Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
Originally posted by: Vic
This is a good post and a honest question. Hopefully I can justify it.
The answer IMO is that everyone believes in some type of God or gods, whether they choose to recognize it or not. Whether they are a good person or a bad person depends on whether or not they believe in good gods or bad gods. Whether or not they believe in hope or despair, you might say.
Too many people when they hear the word "god" think only of religion and the Christian god, and don't realize that they have surrounded themselves with their own personal gods. My joke (and I think I've already used it in this thread) is that "God is a lucky rabbit's foot". God is whatever there is outside you that you think can save you, especially when it obviously can't. Diet pills that say you don't have to change your lifestyle to lose weight are a god. Money is a god. Aliens are god. Government is god. Our emotions are god.
Whether God as described in the Bible (or any other holy book) actually exists or not really isn't the issue. His existence or non-existence is entirely independent of whether we believe in Him or not. He is or is not. No amount of faith will make Him more real than any amount of disbelief will make less real.
But the human concept of God... that's another thing entirely, and IMO what you are referring to. You can't just wish it away or pretend it doesn't exist. It will simply replaced with another god(s), some other thing outside you that you will irrationally believe will save you (or get you that promotion, or get you laid, or whatever).
Because what you think of your god(s) is what determines your worldview. People aren't good people just because they are magically good people. They're that what because what they believe in is good. And vice versa for the bad people. Because reality does not extend beyond your observation of it and everything else is belief.
So pick and choose your god(s) wisely. If you want my advice, try looking for one inside you instead of outside you. Shape your worldview around hope and that which you know to be good, and then treat everyone you meet as good as you can. Then that will become your god, and it will no longer be a lucky rabbit's foot -- that external thing you pray to to save you even when you know it can't -- but your internal capacity to love and appreciate your own existence, and thus the existence of others.
There, I think I'm gonna be done with this thread. At least for now.
I think you may be using the term god too loosly here. I mean of course there is a point for people to choose a set of morals, or a goal, or good to aim for (happiness for instance). All of those are well and good, but what is the importance of having a omnipotent being?
And to the other guy that said people need the threat of divinity, it seems to me as if many christians do criminal deeds and are arrested, and i doubt the number would increase drastically if all the sudden they weren't christians. I guess I am saying that law enforcement when done correctly would serve this purpose and that a divinity does not have the unique utility of keeping people in line.
But whose line. Law is a substitute for justice. But what is justice. Man ascribes to God absolute justice and has faith that the Word of God in His revealed law is absolute. But justice must be flexible.
Man made law can lead to Nazi Germany and the justified extermination of the perceived inferior.
Humanity will always be hammered from one evil piller to another evil post until it is commonly recognized and becomes the practictical imperative to spiritually evolve. God is the projection of what man can become when he transcends the ego and is free from self hate. Heaven is where the God-Man has his being.
In heaven there is only love.
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Tommunist:
I can observe electricity in action. The theories about how electricity works appear true and can be observed. Therefore, it is not an act of faith. I cannot observe inside my car's engine to see the actual chemical to mechanical energy transfer taking place, but I can test those theories about how it works and prove them to be true by observing the results.
Therefore, your analogy is not valid.
I can observe electricity in action. The theories about how electricity works appear true and can be observed. Therefore, it is not an act of faith. I cannot observe inside my car's engine to see the actual chemical to mechanical energy transfer taking place, but I can test those theories about how it works and prove them to be true by observing the results.
Therefore, your analogy is not valid.
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I did not say it was disproven. That you think it could be makes me question your actual ability to debate on this subject. Such a theory as abiogenesis cannot be proven or disproven. I said it was no longer generally accepted. May as well believe in the millions of monkeys pounding on typewriters. Give them 4.6 billion years of pounding and the result being what we have to day still seems pretty unlikely.
Show me a scientific theory that doesn't have some potential ways to disprove it and I'll in turn show you a theory that isn't truely scientific.
are you really sure it's electricity and not God's divine will? You see the results of what we think is electricity but you don't actually see electricity. In fact - you don't actually "see" anything. Your brain takes some input from your eyes and makes it into something apparently meaningful. Why even bother to have science when God can so readily explain everything for us!?
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
N = NP
What if science is explaining God?
I'm not sure that you're really following the discussion here. Electricity IS. It can be observed and accurately predicted. Perception is not clouding that.
IME many people have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and science. Put as simply as possible, when seeking to define the human experience, religion addresses the question of Why and science the question of How. The 2 do not contradict or conflict, except when made dogmatic by human ego.
I don't know... Religion sometimes steps a bit into the "How" area. Science sometimes finds evidence that suggests a different "How", this can create conflict IMO. Questions like "How did our universe begin?" and "How did life begin?" and "How did all those dinosaur bones get there?" all fall into this category.
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
And that's dogma, which is the result of human ego. If they truly had faith in their religion and their god, they would believe that however He created the universe was however He created the universe. Their faith should transcend. Did not Jesus tell people to pray to God saying "Thy will be done"?
Bear in mind though, that science also crosses its line into religious territory, and also has a strong tendency to be dogmatic. How many scientists refused to believe Pasteur? Einstein? Read this.
Is it any wonder that the 2 are in such conflict when neither will stick to its core principles, but instead intentionally places each other in direct (although unwarranted) opposition?
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Just a random thought on the subject. Aliens could have been the "Angels" leading man's progress. But it doesn't really work in reverse unless the "Aliens" visiting us are Demons here to lead us astray.
Originally posted by: Vic
N = NP
What if science is explaining God?
I'm not sure that you're really following the discussion here. Electricity IS. It can be observed and accurately predicted. Perception is not clouding that.
IME many people have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and science. Put as simply as possible, when seeking to define the human experience, religion addresses the question of Why and science the question of How. The 2 do not contradict or conflict, except when made dogmatic by human ego.
Electricity mearly has a better theory describing it at this point.
"The 2 do not contradict or conflict, except when made dogmatic by human ego."
correct - this is why one shouldn't compare the 2 on even ground. the problem is that throughout history if something couldn't be readily explained the "it must be God" trick worked pretty well - that is until science explained in a more meaningful way what was happening. These days it's painful to see poeple grasp on to these aspects of religion.
I don't understand how two differing ideas (theories, beliefs) about creation, or life, or whatever can coexist in the same person's mind. I mean, if you are a christian who believes in creationism, then to maintain that belief in the face of scientific hypothesis, you would have to pretty much diregard whatever science has to say on the subject. On the other hand, if you are a christian who adjusts his/her beliefs to match the big bang theory (just an example), but allows for it to have been initiated by God, wouldn't that mean that you are admitting that you don't believe that the entire first book of the bible is true? Wouldn't that in turn cast a shadow on the truthfulness of the rest of the bible? If the accuracy of the bible is in question, and it's the way that christians learn about the character their god, would it be too far of a stretch to say that a christian in the second example is in a way admitting that they don't know their god at all, or that he might not even exist?
Edit: It would seem that this christian has been effectively transformed into an agnostic by science, wouldn't it. Agnosticism does seem to be that only way that belief in a higher power and even a serious consideration of the postulations of science can coexist. I don't really consider agnosticism to be a proper religion though.
Originally posted by: Vic
N = NP
What if science is explaining God?
I'm not sure that you're really following the discussion here. Electricity IS. It can be observed and accurately predicted. Perception is not clouding that.
IME many people have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and science. Put as simply as possible, when seeking to define the human experience, religion addresses the question of Why and science the question of How. The 2 do not contradict or conflict, except when made dogmatic by human ego.
But you can't prove that there really is Electricity and you seeing lighting isn't just some random chemical reaction gone wrong in your brain. You may think your observing but you can't prove you are. So there for you claiming to see lighting is based 100% on faith.
The basic premise of abiogenesis, that life formed from X + Y + Z, is either true or not. We can dilly-dally around with the details until the cows come home, but that has naught to do with the validity of the underlying premise.
I have observed electricity. I understand its principles and how it works. I feel them when I touch something. Visual observation is not the only mechanism for offering scientific proof, but the results of electron activity can be seen visibly as well as felt. In fact, it is the basis for all the senses. Maybe you can choose another example, as that one is probably the single easiest to refute.
I am a scientist. I know that an unproven theory cannot be accepted without faith. For example, I have my own theory that I'm testing right now at work. I think I know how the eye focuses, but I could be wrong. Thus, my belief in my own theory at this point is based on faith. It may be based on the observations I have made about particular parts of the eye's mechanisms, physics, material science, and so on, but these constituents are not sufficient in and of themselves to verify my theory. Thus, I must work to achieve data to test my theory. Note I say TEST: a scientist works to test a hypothesis, not prove or disprove, as these are nothing but a show of bias in favor of your own theory. I can have faith in my theory without evidence, but it remains unproven until I have tested it.I can see this is going nowhere with you. You obviously want to put religion and scientific thought on the same playing field but I'm going to be un-PC and say that's BS as they aren't even close. Seeing still isn't believing. I have the ability to accept theories (and their limitations) for what they are without being a doubting Tommunist
Why does the Bible need be a literal work of literature? This is your underlying assumption, and it is flawed.
:beer: Very well said.
But you CAN know this. Something that is random does not repeat over and over and over again in the exact same manner with no deviation. If I look at something that is a shade of grey, then look away and look back at it again, my brain will receive the same signal. I will see the same color. If vision were based on a random chemical reaction, then I would see random colors, or at least a Gaussian distribution of colors near the same wavelength. If I touch something hot 1000 times, it will feel hot every time (unless I burn all my nerves away
). Thus, through repetition, we can demonstrate that it is not merely a random process. All this, of course, assumes that mathematical principles regarding statistics and probability are not completely bogus - there is sufficient evidence to support the theories of statistics and probability, however, so I don't believe them to be bogus.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why does the Bible need be a literal work of literature? This is your underlying assumption, and it is flawed.
:beer: Very well said.
But you CAN know this. Something that is random does not repeat over and over and over again in the exact same manner with no deviation. If I look at something that is a shade of grey, then look away and look back at it again, my brain will receive the same signal. I will see the same color. If vision were based on a random chemical reaction, then I would see random colors, or at least a Gaussian distribution of colors near the same wavelength. If I touch something hot 1000 times, it will feel hot every time (unless I burn all my nerves away
Again your assuming your brain isn't playing a trick on you. Heck you are assuming you even have a brain.
yea but really, who doesnt beleive in teh millions of monkeys pounding away at type writters? Thats what i thought!
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why does the Bible need be a literal work of literature? This is your underlying assumption, and it is flawed.
:beer: Very well said.
But you CAN know this. Something that is random does not repeat over and over and over again in the exact same manner with no deviation. If I look at something that is a shade of grey, then look away and look back at it again, my brain will receive the same signal. I will see the same color. If vision were based on a random chemical reaction, then I would see random colors, or at least a Gaussian distribution of colors near the same wavelength. If I touch something hot 1000 times, it will feel hot every time (unless I burn all my nerves away
Again your assuming your brain isn't playing a trick on you. Heck you are assuming you even have a brain.
Easy there descartes, plus if everyone else can experience it then over and over again i would say its not really an assumption anymore... especially for the poeple hit by lightning
Wrong, but thanks for proving that I no longer need to have any faith in your ability to debate.
I guess it doesn't. Do you mean to say that while anything in the bible may or may not be true and scientists can discover whatever they want, the only true constant is that there IS a god whatever form he may take? This also seems to fit what Vic was saying.
Admittedly this idea is easily maintainable in the face of anything and would be the very definition of faith. Am I interpreting you correctly?
Well, I don't share your faith, but at least I get your point. As far as I can tell such a belief system is totally unassailable. That this faith denies logic frustrates me, that it does so by nature puzzles me, but knowing that it hinges on nothing but the person who has it answers my question.
I think the point the OP was originally trying to make is that a belief in anything without proof requires faith. God has not been proven, nor have aliens, and obviously neither have been disproven. People who say one exists, yet condem people for believing in the other are being hypocritical. ie My FAITH is better than yours. Or another way to say it, I have faith in God but you shouldnt have faith in aliens. On the topic of being able to prove aliens exist but not being able to prove God does, I have to totally disagree. If we are unable to prove something it only means unable at this time, new instruments and sciences are developed constantly, the ability to prove something not only relys on our ability and technology, but also opportunity. There is absolutely no way to disprove future ability, technology and opportunity, aside from the ability to accurately forsee the future. I think if you all want to talk about your faith in God or aliens and which is more probable you should obviously account for your bias, if you have none then you probably don't have an opinion, and if you have an opinion, you probably have a bias.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter