Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
Whether or not "God" exists doesn't matter to me. Therefore, it shouldn't matter to anyone.
Now let me get back to my cloning experiments.
Now let me get back to my cloning experiments.
Although i dont like to get into this topic............. it is like trying to resolve the question of "are humans descendents of monkeys or did we originate from Adam and Eve, therefore we were created like we are now". Who knows, who cares. It all depends where and how were u raised and the religion you were exposed to when you were little.I also believe that it is a good idea to follow any religion as long as it is "a" religion (note: aside of satanicizm). There is lots of unsolved questions to which we will not get an aswear (at leas not in this life), including the "definition" of God. The main point it so believe is nomething, cuz although reincarnations is an alternative i dont think it is a good one...think about it. Life after death should be greater that what we have on earth now, coming back as a donkey, or snake, or ant..... i dont think so. The way i look at it, ...believe, life would have no meaning if you would just tun into dust, now would it.
Ohhh ya, i forgot, going back to the "God" thing. Well you can't explain this. It is there or it isnt. Its like questioning the fact why is BLACK black? Explain that to me? Or why people kill for religion, isnt that stupid. I mean no God will (or should, to hell with a God that would) ask you to kill for him, so why poeple kill? Can you explain that? Some things you leave the way they are and accept the fact that you will never know the answer to it.
Ohhh ya, i forgot, going back to the "God" thing. Well you can't explain this. It is there or it isnt. Its like questioning the fact why is BLACK black? Explain that to me? Or why people kill for religion, isnt that stupid. I mean no God will (or should, to hell with a God that would) ask you to kill for him, so why poeple kill? Can you explain that? Some things you leave the way they are and accept the fact that you will never know the answer to it.
It's amusing to me to here someone say that life has no meaning if you don't believe there is something
better after you are dead.
How about making the best of the time you have. I don't require the belief in a greater existence after
death to make my life fulfilling. For all I care I could turn to dust or become a fly.
It's all in how you look at things. I choose to live life the best I can and try to be a good person.
I couldn't care less about what happens when I die. I don't have any control over it, so why worry.
Oh, forgot. Some people do "believe" they have some control over what happens when they die.
All I can say is Good Luck.
better after you are dead.
How about making the best of the time you have. I don't require the belief in a greater existence after
death to make my life fulfilling. For all I care I could turn to dust or become a fly.
It's all in how you look at things. I choose to live life the best I can and try to be a good person.
I couldn't care less about what happens when I die. I don't have any control over it, so why worry.
Oh, forgot. Some people do "believe" they have some control over what happens when they die.
All I can say is Good Luck.
skace,
just a word of advise...
i'd remove that signature if i were you.
i don't think mods like them words here.
but if you want to keep them... who am i to say anything?
as for the the whole argument of existance of God...
the most simple one would be... what frontline said.
God is 'cause He said He is.
i guest right about now is where faith comes in to make sense out of that statement.
just a word of advise...
i'd remove that signature if i were you.
i don't think mods like them words here.
but if you want to keep them... who am i to say anything?
as for the the whole argument of existance of God...
the most simple one would be... what frontline said.
God is 'cause He said He is.
i guest right about now is where faith comes in to make sense out of that statement.
<< i guest right about now is where faith comes in to make sense out of that statement. >>
I think you mean 'blind faith'.
And I don't see how any sane, logcal being can make any 'sense' out of such a statement.
Mathematically our universe points to the existance of a God. The probability of me being in front of my comp typing this message is zero because there were literally an infinite number of "choices" that led me here from the beginning of time until now. Thus, the probability that I'm here is zero, yet I'm still here, so there must be a prime mover.
Ryan
Ryan
<< Mathematically our universe points to the existance of a God. The probability of me being in front of my comp typing this message is zero because there were literally an infinite number of "choices" that led me here from the beginning of time until now. Thus, the probability that I'm here is zero, yet I'm still here, so there must be a prime mover.
Ryan >>
If something had gone wrong during the formation of the universe, you wouldn't have typed your message. We simply wouldn't be there to witness the universe fail to form a suitable environment for us.
There can be a trillion universes besides ours, of which the multitude has failed to form a suitable environment for life, possibly because they're instable.
There doesn't have to be any supernatural forces to account for the formation of the universe, only a lot of universes.
an outstanding read if you want to hear an argument FOR God, read Mere Christianity byC.S. Lewis... a great read for agnostics...
god is largely a myth invented by organized religions to give the poor person hope, maintain order amongst said poor, and also keep said poor poor by requiring donations of income or time.
the richer you are, the less likely you are to believe in a god. the poorer you are, the more likely you are to believe.
there is no way to prove that god exists or does not. but my favorite argument against god involves the unmoveable object and the irresistable force. god got himself into trouble there.
i actually stopped believing in Christian Beliefs, a class I took in college. There is no proof, so why waste time believing one way or the other. I am not certain one way or the other.
And as to having something/someone to believe in, you already have one of those, it is called YOU.
the richer you are, the less likely you are to believe in a god. the poorer you are, the more likely you are to believe.
there is no way to prove that god exists or does not. but my favorite argument against god involves the unmoveable object and the irresistable force. god got himself into trouble there.
i actually stopped believing in Christian Beliefs, a class I took in college. There is no proof, so why waste time believing one way or the other. I am not certain one way or the other.
And as to having something/someone to believe in, you already have one of those, it is called YOU.
hey ttn 1, i didn't say just believe and screw the rest of the good (joyfull) sides of life - that is stupid. I just said that even if u were the greatest king and had the most land, or the richest man and had your monopoly, or the mosty ugly guy and still got laid with zillion of girls at the age of 74, still that all fades to the "promise" of after life - appearently, i woudn't know, have not experienced it yet.
Anyhow, do ur best in life, be good, invest your money... but it will all turn to dust sooner or later if u want it or not, and to me "ethernal life" is a better investment than a fat portfolio (although im not trying not to have one). So i believe into him and not question where "he" came from or how "he" was created..... and i can bet any money that no one will be able to answer that question to u or anyone else. My quess, your quess is as good as someone elses quess...... so i say ALL OF US ARE RIGHT!
Anyhow, do ur best in life, be good, invest your money... but it will all turn to dust sooner or later if u want it or not, and to me "ethernal life" is a better investment than a fat portfolio (although im not trying not to have one). So i believe into him and not question where "he" came from or how "he" was created..... and i can bet any money that no one will be able to answer that question to u or anyone else. My quess, your quess is as good as someone elses quess...... so i say ALL OF US ARE RIGHT!
Here we go... again.
Here is my take on it:
I don't think the argument is really about the existance of "god", it is more about the sentience of "god".
i.e.:
Something has always existed - from before the big bang, from before anything. That something also caused the big bang (rules of cause and effect). Likely, most scientists would call this "something" energy. Energy that caused the big bang and converted to matter. Basically, we arrive at an infinite amount of eternal energy that is its own cause - i.e. nothing set it in motion. From this eternal, causeless, infinite energy all life and existance is derived.
Did all the energy simultaneously cause itself to begin movement/change (to begin the process that is the big bang/great collapse?) Is this energy of the same type as dark energy (energy that we cannot observe - its the reason the universe is actually speeding up in its expansion, seemingly against the rules of physics that dictate it should slow down the more time passes from the big bang itself).
There must be one original type of energy (other than dark energy, matter, heat, etc) that was/is the primary cause of all change, events, and existance.
This primary energy is, as I mentioned above, also the cause-less cause (nothing acted upon it, yet it acted) of all existance. It is outside time, as it has always existed and will always exist. It is omnipresent, as all existance is caused or derived from it.
I believe that this omnipresent, eternal, cause-less, creating, infinite primary energy is also sentient. I call it God, and derive my belief system from that.
You believe this omnipresent, eternal, cause-less, creating, infinite primary energy is not-sentient. You do not call it God, therefore.
Its not about the existance, its about the nature.
No one has the slightest beginnings of the ability to determine the nature of this prmiary force of existance. You can only believe one way or the other.
Given that inability to observe or prove, science can make no definite ruling. Therefore one belief is no more ridiculous than the other.
To phrase it another couple of ways:
Again, its not whether God exists... its whether he is sentient.
"ex nihil, nihil fit" - Nothing Comes From Nothing.
Something has to have always existed, something outside of time, something infinite and absolute. This absolute, eternal something is the causeless causer of all existance. This causeless, eternal something is responsible for absolutes - math, truth, existance.
This something is responsible for order out of chaos.
So is this eternal, absolute, omnipotent, infinite, order creating, causeless causer sentient or not? Is it merely energy - if so is it sentient energy? Did/does it act out of will, nature, or simple existance?
I beleive that this eternal, absolute, omnipotent, infinite, order creating, causeless causer IS sentient.
Why is that so illogical and bizzare?
Another thought:
While there is of course no proof that God exists, there is most certianly rational, real, and logical evidence. My outline above is one way, and a similar thought process is as follows:
1) We exist. If you disagree with this you contradict yourself because the mere ability to disagree implies existence.
2) We are alive.
Do you understand the above two statements?
If you understood them then you have understanding - "reason".
3) There is an observable hierarchy of beings. At the low end - a rock, which simply "is" - it is only a "being". Then take a tree(a being that lives). A Dog is a being that lives, moves, and has senses.
At the top of our observable hierarchy is humans - who possess all the characteristics of the beings below us... and then also have reason.
4) Reason is what seperates us and makes us higher than all other beings.
5) But if there is anything higher on the hierarchy than humans, it would be this "god" being. <-- NOTE - If, and only if, you accept this concept can this argument continue.
6) Seven plus three is ten. Math is a fact - it is true. It isn't 10 because we want it to be, or decided it was - it just IS. It was 10 in the past, it is ten now, it always will be 10.
7) That truths like math exist are evidence that there is a level - an existance - above human reason.
8) This is evidence that such an existance - an absolute reason and existance - could be "God".
If anyone is so inclined, take a read of the following 5 theoretical proofs for the existance of God:
1) The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
2) The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
3) The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
4) The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
5) The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Anyone still awake?
Here is my take on it:
I don't think the argument is really about the existance of "god", it is more about the sentience of "god".
i.e.:
Something has always existed - from before the big bang, from before anything. That something also caused the big bang (rules of cause and effect). Likely, most scientists would call this "something" energy. Energy that caused the big bang and converted to matter. Basically, we arrive at an infinite amount of eternal energy that is its own cause - i.e. nothing set it in motion. From this eternal, causeless, infinite energy all life and existance is derived.
Did all the energy simultaneously cause itself to begin movement/change (to begin the process that is the big bang/great collapse?) Is this energy of the same type as dark energy (energy that we cannot observe - its the reason the universe is actually speeding up in its expansion, seemingly against the rules of physics that dictate it should slow down the more time passes from the big bang itself).
There must be one original type of energy (other than dark energy, matter, heat, etc) that was/is the primary cause of all change, events, and existance.
This primary energy is, as I mentioned above, also the cause-less cause (nothing acted upon it, yet it acted) of all existance. It is outside time, as it has always existed and will always exist. It is omnipresent, as all existance is caused or derived from it.
I believe that this omnipresent, eternal, cause-less, creating, infinite primary energy is also sentient. I call it God, and derive my belief system from that.
You believe this omnipresent, eternal, cause-less, creating, infinite primary energy is not-sentient. You do not call it God, therefore.
Its not about the existance, its about the nature.
No one has the slightest beginnings of the ability to determine the nature of this prmiary force of existance. You can only believe one way or the other.
Given that inability to observe or prove, science can make no definite ruling. Therefore one belief is no more ridiculous than the other.
To phrase it another couple of ways:
Again, its not whether God exists... its whether he is sentient.
"ex nihil, nihil fit" - Nothing Comes From Nothing.
Something has to have always existed, something outside of time, something infinite and absolute. This absolute, eternal something is the causeless causer of all existance. This causeless, eternal something is responsible for absolutes - math, truth, existance.
This something is responsible for order out of chaos.
So is this eternal, absolute, omnipotent, infinite, order creating, causeless causer sentient or not? Is it merely energy - if so is it sentient energy? Did/does it act out of will, nature, or simple existance?
I beleive that this eternal, absolute, omnipotent, infinite, order creating, causeless causer IS sentient.
Why is that so illogical and bizzare?
Another thought:
While there is of course no proof that God exists, there is most certianly rational, real, and logical evidence. My outline above is one way, and a similar thought process is as follows:
1) We exist. If you disagree with this you contradict yourself because the mere ability to disagree implies existence.
2) We are alive.
Do you understand the above two statements?
If you understood them then you have understanding - "reason".
3) There is an observable hierarchy of beings. At the low end - a rock, which simply "is" - it is only a "being". Then take a tree(a being that lives). A Dog is a being that lives, moves, and has senses.
At the top of our observable hierarchy is humans - who possess all the characteristics of the beings below us... and then also have reason.
4) Reason is what seperates us and makes us higher than all other beings.
5) But if there is anything higher on the hierarchy than humans, it would be this "god" being. <-- NOTE - If, and only if, you accept this concept can this argument continue.
6) Seven plus three is ten. Math is a fact - it is true. It isn't 10 because we want it to be, or decided it was - it just IS. It was 10 in the past, it is ten now, it always will be 10.
7) That truths like math exist are evidence that there is a level - an existance - above human reason.
8) This is evidence that such an existance - an absolute reason and existance - could be "God".
If anyone is so inclined, take a read of the following 5 theoretical proofs for the existance of God:
1) The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
2) The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
3) The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
4) The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
5) The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Anyone still awake?
I don't attend religous service nor hold a religious creed because they are both a waste of time. For every person who believes their faith is the right one, at least ten others are consequently wrong. That's terrible odds. That kind of stuff is best left to the craps table.
mithrandir2001:
Well thats if you pick one at random.
And 1 in 10 odds at a craps table would be pretty good, wouldn't it?
Well thats if you pick one at random.
And 1 in 10 odds at a craps table would be pretty good, wouldn't it?
"hey ttn 1, i didn't say just believe and screw the rest of the good (joyfull) sides of life - that is stupid. I just said that even if u were the greatest king and had the most land, or the richest man and had your monopoly, or the mosty ugly guy and still got laid with zillion of girls at the age of 74, still that all fades to the "promise" of after life - appearently, i woudn't know, have not experienced it yet.
Anyhow, do ur best in life, be good, invest your money... but it will all turn to dust sooner or later if u want it or not, and to me "ethernal life" is a better investment than a fat portfolio (although im not trying not to have one). So i believe into him and not question where "he" came from or how "he" was created..... and i can bet any money that no one will be able to answer that question to u or anyone else. My quess, your quess is as good as someone elses quess...... so i say ALL OF US ARE RIGHT!"
I'd say the athiest that made life better for millions of people through his/her work in a 3rd world country or an invention is 300x better than the religious person who spends his/her entire life ensuring eternal happiness for themselves.
Besides, nothing in life turns to dust, only to the truly selfish. The money you earn goes somewhere even after you die (children, government, wherever). The things you accomplish will forever change others lives whether you believe so or not. And the truly great accomplishments will never been forgotten (Inventing electricity, Healing the blind, etc)
Anyhow, do ur best in life, be good, invest your money... but it will all turn to dust sooner or later if u want it or not, and to me "ethernal life" is a better investment than a fat portfolio (although im not trying not to have one). So i believe into him and not question where "he" came from or how "he" was created..... and i can bet any money that no one will be able to answer that question to u or anyone else. My quess, your quess is as good as someone elses quess...... so i say ALL OF US ARE RIGHT!"
I'd say the athiest that made life better for millions of people through his/her work in a 3rd world country or an invention is 300x better than the religious person who spends his/her entire life ensuring eternal happiness for themselves.
Besides, nothing in life turns to dust, only to the truly selfish. The money you earn goes somewhere even after you die (children, government, wherever). The things you accomplish will forever change others lives whether you believe so or not. And the truly great accomplishments will never been forgotten (Inventing electricity, Healing the blind, etc)
Optimus,
What about the large number of existing and extinct religions? What happened to the gods of these religions which vanished? Did they just vanish together with the religions they belonged to?
There are actually only two logical conclusions to be made:
- There do indeed exist supernatural beings or a supernatural force. At least some religions which have been created on this earth were inspired by this supernatural force, which would explain the concept of a god.
- There are no supernatural elements in this universe. Everything can be explained by science. Things we can not yet explain we'll be able to explain later when we acquire more knowledge.
Fact: Humans have always feared the unknown. In prehistoric times and in some places of this planet till recently, people have assumed that things like rain, wind, sun etc. are gods or are controlled by gods (e.g., the Greek religion).
No one we know of still worships the weather, because we can explain it. We've acquired knowledge and insight.
Assumption: with the increase of knowledge, Humans will lose their need to explain things they don't understand using metaphysical elements, because the amount of 'unexplainable' things decreases.
If the assumption is correct, then one day Humankind will have no need anymore for blind faith and various ideologies, including religions.
This would also assume that another theory of mine, being that developing civilizations need some kind of (intolerant) ideology to help them structure their society, is correct.
Judging from what we know at this moment, the second conclusion seems far more likely, mainly because it's based on observations and facts, while the first conclusion depends too much on fantastic elements, of which the existance is at best doubtful.
What about the large number of existing and extinct religions? What happened to the gods of these religions which vanished? Did they just vanish together with the religions they belonged to?
There are actually only two logical conclusions to be made:
- There do indeed exist supernatural beings or a supernatural force. At least some religions which have been created on this earth were inspired by this supernatural force, which would explain the concept of a god.
- There are no supernatural elements in this universe. Everything can be explained by science. Things we can not yet explain we'll be able to explain later when we acquire more knowledge.
Fact: Humans have always feared the unknown. In prehistoric times and in some places of this planet till recently, people have assumed that things like rain, wind, sun etc. are gods or are controlled by gods (e.g., the Greek religion).
No one we know of still worships the weather, because we can explain it. We've acquired knowledge and insight.
Assumption: with the increase of knowledge, Humans will lose their need to explain things they don't understand using metaphysical elements, because the amount of 'unexplainable' things decreases.
If the assumption is correct, then one day Humankind will have no need anymore for blind faith and various ideologies, including religions.
This would also assume that another theory of mine, being that developing civilizations need some kind of (intolerant) ideology to help them structure their society, is correct.
Judging from what we know at this moment, the second conclusion seems far more likely, mainly because it's based on observations and facts, while the first conclusion depends too much on fantastic elements, of which the existance is at best doubtful.
<< Something has always existed - from before the big bang, from before anything. That something also caused the big bang (rules of cause and effect). Likely, most scientists would call this "something" energy. Energy that caused the big bang and converted to matter. Basically, we arrive at an infinite amount of eternal energy that is its own cause - i.e. nothing set it in motion. From this eternal, causeless, infinite energy all life and existance is derived.
Did all the energy simultaneously cause itself to begin movement/change (to begin the process that is the big bang/great collapse?) Is this energy of the same type as dark energy (energy that we cannot observe - its the reason the universe is actually speeding up in its expansion, seemingly against the rules of physics that dictate it should slow down the more time passes from the big bang itself).
There must be one original type of energy (other than dark energy, matter, heat, etc) that was/is the primary cause of all change, events, and existance.
This primary energy is, as I mentioned above, also the cause-less cause (nothing acted upon it, yet it acted) of all existance. It is outside time, as it has always existed and will always exist. It is omnipresent, as all existance is caused or derived from it.
I believe that this omnipresent, eternal, cause-less, creating, infinite primary energy is also sentient. I call it God, and derive my belief system from that. >>
There is nothing in your statements above that would prove offensive or troubling to the agnostic. Surely we cannot understand everything there is to know because we may just be the minutest little blip in the grander scheme of things. But what I simply cannot comprehend is how people migrate this simple, harmless "sentient being" idea into a fleshed-out faith. Something existed before the Big Bang. Sure, whatever, maybe, I cannot say yes or no. But then we get into this Jesus and Mohammad and whomever stuff and it's just too much for me. It's as if humans are trying to understand too much...make up things to help them understand, and then we worry about the details of tangibility (the prophets and the physcial miracles and what not) and start believing AS IF THEY WERE TRUE!
Ack, how the heck am I supposed to swallow some of this stuff? I remember CCD classes when the instructor told us how Jesus divided some fishes and bread and fed 5000 people with it. I kept asking HOW is that possible, but the instructor didn't know. Look, I'm not into that kind of stuff. I cannot dive blindly into hokus pokus or whatever you want to call it. I really don't want to shuffle into church and pray when I have no idea what I am supposed to pray to or about.
It's a lot easier when you are non-religious. You don't worry about this stuff. Something happened; some things happen. That's about it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter