on the whole story. He announces that he finds it a bit far-fetched but can't know for sure that it's B.S. until he has proof. Then he leaves to report Straughn for being drunk in the dorm.


So you see, any story is either true or false - two choices.

But your belief in that story has three choices - Believing, denying or neutral(not believing but also not denying the possibility)

I hope this settles the issue. :)

You're assuming a very visual and open basis for disbelief - as in you have literally seen it with your own eyes, heard it from your own eyes, and it was completely a social, intuitive relationship. There are many things for which this is not the case.

Drats! I never get sigged! :p

Alright, alright. (Sigs)

You're assuming a very visual and open basis for disbelief - as in you have literally seen it with your own eyes, heard it from your own eyes, and it was completely a social, intuitive relationship. There are many things for which this is not the case.

i think not.

there is far less of a (already non-existent) leap to not believing in something that cant be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, tested for, or scientifically hypothesized about.

You're assuming a very visual and open basis for disbelief - as in you have literally seen it with your own eyes, heard it from your own eyes, and it was completely a social, intuitive relationship. There are many things for which this is not the case.

I guess I would need an example of what your talking about to understand what you're saying. My visual circuits are a bit fried from thinking of my previous example.

Alright, alright. (Sigs)

Hurray!!!!!!! :D

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.

This is one of the "proofs" Thomas Aquinas had for God. As a theist, I find it unconvincing.
First, it is unclear what is meant by "God." Is it the Abrahamic God of Christianity? The Distant Clockmaker of Deism? The Brahma of Hinduism? I saw on Nova that some theoretical physicists believe the Big Bang may have been triggered by extradimensional, colliding branes. (The physicists said it, not me.) Would that be considered God?
Second, many things in the universe appear to happen with no source. Particles zoom in and out of existence, or turn into pure energy. The assumption that everything requires a mover is logical and self-apparent, but that does not mean it is true.
Finally, I personally find it a little insulting to use God as a catch-all, as an easy answer to difficult questions. That's my personal objection to the argument, but I think it fits with how most theists view God. He should bring forth more questions, not just answer all existing ones.

i think not.

there is far less of a (already non-existent) leap to not believing in something that cant be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, tested for, or scientifically hypothesized about.

Well said. The people that put forth this argument keep asserting a false dilemna. They are excluding the middle ground. They admit they are taking a leap of faith in believing something without any evidence. They want to lessen the irrationality of this position by saying non-belief is also a leap of faith. But this would apply only to those who steadfastly deny the possibility of the divine, not those who just simply don't believe in the divine.

I believe for many the omission of the middle is willful.

Either that, or they just can't grasp the idea that one can choose to not leap forward and not to leap backward - but instead just stand there smiling, saying "WTF?"

Well said. The people that put forth this argument keep asserting a false dilemna. They are excluding the middle ground. They admit they are taking a leap of faith in believing something without any evidence. They want to lessen the irrationality of this position by saying non-belief is also a leap of faith. But this would apply only to those who steadfastly deny the possibility of the divine, not those who just simply don't believe in the divine.

I believe for many the omission of the middle is willful.

Either that, or they just can't grasp the idea that one can choose to not leap forward and not to leap backward - but instead just stand there smiling, saying "WTF?"

i dont consider the steadfast denial of the divine to be a leap of faith either. there is something going on in the head of someone who feels the need to deny and belittle the faith of others but leaping doesnt seem to me to be a good name for it.

i dont consider the steadfast denial of the divine to be a leap of faith either. there is something going on in the head of someone who feels the need to deny and belittle the faith of others but leaping doesnt seem to me to be a good name for it.

I guess I'd have to be on Jocabia's side on this one.

I think a person that steadfastly denies even the possibility of the divine is making a leap. They have consciously decided to believe something that they know is unprovable and unknowable.

i already belive in god. there has to be something out there responsible for everything. this in and of itself does not make me belive more.

People like you think there is a beginning when there might not be. You want things to be defined; you want a black and a white. In truth, it's more ilkely that the universe is just an endless cycle that repeats itself over and over and always has. There is no beginning. There is no end.

Force is caused by energy. Things have potential energy that can become kinetic and apply a force.

I guess I'd have to be on Jocabia's side on this one.

:eek:


Perhaps there is a God!

The OP doesn't know shit about anything. And by anything I mean physics. And by physics I mean makin' love to a woman.

The OP doesn't know shit about anything. And by anything I mean physics. And by physics I mean makin' love to a woman.

You win the thread.

The OP doesn't know shit about anything. And by anything I mean physics. And by physics I mean makin' love to a woman.

That is so mean. You just made me spit up my tea. :p

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true, rather than what the evidence shows to be likely or possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring universe that will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, we will pin all of our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore, he must exist.

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true, rather than what the evidence shows to be likely or possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring universe that will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, we will pin all of our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore, he must exist.

It's much easier to understand the man-made concepts of spirituality and religion if you view them not as abstract creations out of reality, but instead as products of the material relations and conditions of the time. Thus religion in the ancient times and feudal times is much different to religion in modernity. Maybe when humanity was dying of common diseases, with an atrocious lifespan, with all that religion was the only consoling thing.

No. Whether it is true or false makes no difference. Most often, the reasons given for a belief are the benefits gained through believing. If your reasons for believing don't fall into this catagory, then it doesn't apply to you.

Sure mine include that. It's also why I went to the movies tonight. That's doesn't make the movies a placebo. The positive effects of believing are only
placebos if it's some sort of trick. And for it to be some sort of trick, it has to be false. If I don't have valid reasons for believing penecillin will cure my illnesses but it does, it's still not a placebo.


But I bet they do. These inherent values you talk about - what are they? Are they beneficial to you any way? Do they make you sleep better at night? Do they give you any comfort?

All of those things, but not just those things. Again, I think you don't know what a placebo is.

Meanwhile, I didn't start believing and I don't keep believing for the reasons you state. Those are just advantages of my faith. Then again, I'm comforted by my knowledge of evolution and gravity, actually. It's not why I believe in them either. How comforting something is has little to do with how much or little emperical evidence it has. I find my beliefs comforting because I believe they're right, and because I'm comfortable continuing to examine them, not the other way around (believing they're right because they're comforting).

Your rather simplistic misunderstanding doesn't make a very good argument



Then I guess I should buy every quack cure-all advertised on TV. Because I just can't know if they work or not. If I assume they're probably snake-oil, well that's a pretty big leap of faith, I guess.

Do you think this is actually an argument? Because it's not. It's pretty much just poorly formed rhetoric.


I am, of course. It is not a leap of faith to fail to believe in something that is, on it's face, quite unbelievable. You make a conscious decision to believe in a magical creature. I don't. I actually find the whole thing a bit silly. I know my life would be easier if I believed in magic crearures and cosmic plans - but I just can't take a leap that huge. Not taking the leap doesn't mean I leaped in the opposite direction - and I think you know that already.

We're not talking about just failing to believe. You're assuming it to be false. You can claim you aren't but you've called it a placebo and compared it to snake oil. I don't make a conscious decision to believe. Making a conscious decision to believe is pretty much impossible. Conscious actions or research or analysis may lead you to believing something, but it's not a decision one makes. When did you make a conscious decision to not believe? Because it would be virtually the same impossible act.

I am so sick of the assertion that non-belief requires a leap of faith. It doesn't.

Non-belief doesn't. Saying things that assume the belief is factually incorrect does. Even I don't say things that assume my beliefs are factually correct. I believe them to be correct, but if I something I say rests on that belief, I will point it out, which is why my treatment of the question is more rational than the treatment that it's a placebo.

Religion fulfills so many psychological needs!

It can make sense of a profoundly complex universe.

It can calm the fear of death.

It can make you feel special or safe or loved.

It can satisfy your needs of justice or revenge.

It can make you money or get you laid.

It can give you instant authority without earning it.

It's pretty much the most useful thing since fire.

Like I said, rhetoric with no substance. There are many intelligent debators here. They're not going to be impressed unless they really, really want you to be right.

Painting all religious belief with your prejudice only reveals anything about you, not about the subject.

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.


Why did there have to be an original mover? Why couldn't the universe have come into being randomly? What caused the original mover to create the universe? Why does this orininal mover have to have any god-like qualities?

You really haven't made a case for anything as much as state a hypothesis.

It's much easier to understand the man-made concepts of spirituality and religion if you view them not as abstract creations out of reality, but instead as products of the material relations and conditions of the time. Thus religion in the ancient times and feudal times is much different to religion in modernity. Maybe when humanity was dying of common diseases, with an atrocious lifespan, with all that religion was the only consoling thing.

Religion fulfills so many psychological needs!

It can make sense of a profoundly complex universe.

It can calm the fear of death.

It can make you feel special or safe or loved.

It can satisfy your needs of justice or revenge.

It can make you money or get you laid.

It can give you instant authority without earning it.

It's pretty much the most useful thing since fire.

Well said. The people that put forth this argument keep asserting a false dilemna. They are excluding the middle ground. They admit they are taking a leap of faith in believing something without any evidence. They want to lessen the irrationality of this position by saying non-belief is also a leap of faith. But this would apply only to those who steadfastly deny the possibility of the divine, not those who just simply don't believe in the divine.

I believe for many the omission of the middle is willful.

Either that, or they just can't grasp the idea that one can choose to not leap forward and not to leap backward - but instead just stand there smiling, saying "WTF?"

And there's the flaw. You're doing it again. What I said is that assuming it's false requires non-belief. Simply treating it as if you have not knowledge of whether it's true or not is the only position that does not require a leap of faith.

Even your example betrays you. You use an example where the claim is something you can actually apply your world knowledge to. You have no knowledge that you can actually apply to the existence of a God or god(s). None. By their very nature, you cannot know what does and does not apply to them. You have very real knowledge about Natalie Portman, and as such, have a basis for a claim for saying that I'm wrong or deluded.

Religion fulfills so many psychological needs!

It can make sense of a profoundly complex universe.

It can calm the fear of death.

It can make you feel special or safe or loved.

It can satisfy your needs of justice or revenge.

It can make you money or get you laid.

It can give you instant authority without earning it.

It's pretty much the most useful thing since fire.
As Christopher Hitchens once said, there are the three 'S's of religion, self-pity, self-hatred and self-righteousness.

Sure mine include that. It's also why I went to the movies tonight. That's doesn't make the movies a placebo. The positive effects of believing are only placebos if it's some sort of trick. And for it to be some sort of trick, it has to be false. If I don't have valid reasons for believing penecillin will cure my illnesses but it does, it's still not a placebo.

Are you intentionally missing the point? It doesn't matter one whit whether the thing you believe in is true or not. The benefits are derived from your act of believing. In that way, the placebo is a perfect analogy. In your case, you can counter this by claiming that your beliefs don't fall in this catagory - which is exactly what you do here:



All of those things, but not just those things. Again, I think you don't know what a placebo is...

I would challenge you to actually provide an example of the inherent values of your faith that are not "just those things" that provide you a benefit. Merely re-questioning my understanding of the word placebo is a sham of an argument and you know it. ;) Your penecillin argument only makes sense if the values you espouse don't emenate from the act of believing.

Which is what you ultimately claim here:

It's not why I believe in them either. How comforting something is has little to do with how much or little emperical evidence it has. I find my beliefs comforting because I believe they're right, and because I'm comfortable continuing to examine them, not the other way around (believing they're right because they're comforting).

Your rather simplistic misunderstanding doesn't make a very good argument

So round & round we go. Are you now saying your belief is based on "emperical evidence" ??? Or are you going to continue to be vague on this? If you have some reasonable reason for your belief that is one of those non-wishful thinking inherent values you claim to have, then by all means tell me. I'll gladly exempt you from my simplistic generalizations. :)

Do you think this is actually an argument? Because it's not. It's pretty much just poorly formed rhetoric.

Wow. Either you're really tired or just grasping at straws. This kind of lazy attack is something I thought beneath you. Take the effort or just give it up.


We're not talking about just failing to believe. You're assuming it to be false. You can claim you aren't but you've called it a placebo and compared it to snake oil. I don't make a conscious decision to believe. Making a conscious decision to believe is pretty much impossible. Conscious actions or research or analysis may lead you to believing something, but it's not a decision one makes. When did you make a conscious decision to not believe? Because it would be virtually the same impossible act.

This contradicts much of what you said before and pretty much the entire point of the discussion. You are now claiming that you never made the leap of faith. That a leap was never needed. That you never made a conscious decision to believe.

This whole discussion started when you said my leap in not believing was the same as yours in believing. Now you claim no leap was necessary for either of us. Well I guess that's one way to end an argument. Completely drop the initial bone of contention. :D

Non-belief doesn't. Saying things that assume the belief is factually incorrect does. Even I don't say things that assume my beliefs are factually correct. I believe them to be correct, but if I something I say rests on that belief, I will point it out, which is why my treatment of the question is more rational than the treatment that it's a placebo.

Then we are mostly in agreement. You seem to only now have a problem with my placebo analogy. Let me be clear. I am not assuming the belief is factually incorrect. For the placebo analogy this is completely irrelevent if the benefits of belief come not from the belief itself - but the act of believing it.

And there's the flaw. You're doing it again. What I said is that assuming it's false requires non-belief. Simply treating it as if you have not knowledge of whether it's true or not is the only position that does not require a leap of faith.

I don't see this as a flaw in my argument - rather a pretty profound difference of opinion.

You say "assuming it's false requires non-belief"

Agreed.

You then make an assumption of the reverse. That non-belief requires assuming it's false.

We both agree that no knowledge either way requires no leap.

Our only disagreement then lies in your automatic assumption that non-belief requires assuming it's false. I don't see it that way and I suspect this is the key issue and the rest is all semantics. If we could resolve this logically we would have something.

I am very interested in knowing the logic in your assumption of the reverse.

Are you intentionally missing the point? It doesn't matter one whit whether the thing you believe in is true or not. The benefits are derived from your act of believing. In that way, the placebo is a perfect analogy. In your case, you can counter this by claiming that your beliefs don't fall in this catagory - which is exactly what you do here:

Um, see, this is what you don't get. You are ASSUMING the benefits are gained from the act of believing. It's certainly possible that some beliefs are comforting BECAUSE they are true, not simply because they are believed. I would find taking a drug I knew worked for an illness I had pretty comforting. I might even say that the comfort I feel is one of the reasons I like the drug. However, it wouldn't be a placebo unless that comfort was all I got from it.



I would challenge you to actually provide an example of the inherent values of your faith that are not "just those things" that provide you a benefit. Merely re-questioning my understanding of the word placebo is a sham of an argument and you know it. ;) Your penecillin argument only makes sense if the values you espouse don't emenate from the act of believing.

Which is what you ultimately claim here:

Like I said, which is your core assumption. That assumption presupposes that the act of believing is the only possible actor. One wonders how you could come to such a conclusion.

Meanwhile, if I could demonstrate the inherent value of my beliefs, then no leap of faith would be required. It's precisely the point that I can't that makes it a leap of faith. And that you act like because I can't that it means you're right is your leap of faith. It's an argument from ignorance and it's a very common fallacy in religion. Simply because I can't tell you the inherent value doesn't evidence that there isn't any. The only thing it evidences is my limits.


So round & round we go. Are you now saying your belief is based on "emperical evidence" ??? Or are you going to continue to be vague on this? If you have some reasonable reason for your belief that is one of those non-wishful thinking inherent values you claim to have, then by all means tell me. I'll gladly exempt you from my simplistic generalizations. :)

Uh, no. Trouble reading I'm actually claiming the opposite. The "reason" for my belief is that I believe it to be true. That's what you don't get. You have all kinds of beliefs that do not have emperical evidence, and can only be emperically valued by things like they make you happier or are mutually beneficial.

Are you going to suggest now you don't believe anything non-emperical? Cuz if you are, this gonna be fun. And if you're not, you're being completely disingenuous. Which way do you wanna play it, because either way, you're gonna lose.



Wow. Either you're really tired or just grasping at straws. This kind of lazy attack is something I thought beneath you. Take the effort or just give it up.

You amuse me. Reread what you wrote and point to the substance. I'll wait. It was just nonsense.


This contradicts much of what you said before and pretty much the entire point of the discussion. You are now claiming that you never made the leap of faith. That a leap was never needed. That you never made a conscious decision to believe.

Leaps of faith are conscious decisions? What? I'm not claiming I never made a leap of faith. I'm claiming that it wasn't a choice. I examined various things and ended up believing something to be true. I recognize that a leap of faith is inherent in that belief. When did leap of faith become 'conscious decision". Seriously, you think you can just switch non-synonyms like that and then act like I'm being inconsistent.


This whole discussion started when you said my leap in not believing was the same as yours in believing. Now you claim no leap was necessary for either of us. Well I guess that's one way to end an argument. Completely drop the initial bone of contention. :D[/QUOTE]

This discussion started when I said your leap in assuming somethiing to be false is the same as mine in believing. Actually I didn't say the same. I said it was greater. Now I claim nothing of the sort. That you conflate "leap of faith" with "conscious choice" is your flaw.

You're killing me, because you're jumping all over the place try to create a flaw. Throwing in words like "placebo" while claiming you're not assuming theirs no real substance to faith. Acting like "leap of faith" means "conscious choice". Just mixing things around and then blaming me.

In fact, you added conscious at one point to the term "leap of faith" because it needs it, since conscious has nothing to do with it. Leap of faith just means you believe something intangible and that cannot be demonstrated to be true (using demonstrated to be true to me within reason). Assuming their is no substance to faith, that it's a placebo is something that you cannot demonstrate to be true. It's a leap of faith. Worse, you don't recognize that leap of faith, which was my first claim. As such, it's necessarily not a conscious leap. Now when you say conscious decision, I take it to mean intentional, and clearly stated that it was not so much a decision as a process that simply led me to a conclusion.

I don't see this as a flaw in my argument - rather a pretty profound difference of opinion.

You say "assuming it's false requires non-belief"

I misspoke. I intended to say assuming it's false requires a leap of faith.


Agreed.

You then make an assumption of the reverse. That non-belief requires assuming it's false.

No, I don't. There you go again. I specifically acknowledged that they are two different positions. Most of your problems with my position seem to require you to change my position.



We both agree that no knowledge either way requires no leap.

Our only disagreement then lies in your automatic assumption that non-belief requires assuming it's false. I don't see it that way and I suspect this is the key issue and the rest is all semantics. If we could resolve this logically we would have something.

I am very interested in knowing the logic in your assumption of the reverse.

Quote me saying that. You entirely made that up. Even when I misspoke (though what I said is a truism), I pointed to them as seperate entities. If they weren't seperate, then what I said wouldn't have made any sense.

I've clearly pointed out that my issue that you are not demonstrating non-belief, but instead using an analogy that has an inherent belief. You believe that faith can have no intrinsic value or you couldn't call it a placebo. That's not non-belief. It's assuming it's false. They are not the same thing and it's been the crux of the argument.

Then we are mostly in agreement. You seem to only now have a problem with my placebo analogy. Let me be clear. I am not assuming the belief is factually incorrect. For the placebo analogy this is completely irrelevent if the benefits of belief come not from the belief itself - but the act of believing it.

It assumes that none of the benefits could be an inherent value of the belief rather than the act. It's an assumption and it rests on an idea with no evidence.

*big snip* Now when you say conscious decision, I take it to mean intentional, and clearly stated that it was not so much a decision as a process that simply led me to a conclusion.

I'm not taking a side here, but this part kind of lost me a little bit.

The American Heritage Dictionary (certainly not the almight binding source document) gives one definition of decision as "The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind".

It kind of feels to me like the central barrier to agreement here might be in the nuance of language itself, rather than the ideas it conveys (if such a distinction can be cleanly drawn).

The leap of faith is unconscious? It that to say, in some way instinctive?

Or that less reflects your deliberate intentions and more some kind of autonomous impetus?

I'm so lost, I'm going back to just being sarcastic about this...

Like I said, rhetoric with no substance. There are many intelligent debators here. They're not going to be impressed unless they really, really want you to be right.

Painting all religious belief with your prejudice only reveals anything about you, not about the subject.


I missed this earlier - it was all warpy.

I listed several statements about the utility of religion. Do you disagree with any single one of them????

Can you refute any of them?

Did they not specifically show the versatile utility of religion?

You did nothing but disparage - exactly who is lacking substance here? Your standard tricks of derision don't impress me, Jocabia. :)

I'm not taking a side here, but this part kind of lost me a little bit.

The American Heritage Dictionary (certainly not the almight binding source document) gives one definition of decision as "The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one's mind".

It kind of feels to me like the central barrier to agreement here might be in the nuance of language itself, rather than the ideas it conveys (if such a distinction can be cleanly drawn).

The leap of faith is unconscious? It that to say, in some way instinctive?

Or that less reflects your deliberate intentions and more some kind of autonomous impetus?

I'm so lost, I'm going back to just being sarcastic about this...

It's a difference in the essence of what you're talking about. You don't decide to like vanilla ice cream. You just like vanilla ice cream. Now you may have gathered evidence along the way, by trying other flavors, but you just like vanilla.

I'm not suggesting something as inherent as flavor, but it gets to the core of it. I can't decide to believe God doesn't exist or decide to stop believe God exists. By the nature of faith, you can't make yourself have it. You simply examine your understanding and what you feel is right. But you can't control much of that. It's just a gathering of information of sorts. A clarification. It's complicated, and my explanation of how I got to my current faith takes chapters, but the long and the short is that to call it a decision is to suggest that people decide to like vanilla ice cream.

I missed this earlier - it was all warpy.

I listed several statements about the utility of religion. Do you disagree with any single one of them????

Can you refute any of them?

Did they not specifically show the versatile utility of religion?

You did nothing but disparage - exactly who is lacking substance here? Your standard tricks of derision don't impress me, Jocabia. :)
When you try to describe "religion" in the way you do, it's prejudice. It's necessarily unreasonable. I can't disagree with any single one of them, mostly because they would apply to some religions and not to others, but the nature of the vast differences in religous beliefs both in substance and in intensity. Thus for every one of them, there's certainly a religious example that refutes them and another that supports them

It assumes that none of the benefits could be an inherent value of the belief rather than the act. It's an assumption and it rests on an idea with no evidence.

Biology is not my field, I've spent more time in solid state physics, so I'm going to need to understand this placebo idea better.

Placebos are used in double-blind studies so that neither the researchers nor the subjects know until after who received the experimental substance and who didn't, I think I understand that part.

But is part of the reason also to control for the possibility of subjects reporting an imagined or psychosomatic response, which given the pervasive impact of mental state on the immunoresponse, might throw off the study?

So, if such a response were to be positive, and associated with belief rather than a medication, is it possible that the dynamic might be called intrinsic to belief when held in the context of belief as the acting mechanism? Yet, that mechanism, in that it comes to bear via somewhat abstract (yet neurochemically potent) venues, is in some ways similar to a "placebo"?

Placebo comes from the root for placid or peaceful?

It's a difference in the essence of what you're talking about. You don't decide to like vanilla ice cream. You just like vanilla ice cream. Now you may have gathered evidence along the way, by trying other flavors, but you just like vanilla.

I'm not suggesting something as inherent as flavor, but it gets to the core of it. I can't decide to believe God doesn't exist or decide to stop believe God exists. By the nature of faith, you can't make yourself have it. You simply examine your understanding and what you feel is right. But you can't control much of that. It's just a gathering of information of sorts. A clarification. It's complicated, and my explanation of how I got to my current faith takes chapters, but the long and the short is that to call it a decision is to suggest that people decide to like vanilla ice cream.

Hmmm...the only thing I don't like about the flavor comparison is that attraction to a flavor seems to me a bit more capricious, and I believe your faith is less arbitrary than that, but I think I sort of understand.

If one wanted to make an examination of the heuristics involved in how we choose flavors, I would guess much of it takes place below the conscious level, so I think I get that part a little better now.

My concern is, there is some research that indicates that proclivity towards certain flavors may serve an evolutionary purpose, whether to avoid pathogenic substances, or to insure sufficiency of a given nutrient. Gartref has cited benefits that religion might have...could they also be something that one hungers for?

Not stating any of this as fact, honestly just asking.

Biology is not my field, I've spent more time in solid state physics, so I'm going to need to understand this placebo idea better.

Placebos are used in double-blind studies so that neither the researchers nor the subjects know until after who received the experimental substance and who didn't, I think I understand that part.

But is part of the reason also to control for the possibility of subjects reporting an imagined or psychosomatic response, which given the pervasive impact of mental state on the immunoresponse, might throw off the study?

So, if such a response were to be positive, and associated with belief rather than a medication, is it possible that the dynamic might be called intrinsic to belief when held in the context of belief as the acting mechanism? Yet, that mechanism, in that it comes to bear via somewhat abstract (yet neurochemically potent) venues, is in some ways similar to a "placebo"?

Placebo comes from the root for placid or peaceful?

Sort of. The point is that the result, the response is from your psychology. So if you see the same results in the placebo, which is assumed to only have psychosomatic value, (meaning there is no true substance to it), then your results are considered to be a failure. In essence in calling the effect of religion a placebo it assumes it has not substantive value other than the one that is psychosomatic.

Hmmm...the only thing I don't like about the flavor comparison is that attraction to a flavor seems to me a bit more capricious, and I believe your faith is less arbitrary than that, but I think I sort of understand.

Well, my faith is subject to reason, and by that I mean there is evidence that would make my faith change. In fact, it's happened many times. I can't imagine a bit of evidence that would make me stop liking vanilla.


If one wanted to make an examination of the heuristics involved in how we choose flavors, I would guess much of it takes place below the conscious level, so I think I get that part a little better now.

My concern is, there is some research that indicates that proclivity towards certain flavors may serve an evolutionary purpose, whether to avoid pathogenic substances, or to insure sufficiency of a given nutrient. Gartref has cited benefits that religion might have...could they also be something that one hungers for?

Not stating any of this as fact, honestly just asking.

Oh, sure. Absolutely. And you could certainly show that there are some psychosomatic properties to religion. You'd still be unable to say that they all are. There are non-placebos with psychosomatic properties. I can give you a functioning drug and it could affect you differently based on your position on whether it will work or not. Neither would make it a placebo.

Sort of. The point is that the result, the response is from your psychology. So if you see the same results in the placebo, which is assumed to only have psychosomatic value, (meaning there is no true substance to it), then your results are considered to be a failure. In essence in calling the effect of religion a placebo it assumes it has not substantive value other than the one that is psychosomatic.

Well...the psychosomatic one isn't small, frankly. From a pragmatic standpoint, it might speak to why the dozens or hundreds of religions (not just whatever the True one might be) have persisted.

I'm joining the Raelians for a month! Maybe.

Like I said, which is your core assumption. That assumption presupposes that the act of believing is the only possible actor. One wonders how you could come to such a conclusion.

Maybe it's because no one can ever seem to come up with a single example of these inherent values you keep referring to but never listing.

But I see you can explain your inability to give an example:

Simply because I can't tell you the inherent value doesn't evidence that there isn't any. The only thing it evidences is my limits.

How utterly convenient for you. Come on... can't you just give me a hint? :)

Leaps of faith are conscious decisions? What? I'm not claiming I never made a leap of faith. I'm claiming that it wasn't a choice. I examined various things and ended up believing something to be true. I recognize that a leap of faith is inherent in that belief. When did leap of faith become 'conscious decision". Seriously, you think you can just switch non-synonyms like that and then act like I'm being inconsistent.

And this is the corner you have backed yourself into. The only way you can save your argument is to say that a "leap of faith" is not a conscious decision.

I've never heard of an involuntary leap. Were you sleep-leaping at the time?

How is an unconscious leap even possible? I suppose you could fall or slip, I suppose you could be pushed even. But leap unconsciously? If we are that far apart on semantics we'd best just end this now lest we need define every word.

Well, my faith is subject to reason, and by that I mean there is evidence that would make my faith change. In fact, it's happened many times. I can't imagine a bit of evidence that would make me stop liking vanilla.

What if you found out vanilla beans were actually monkey turds? No, kidding, I see your point.


Oh, sure. Absolutely. And you could certainly show that there are some psychosomatic properties to religion. You'd still be unable to say that they all are. There are non-placebos with psychosomatic properties. I can give you a functioning drug and it could affect you differently based on your position on whether it will work or not. Neither would make it a placebo.

Well, I've heard it claimed that the efficacy of psychotherapy can be bolstered or withered by the belief of the patient, but I'm not entirely sure I'm on board with saying that even a psychotropic drug can be affected in the way you describe.

On the other hand, I can't prove there isn't such a situation where some critical collection of dendrites aren't made more responsive by a certain belief.

This would be so cool to do some kind of MRI study on the neuroplasticity of sincere belief in a medication, one group of people who are totally confident, another full of utter doubters.

Course, it will all go to shit when we can only rely on self-reported data...nobody mention that in the grant request.

When you try to describe "religion" in the way you do, it's prejudice. It's necessarily unreasonable.

In the context of the discussion it certainly was not unreasonable. The utility of belief is a core issue. The fact that you are completely unable to list an inherent value of belief that falls out of this catagory is telling. So of course, it's easier for you to attack without substance than to attempt refutation.

I can't disagree with any single one of them, mostly because they would apply to some religions and not to others, but the nature of the vast differences in religous beliefs both in substance and in intensity. Thus for every one of them, there's certainly a religious example that refutes them and another that supports them

Which makes consciously cherry-picking the beliefs you want all the easier.

*snip*

Oh, sure. Absolutely. And you could certainly show that there are some psychosomatic properties to religion. You'd still be unable to say that they all are. *snip*

I hate to break topic, and I know you mentioned you couldn't really describe what these intrinsic, non-psychosomatic benefits to religion are (and I assume we're already excluding tangible but not "holy" benefits like business contacts, social contacts, etc),

but since I'm trying out religion this month, could you at least elaborate a little (not to any precise point, I mean) what these benefits are?

I don't want to have them but miss them.

Do these intrinsic benefits only go to those who practice a specific religion?

I don't see this as a flaw in my argument - rather a pretty profound difference of opinion.

You say "assuming it's false requires non-belief"

I misspoke. I intended to say assuming it's false requires a leap of faith.

You then make an assumption of the reverse. That non-belief requires assuming it's false.

No, I don't. There you go again. I specifically acknowledged that they are two different positions. Most of your problems with my position seem to require you to change my position.
Our only disagreement then lies in your automatic assumption that non-belief requires assuming it's false. I don't see it that way and I suspect this is the key issue and the rest is all semantics. If we could resolve this logically we would have something.

I am very interested in knowing the logic in your assumption of the reverse.

Quote me saying that. You entirely made that up. Even when I misspoke (though what I said is a truism), I pointed to them as seperate entities. If they weren't seperate, then what I said wouldn't have made any sense.

I didn't say you said it. I said you assumed it. That seemed evident from your argument. But you say you misspoke - so maybe I was wrong that you made that assumption. Instead of all the assuming that's going on... why not just take an actual position on it? Do you think that non-belief requires assuming the belief is false? Can you be a non-believer but not deny the possibility of the belief in question?

I didn't say you said it. I said you assumed it. That seemed evident from your argument. But you say you misspoke - so maybe I was wrong that you made that assumption. Instead of all the assuming that's going on... why not just take an actual position on it? Do you think that non-belief requires assuming the belief is false? Can you be a non-believer but not deny the possibility of the belief in question?

Even considering that I misspoke, your assumption was based on nothing. I did take an actual position.

No, I recognize that non-belief and believe something is false are two different positions. One might even think I've said that before. Craziness.

You: You then make an assumption of the reverse. That non-belief requires assuming it's false.
Me: No, I don't. There you go again. I specifically acknowledged that they are two different positions.

Ask me again in ten minutes though. That won't make it look you aren't actually reading my posts at all.

My problem is that your claim of non-belief is challenged by your accusation that religion is a placebo which is a claim without evidence, a leap of faith, a belief. It is also undermined by your posts broad-brushing religions revealing your prejudice and lack of understanding of the nature of religion in general. The broad-brushing is suggestive. The placebo claim leads to only two possible conclusions, you are ignorant on the subject of placebos and misused the term, or you believe there can be no actual value to religious belief. Choose.

Maybe it's because no one can ever seem to come up with a single example of these inherent values you keep referring to but never listing.

But I see you can explain your inability to give an example:

How utterly convenient for you. Come on... can't you just give me a hint? :) [/QUOTE]

Like I said, most of your argument center around your lack of understanding. Yes, shockingly a subject that by its nature MUST be intangible is intangible. Who knew? You do know what leap of faith means, yeah?

So my examples would be their nature be vague and nothing I could demonstrate. You'd just make assumptions, like you already have about their sources, because my vagueness would allow you to add your interpretation, something you've proven willing to do even when I've been utterly clear. You've already demonstrated that you're assuming psychosomatic causes. And since you're assuming that without evidence, how could adding anything to your list change that?



And this is the corner you have backed yourself into. The only way you can save your argument is to say that a "leap of faith" is not a conscious decision.

Okay, seriously, I'm trying to be patient, but frankly, I'm calling you out. What "corner" am in? I challenged your use of placebo. You were wrong on it. Placebos by their very nature have no actual value to the person other than psychosomatic. I called you out on your assumption and you squirmed. But I'm in a "corner"?

Now you consistently demonstrate you don't know what a leap of faith is and you're going to to suggest your lack of understanding is my "corner"

I caught you fallaciously broad-brushing religion and I'm in the "corner", right?

Let's play a game where every term you use is one you know the definition of. They have online dictionaries now.


I've never heard of an involuntary leap. Were you sleep-leaping at the time?

How is an unconscious leap even possible? I suppose you could fall or slip, I suppose you could be pushed even. But leap unconsciously? If we are that far apart on semantics we'd best just end this now lest we need define every word.

So now to further demonstrate your lack of understanding you're going to rest that a turn of phrase must be literal? I've never heard of a leap that didn't involve physical jumping. Have you ever tried mind-leaping? Can your mind leap? Clearly leaps of faith are impossible? Or possible it's a colorful phrase that isn't the sum of it's components exactly.

Now, let's see if you're being honest here. Hmmm... now if only I could find you feeling the need to clarify you were speaking to a conscious leap of faith, rather than just a leap of faith in general.

People make a conscious leap of faith to believe because of reasons.

Is that like saying people drive a car with wheels or a horizontal bed? Once I dated a female woman. See when people add a word to their description of something, it's generally because it's possible for that something to exist without that description. Who knew?

I hate to break topic, and I know you mentioned you couldn't really describe what these intrinsic, non-psychosomatic benefits to religion are (and I assume we're already excluding tangible but not "holy" benefits like business contacts, social contacts, etc),

but since I'm trying out religion this month, could you at least elaborate a little (not to any precise point, I mean) what these benefits are?

I don't want to have them but miss them.

Do these intrinsic benefits only go to those who practice a specific religion?

Frankly, I don't believe you can choose a faith. So it's really not important.

But, hey, let's assume I believed that having faith caused you to go to heaven and not having it would make you go to hell. Psychosomatic? Nope. Is it a benefit, depends on what those places were, but given the general belief about them, the benefit is pretty obvious. It's not testable. It's not psychosomatic and it may or may not exist. If that religion were correct, it would certainly not be a plecebo.

Now we could discuss whether any of us believes that belief is correct, but in the end the only way to conclude it isn't is a leap of faith.

What if you found out vanilla beans were actually monkey turds? No, kidding, I see your point.



Well, I've heard it claimed that the efficacy of psychotherapy can be bolstered or withered by the belief of the patient, but I'm not entirely sure I'm on board with saying that even a psychotropic drug can be affected in the way you describe.

Why not? It's shown that that your state of mind can affect your overall health. And certainly your physical state can affect a psychotropic drug.


On the other hand, I can't prove there isn't such a situation where some critical collection of dendrites aren't made more responsive by a certain belief.

This would be so cool to do some kind of MRI study on the neuroplasticity of sincere belief in a medication, one group of people who are totally confident, another full of utter doubters.

Course, it will all go to shit when we can only rely on self-reported data...nobody mention that in the grant request.

Actually, I'm certain you'd discover that it's been studied. I think I may have even read something on that. There has been some thorough research on psychosomatic effects.

I'm joining the Raelians for a month! Maybe.What a bullshit :rolleyes:

Something I've learned:

If anything in our universe moves, it does so because of it's orginal mover, that is, the force that has made the hypothetical object move.

The existence of dependent motion in our universe leads us inexorably back to the existence of a being whose motion could not depend on something else, a being that has to be unlike anything we know in our own universe. Or, to put this in other terms, the existence of motion in our unvierse requires the existence of a being that is unlike anything in our unverse.

Thus, a type of God must exist.

Refute.


Ah, the 'Unmoved Mover' argument. Richard Dawkins in Chapter 3 of his book, 'The God Delusion' is able to argue against this idea. Set aside the fact that this relies on the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to regress, or that this unmoved mover has any of the properties of God, (note that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible together, as the rhyme below shows), there is also Edward Lear's Nonsensical recipe which involves 'cutting strips of bacon into the smallest pieces possible, and then cutting them up some more'. Plenty of things have existence without infinite regress, as many physical objects soon become nothing more that atoms or molecules - cut them down any further, and they cease to be what they originally were. There is no evidence that God is the finite regressor which answers Aquinas' arguments.

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

Even considering that I misspoke, your assumption was based on nothing. I did take an actual position.
No, I recognize that non-belief and believe something is false are two different positions. One might even think I've said that before. Craziness.

Great. We're in agreement.

You: You then make an assumption of the reverse. That non-belief requires assuming it's false.
Me: No, I don't. There you go again. I specifically acknowledged that they are two different positions.

Ask me again in ten minutes though. That won't make it look you aren't actually reading my posts at all.

So... when you flub, you simply misspoke. But when I get confused by it, I'm just not paying attention. Derision may be a replacement for argument in your religion, but it doesn't prove much to me.


My problem is that your claim of non-belief is challenged by your accusation that religion is a placebo which is a claim without evidence, a leap of faith, a belief. It is also undermined by your posts broad-brushing religions revealing your prejudice and lack of understanding of the nature of religion in general. The broad-brushing is suggestive. The placebo claim leads to only two possible conclusions, you are ignorant on the subject of placebos and misused the term, or you believe there can be no actual value to religious belief. Choose.

Since we now agree on everything else, I guess the only bone of contention is the placebo analogy I made.

So let's break it down...

My problem is that your claim of non-belief is challenged by your accusation that religion is a placebo which is a claim without evidence, a leap of faith, a belief.

No. It isn't a claim with out evidence - it's simply an analogy. And a damned good one if you ask me. All the benefits I have ever heard concerning religion stem not from the belief, but from the believing. I have given you numerous opportunities to provide me with an example that shatters the analogy - but you either can't or won't. Again - provide me with an intrinsic value or admit the relevence of the analogy.

It is also undermined by your posts broad-brushing religions revealing your prejudice and lack of understanding of the nature of religion in general. The broad-brushing is suggestive.

Again, a blanket attack with no substance. You say I'm prejudiced and lack understanding of religion - but you never refute the comments in question. I am assuming here that you are talking about my arguments of utility that so irritated you. I hate to assume that, given your slippery nature - but I think that's what you're talking about. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll again deride my reading comprehension... :D

The placebo claim leads to only two possible conclusions, you are ignorant on the subject of placebos and misused the term, or you believe there can be no actual value to religious belief. Choose.

You are in love with the false dilemna, aren't you? :)

Until you shatter the placebo analogy with an intrinsic value, your dilemna is false. Provide me with the "actual value to religious belief" that doesn't stem from the act of believing, and I'll chuck this analogy on the ash heap and congratulate you.

Frankly, I don't believe you can choose a faith. So it's really not important.

But, hey, let's assume I believed that having faith caused you to go to heaven and not having it would make you go to hell. Psychosomatic? Nope. Is it a benefit, depends on what those places were, but given the general belief about them, the benefit is pretty obvious. It's not testable. It's not psychosomatic and it may or may not exist. If that religion were correct, it would certainly not be a plecebo.

Now we could discuss whether any of us believes that belief is correct, but in the end the only way to conclude it isn't is a leap of faith.

Wait, so, you can't choose to have faith, but you can be punished eternally for not having it? Jesus, that sucks if its true...

Back on topic, though, the critical thing on the intrinsic benefit (heaven, enlightenment, paradise, higher reincarnation, so forth) depends on picking the correct religion (or maybe one close enough, I'd imagine there exists some overlap, and even some religions where the god(s) might accept sincere efforts at the wrong religion as good enough).

I'm just going for the psychosomatic stuff on the religion I'm picking.

Like I said, most of your argument center around your lack of understanding. Yes, shockingly a subject that by its nature MUST be intangible is intangible. Who knew? You do know what leap of faith means, yeah?

So my examples would be their nature be vague and nothing I could demonstrate. You'd just make assumptions, like you already have about their sources, because my vagueness would allow you to add your interpretation, something you've proven willing to do even when I've been utterly clear. You've already demonstrated that you're assuming psychosomatic causes. And since you're assuming that without evidence, how could adding anything to your list change that?

I'm not asking you demonstrate your examples. Or explain them. I just want to know you have some. Not even some. I don't need a list. Just one little one... nothing? ...Pfft.

I challenged your use of placebo. You were wrong on it. Placebos by their very nature have no actual value to the person other than psychosomatic. I called you out on your assumption and you squirmed.

When did I squirm? I've not backed down on the analogy. I continue to defend it. Your only attack on it is derision.

I caught you fallaciously broad-brushing religion and I'm in the "corner", right?

Just asserting that I'm prejudiced and ignorant is not catching me in a fallacy, how about addressing the substance of my utility arguments instead of just lazily calling them prejudice?

Let's play a game where every term you use is one you know the definition of. They have online dictionaries now.

Useless derision. Get a grip on yourself.

Now, let's see if you're being honest here. Hmmm... now if only I could find you feeling the need to clarify you were speaking to a conscious leap of faith, rather than just a leap of faith in general.

Well considering that was in the very first post I made in this argument, I certainly wish you would have pointed out then that your leap of faith wasn't conscious. It would have saved a lot of useless bickering. Since you claimed your leap of faith was rational and you had a whole lot of reasons for it, I guess I just assumed you were talking about a conscious decision. It would have been nice if you had pointed out the distinction then -since as you point out so derisively I went to extreme levels of redundancy to make sure my meaning was clear. :D

Frankly, I don't believe you can choose a faith. So it's really not important.

But, hey, let's assume I believed that having faith caused you to go to heaven and not having it would make you go to hell. SNIP

I'm sorry, I just have to come back to this, because its the first thing on this thread that I find scary.


"You can't choose a faith", I'll buy that as a premise, I'll take it as true for sake of argument.

But to join it with "not having it would make you go to hell"? (I'm not saying you really believe this, because you stated it as an assumption, perhaps intended merely as an example of a non-placebo benefit of religion).

I find the intersection of these two ideas to be terrifying. That you can't choose a faith, but you can be tortured forever as a result of not having it?

If you can't choose it, it becomes some property or aspect that is outside your control, a priori, and to be punished (in the most superlative and profound sense of the term) for such a thing...

Since you claimed your leap of faith was rational and you had a whole lot of reasons for it, I guess I just assumed you were talking about a conscious decision. It would have been nice if you had pointed out the distinction then -since as you point out so derisively I went to extreme levels of redundancy to make sure my meaning was clear. :D

Wait, did he say he had a lot of reasons for his faith?

Because he said he doesn't believe you can choose faith, but if he assessed the reasons in a rational process, that implies conscious choice.

Hrm. Can something be both rational and unconscious? I guess its not impossible.

@Jocabia: were the reasons for your faith things that you ever perceived or evaluated in any conscious way? What were some of them?

I'm sorry, I just have to come back to this, because its the first thing on this thread that I find scary.


"You can't choose a faith", I'll buy that as a premise, I'll take it as true for sake of argument.

But to join it with "not having it would make you go to hell"? (I'm not saying you really believe this, because you stated it as an assumption, perhaps intended merely as an example of a non-placebo benefit of religion).

I find the intersection of these two ideas to be terrifying. That you can't choose a faith, but you can be tortured forever as a result of not having it?

If you can't choose it, it becomes some property or aspect that is outside your control, a priori, and to be punished (in the most superlative and profound sense of the term) for such a thing...

What the hell? Jocabia gave you an intrinsic value and you only asked once? I've been begging him all night and he's been denying me as unworthy to hear them. God Damn him! :p

What a bullshit :rolleyes:

You think Raelianism is bullshit, or you don't think I'll follow through and really join for a month?

Their proof for space aliens can't be any worse than the unmoved mover proof for God (not that God or aliens are necessarily false).

What the hell? Jocabia gave you an intrinsic value and you only asked once? I've been begging him all night and he's been denying me as unworthy to hear them. God Damn him! :p

I don't think he's being evasive, necessarily.

What frightens me, though, is that the intrinsic value he proposes depends on having faith, yet he prefaces by saying you can't choose faith.

Jhahannam pees a little just thinking about it.

I don't think he's being evasive, necessarily.

What frightens me, though, is that the intrinsic value he proposes depends on having faith, yet he prefaces by saying you can't choose faith.

Jhahannam pees a little just thinking about it.

To be fair, I think he's saying a specific faith not just general faith. But I guess either way, since leaps are unconscious, you must never be able to choose God on purpose. You just need a lucky subconscious. I guess that is pretty frightening. I'm glad I am so ignorant in the ways of religion, cause believing that would suck.

To be fair, I think he's saying a specific faith not just general faith. But I guess either way, since leaps are unconscious, you must never be able to choose God on purpose. You just need a lucky subconscious. I guess that is pretty frightening. I'm glad I am so ignorant in the ways of religion, cause believing that would suck.

If/when this continues, I'm going to ask him whether he means a specific faith or just the propensity for faith.

Either way, to have the big tamale resting on something you can't choose seems so...who are those guys, the Calvinists that don't have the free will?

When I meet Rael, I'm going to ask him whether I consciously or unconsciously choose to believe he's the half-brother of Jesus. Seriously, dude, I am.

... (not that God or aliens are necessarily false).

Or even mutually exclusive. If the Aliens invade, it will probably be in the name of God. ;)

Or even mutually exclusive. If the Aliens invade, it will probably be in the name of God. ;)

Oh, man...the Greys come down, conquer us, then build missions and worship-grottoes...and it turns out Lovecraft was their prophet sent to us....

The Raelians say aliens created us...and other aliens created them, and so back and so back.

Heehee...the aliens show up, "Hey, now that we've splattered your armies, we intend to mate with your women, vigorously. Says we're entitled, right here in our holy book."

Wait, did he say he had a lot of reasons for his faith?

Because he said he doesn't believe you can choose faith, but if he assessed the reasons in a rational process, that implies conscious choice.

Hrm. Can something be both rational and unconscious? I guess its not impossible.



Well... I think the unconscious leap might only apply to some people. It might not be a blanket restriction. In Jocabia's case, it seems, he assessed the reasons rationally, but subconsciously. The dream state is powerful and has a lot of computing power. But for those not so spiritually wired that they can believe in their sleep, I feel there has to be a way to faith that doesn't require turning off parts of your brain.

Well... I think the unconscious leap might only apply to some people. It might not be a blanket restriction. In Jocabia's case, it seems, he assessed the reasons rationally, but subconsciously. The dream state is powerful and has a lot of computing power. But for those not so spiritually wired that they can believe in their sleep, I feel there has to be a way to faith that doesn't require turning off parts of your brain.

I would hope so, because if you can't choose a faith, the mandate of various religions that their followers evangelize would seem wasted.

I get the feeling I'm not really understanding J's position, though. I'll ask him if he's around another time.

Some guy found Noah's Ark on a Mountain in Turkey or some such place.

That's my proof.

Some guy found Noah's Ark on a Mountain in Turkey or some such place.

That's my proof.

No dice.

Its well known that Some Guy tried to divide by zero on his way up the mountain, so it doesn't count as a proof.

And Lourdes and such Places.
Lourdes is hardly proof.

Then there's the fact that most historians have conceeded that Jesus existed.

And Lourdes and such Places.

Then there's the fact that most historians have conceeded that Jesus existed.

And Lourdes and such Places.


Ahh... I see the dayshift has arrived. Time for me to punch out. Good night Jhahannam. Good night Jocabia. :fluffle:

Then there's the fact that most historians have conceeded that Jesus existed.

And Lourdes and such Places.

Almost no historian would dispute that Mohammad existed.

I know for a fact Rael exists.


As for Lourdes, I put that next to Mary appearing in the Grilled Cheese.

Ahh... I see the dayshift has arrived. Time for me to punch out. Good night Jhahannam. Good night Jocabia. :fluffle:

While you are unconscious, believe.

Fade out, roll credits, cue Vangelis song.

I must say Lourdes Works.

Go and Hang around there long enough and You'll see a Miracle.

I must say Lourdes Works.

Go and Hang around there long enough and You'll see a Miracle.

What's it do, healing and the sort? Or appearances?

I knew a Lourdes that worked at Olympic Garden...she was a damn miracle...

Both.

Healing Mostly though.

Both.

Healing Mostly though.

Cool, says here on wiki that they had a kickass futbol team.

I guess I'd have to be on Jocabia's side on this one.

I think a person that steadfastly denies even the possibility of the divine is making a leap. They have consciously decided to believe something that they know is unprovable and unknowable.

i dont see it.

a "leap of faith" is to believe in the face of there being completely no proof, in the face of doubt, in the face of certain things making no sense.

what is the leap in denying that there is anything to leap to? god and faith is not the default that one must leap away from to believe something else. steadfastly denying even the possibility is more of a "gluing your feet to the ground" than leaping to anything.

Probably.

Walsingham is meant to be good for healing too.

Source? I know of several people and groups who've claimed to have found the Ark over the years and no claims have ever been substantiated.

Even if it was true (which it isn't), what would it prove? Only that there's a boat on a mountain in Turkey. It wouldn't prove anything else in the Torah, let alone the rest of the Tanach or the New Testament.

unless they find a boat AND do tests on it to make sure its at least 5000 years old (i guess it would be older but the story details arent older than that) i would assume that whatever they found there has a more recent or natural explanation.