God or Nothing
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2012, 08:33 PM
RE: God or Nothing
(19-05-2012 08:23 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(19-05-2012 12:40 AM)Likos02 Wrote:  This is one of my main arguements. If god made us in his image then why are there truly fucked up people in the world? If god wanted us all in heaven with him, then why didnt he make us inherently good? Why does the All Powerfull God give us the means to defy him if he wanted us in heaven? And then why does he punish us?

You're thinking too religiously about God. I think if we're going to figure anything out, we're going to have to drop all the religious notions.

Ok, so you are looking for a beginning and because you can't find one, there has to be a god.

That IS a god of the gaps!!!

Maybe there was a beginning, and maybe it was coincidence.

Yes, nature has evolved into a finely tuned machine, but it is still completely governed by coincidence.

So is your life. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you'll get run over by a Mack truck.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: God or Nothing
(19-05-2012 01:43 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Stop trying to make the "reasoning" triangle peg fit the "predetermined answer" square hole. Try connecting the dots without an answer already in mind and discover that the unicorn you were trying to draw was actually a tugboat this whole time. Start at the beginning with the data we have available. Do you really arrive at God as your answer? If so, please review the Cognitive Dissonance section of your textbook and try the problem again.

That doesn't make any sense. If it's wrong to invoke the idea of God, and wrong if I re-think and still come up with the idea of God, then what you're saying is the idea of a first cause that posesses will and intelligence is simply not allowed. You're basing your argument on legality.
Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 08:37 PM
RE: God or Nothing
(19-05-2012 08:17 PM)Egor Wrote:  It's because all things that exist have a reason for existing a cause...
Who says?

And why would that be a thing to say?

And if that would be a thing to say, why would you decide it's accurate, or the one and only "answer"?

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your Philosophy. Thumbsup

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 08:38 PM
RE: God or Nothing
(19-05-2012 01:54 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Ok, assuming there is a form of God. Now what makes you think that God is aware of us? Pays attention to us?
Even using the your logic you still cannot come to the conclusion of a God in the traditional sense.

What makes you think I'm trying to get to a God of the traditional sense?

Quote:What I am getting at is, if there is some form of God, for example "the God particle" is what scientist love to throw about, why does everyone assume that he/she/it thinks, is aware and actually cares about us?.

Nor does it even explain an afterlife or a soul or any of that super natural stuff. Just because something created everything doesn't give any weight at all to an afterlife.

Noted, but all of that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 08:45 PM
RE: God or Nothing
(19-05-2012 02:34 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Also, consider that your definition of nothingness may not actually exist. We have no examples in the entire universe of "absolute nothingness." We can observe that things come together momentarily and break apart, energy and matter condenses and disperses, but "what is" is always there, just taking the shape of different things at different times.

I mean, "existence" alone is something. So by its very definition, nothing cannot exist or else it would be something. Therefore, the state of nothingness does not exist.

If you think nonexistence is something, I would argue that you're not properly considering what nonexistence is. And, of course, we have no example of nothingness inside the physical universe.

Quote:And if earmuff's Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, where did everything come from? "I mean if there were no Invisible Pink Unicorn, why would anything exist?" Do you see how unnecessary and interchangeable "God" is in that question? Answering "God" explains nothing and is intellectually lazy and disrespectful to those actually trying to find the answers.

So my positing the existence of God makes you feel disrespected? Are you sure you're objective enough to engage in this debate?
Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 09:10 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2012 09:26 PM by paulesungnomo.)
RE: God or Nothing
Are people still using this kind of argument? maybe im not understanding what you really mean. because i have thought about the transcendental purpose of freckles at great length and come up empty...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 09:23 PM
RE: God or Nothing
(19-05-2012 05:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think that possibly at issue is the definition of God. I know that your (edit: Egor's) definition of God is a lot different from a Christian definition.

The Christian God is quite a weird guy. The basic assumptions are:
1. God is a father like figure who's looking out for us.
2. If we're "good", i.e. do what he wants, then like a nice parent he will reward us.
3. The reward is extra super duper special: we get to live forever and have fun forever.
4. Conversely, if we're "bad" then we get punished.
5. The punishment is fucking horrible: we get burned forever and ever.

There's a lot of theology which is devoted to making this crazy model at least confusing enough that if people are brought up believing it from day 1 then they have a hard time refuting it. I mean, if you honestly read those points they're all rather far fetched. For example:

1. I don't see a father figure. That's because he's invisible. But he looks like us. Er... what?
2. I've seen lots of things die. My friends have died. Animals die. As a feature of when they're dead, they stop moving, and they tend to be somewhat obviously broken - you know, bloody, completely fucked, that sort of thing. Now... apparently we get to live forever??? I mean, even the Christians can't pretend that we don't all reach a completely fucked state that we call dead eventually. Ah yes, but when you die *you* a. become invisible b. go live in the sky with God. c. live forever.

It's really just about impossible to believe that.

I completely agree, and I don't. Shocking

[copy]Your God is more believable, as far as I can make out you postulate that the universe is somehow conscious and (I may be wrong here) benevolent. And this is what you call God. I must say I do like that definition, and I like the idea that when we die, we become more one with God... it's rather... poetic.

Thank you, Morondog.

Quote:The problem for me is that even though I can't refute your God (or even the Christian God, completely), I still have found no reason to make the assumption. I think you have, you have said previously that you have talked to God (I think I remember correctly), so for you, you have a reason.

Yes, and I would not expect someone who has had not experience with God in some form to have any belief in God whatsoever. Where I'm at spiritually right now is trying to figure out whether it even matters if one believes in God or not, and I'm leaning toward the idea that it doesn't matter.

I sure used to think it did--right here in this forum I argued it vehemently. I equated atheism with rejecting Christ and thus deserving hell. But I don't think that way anymore. It seems my Veridicanism has settled back into its New Age motif: monistic God, lucid spiritual plane, reincarnation, progression in consciousness toward the full awareness of oneself as God.

Quote:For myself, as LadyJane says, I am content not to know. A question as big as "Where does the Universe come from, where do *we* come from?"... that we can even have a stab at answering that is miraculous to me. Consider the big bang model. 15 *billion* years since the hypothesized creation moment, we can still study what happened. That's completely *amazing*. But I personally can't really comment on that, I have to take on faith that the guys who're studying it know what they're talking about. I can live and die without knowing how I got here, it's not an issue.

Well said.

Quote:Incidentally the reason I take it on faith from the science guys but not the religion guys is that I've studied a bit of science and it's a *whole lot* more believable than the religious model. It's not that I just want to disbelieve the religious model, it's that I've evaluated the scientists and decided they're more likely to be on to something. Plus they don't come across like bullshit artists trying to sell me something.

I hear you, and I have faith that your life is moving through time exactly as it needs to. You're an atheist, but you sound like an old soul. Cool
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
19-05-2012, 09:43 PM
RE: God or Nothing
(19-05-2012 06:42 AM)Anjele Wrote:  The concept of a god, or supreme being who is in charge, has been around since people started wanting their questions answered.

Where does the rain come from? It's not always raining...sometimes it doesn't rain for weeks, why. Man had to figure out why back when they didn't have the scientific skills, equipment, or knowledge to answer the question. Man doesn't like unknowns, he needs an answer. So it must be a rain god. This god gives rain for drinking and so the plants we eat will grow and the animals can survive. When there is not rain and it's desperately needed but not forthcoming, man decided they must appease the god who must be angry with them and is punishing them. So they pray, they sing, they beat drums and dance, they go so far as to offer animal and human sacrifices. When the rain finally comes, as it always will, they chalk it up to the rain god answering their pleas for rain.

Does a god really make sense...to people who don't know better it does. Now we have the knowledge of how weather systems work.

Replace rain with nearly anything. When the answer is unknown, man creates a god (or some other supernatural entity or force)to fill in that missing piece. Gods are created by man, which is why so many of the gods of the past and present look like man in drawings, painting, descriptions. Notice that list doesn't contain photos...he doesn't show up for photo shoots so that there is real evidence.

Does a god exist, or did he ever? I don't have 100% proof that one didn't. But I also don't have 100% proof that he did or does.

Unknowns are covered by the creation and belief in a god for some people. That's where the whole faith thing comes in. Belief in an unseen god that controls what we can see but we don't understand. But that doesn't make it fact.

But this is different than god-of-the-gaps. This is a logical examination of reality. There is something and nothing is not apparent. The universe seems to have had a beginning. That leads me to believe there had to be a cause that itself was not caused. And it seems that cause had will and intelligence.
Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 10:06 PM
RE: God or Nothing
On a more serious note than my previous ones (especially since I have already been schooled by my cohorts on using words like "exist" when describing numbers) your definition of god (as mentioned by others) is not the same as I am sure most of us are used to dealing with. You describe god as "the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness." Did I get that right? I think you have used that definition in other threads, so please correct me if I am wrong.

This definition of god is...well...it is something else for sure. I can't wrap my head around just what the hang that means. Monistic means:
The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being.

Both definitions seem similar so, by definition 1, all things are connected to a single "concept or system." Well, quantum theory suggests that all particles are connected on some level (individual electrons interact with other electrons and can't occupy the same space as another electron, so when one electron changes its energy state, all other electrons in the universe must also change in order to avoid the consequence of occupying the same space) and if the Big Bang is accurate, then all matter and energy share a common ancestry. But the definition itself really doesn't make much sense. There is no evidence to suggest that reality is in fact a part of a single consciousness.

My guess is that you agree more with definition 2. That is that the mind is separate from matter. You have had this discussion with many others here, but I still have not seen any evidence that shows that the mind is anything other than a construct of the brain.

The rest of your definition of god makes equally less sense to me. To use both monistic and consciousness implies not only that you believe in monism, but also that you have added to it by adding in consciousness to it. So, you have taken one unproven concept and added another layer to it. You also say it is the fundamental consciousness. So now you are implying that there are multiple levels of consciousness.

I understand the fact that you have a different definition, but if I understand it correctly, you have taken an unproven idea and have added two additional levels to it that are also unproven and all of it lacks evidence. Then you start a thread saying "God or nothing" but your definition of god has no basis in reality. So, how can you come to the conclusion that either your concept of god exists or nothing would exist and then ask how come it is not so obvious to us? It isn't obvious because your definition is confusing, unproven, unverifiable, and not falsifiable.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 10:09 PM
RE: God or Nothing
I forgot one other thing too, you also use the word 'entity' in your definition. This adds yet another layer to your definition by now saying that not only is it connected to everything, but that it is a being of some sort, this seems to be a redundant addition to your definition since you have already used the term 'consciousness' in the definition, unless you are suggesting it has some form, but I seem to remember you arguing against that in other threads.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: