Do you believe in God?

[sumbrownkid]

This is a valid point.

It wasn't JUST the Christians who ravaged Alexandria - Islamic forces dealt the final deathblow to the Great Library - but the point stands. Organized religion, throughout history, has taken great pains to suppress opposing viewpoints. If that means attacking and eventually destroying the greatest repository of accumulated wisdom ever known to man, so be it.

I've said this in another threat at some point ... the destruction of the Library at Alexandria was the greatest tragedy ever wrought upon humankind.

You're forgetting the fact that religion is made up of humans. Some good some bad. Unfortunately, those at the top can and have abused their authority. Religion is just another tool for some to advance their agendas. And remember destroying the other nation's identity (like that library) in old world conquest was the social norm at the time.

As a counter argument to religion being violent: Pol Pot, Stalin, that Romanian dictator I can't spell.

At the end of the day, it is ultimately a human being, not gods words in a book, that has true power.

 

[huskeR32]

You're forgetting the fact that religion is made up of humans. Some good some bad. Unfortunately, those at the top can and have abused their authority. Religion is just another tool for some to advance their agendas. And remember destroying the other nation's identity (like that library) in old world conquest was the social norm at the time.

As a counter argument to religion being violent: Pol Pot, Stalin, that Romanian dictator I can't spell.

At the end of the day, it is ultimately a human being, not gods words in a book, that has true power.

You missed the point entirely. It wasn't about religion spawning violence, or religious people being "bad."

The point he was trying to make dealt with TankAss praising the Bible for its consistency. It only seems so consistent because the church actively suppressed/destroyed any literature that refuted the Bible.

 

[codingasm]

You're here on GT Planet, so I can safely assume you play Gran Turismo. Is it a miracle that I know that? No, it's just common sense; practically all of the people on this forum play the game, or played it at one time.

By the same token, so you're sitting in church, someone guesses that you're thinking about your sins and repenting them. Of course you are, no miracle involved here either.

yes i have played the game before, and was into playing the game until i found out about hacking it. then i mostly hacked the game instead of playing it, stopped for a while and now just messed around in it to see what else i can do in it. and guessing is one thing but knowing exactly what is in your heart and knowing what that sin is, that's not guessing. anyways its time for me to stop messing around and move on, nice talking to all of you and hope you all find what you are looking for (the Truth). and the Truth shall set you Free.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

You're forgetting the fact that religion is made up of humans. Some good some bad. Unfortunately, those at the top can and have abused their authority. Religion is just another tool for some to advance their agendas. And remember destroying the other nation's identity (like that library) in old world conquest was the social norm at the time.

As a counter argument to religion being violent: Pol Pot, Stalin, that Romanian dictator I can't spell.

At the end of the day, it is ultimately a human being, not gods words in a book, that has true power.

Husker dealt handily with your first paragraph.

As for your second: Nowhere have I claimed that religion has a MONOPOLY on violence; only that religion is an excuse for violence that very possibly might not have occurred without religion.

Aside from that though, it's useful to note that dictators such as the ones you mention used socially-mandated atheism as a tool to remove competition for the devotion of the people, and to grant themselves them a near-godlike status. In none of these cases have these individuals had any particular commitment to atheism for its ideals; to them it is a means to an end. Just as, for the more cynical wings of the political right in America, pandering to evangelical Christianity is a means to an end.

...you all find what you are looking for (the Truth). and the Truth shall set you Free.

Anyone who claims to know the "capital-T" truth, more than likely, knows nothing.

 

[BobK]

the Truth shall set you Free.

The Truth is the word of the Prophet, Blessed be His Name.

...or so I've heard it said, anyway.

 

[Bobalob]

yes i have played the game before, and was into playing the game until i found out about hacking it. then i mostly hacked the game instead of playing it, stopped for a while and now just messed around in it to see what else i can do in it. and guessing is one thing but knowing exactly what is in your heart and knowing what that sin is, that's not guessing. anyways its time for me to stop messing around and move on, nice talking to all of you and hope you all find what you are looking for (the Truth). and the Truth shall set you Free.

lol "hacking the game" what lies.

 

[AlexGTV]

God is the natural laws.

 

[Liquid]

God is the natural laws.

Proof?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

On truth: Aristotle stated:

“To say of what is that it is not,
or of what is not that it is,
is false,
while to say of what is that it is,
and of what is not that it is not,
is true”

So truth is in seeing the things for what they are, not for what you believe they are.

God is the natural laws.

I came to the conclusion that to prove something exists:
1) You need to provoke it to a reaction or state of being that someone can sense.
2) You need to define it and explain the logic behind it.
Then someone can embrace it's existence.

I believe anyone can see effect of natural laws and read science to understand the logic behind it. So the natural laws exist.

 

[dylansan]

In order for God to be the natural laws, you would have to change the definition of God to something much different than the one most commonly used and the one being dicussed in this thread.

Natural laws are not omnibenevolent, and I wouldn't call them omnipotent either, considering they have limits. Natural laws are by definition not supernatural. And natural laws are not beings with ultimate moral authority.

Although natural laws exist, and are what run our universe, they are not a god in the sense that we are discussing in this thread. They don't require worship or prayer, and there is no religion to go along with them. Whether or not you label them as gods, they are really not a point for debate in this thread.

 

[Jet Badger]

Yeah "laws of physics and nature is the cause of everything and teh god, well.. he forgives me when I fap"
I just don't understand you people. All I know is that science works. Religion doesn't seem to.

 

[TankAss95]

I just don't understand you people. All I know is that science works. Religion doesn't seem to.

Of course science works. The fact is that science explains, only a fool would disagree that it doesn't. The existence of God is a logical explanation as to why science explains.
I want to bring people to the realisation that scientism (the belief that science is all knowledge, or that science can or will explain everything) is totally false. First of all scientism isn't a statement of science, it's a philosophical statement. And, as Sir Peter Medawar said, Science can not hope to answer the elementary questions we asked as a child - What is the meaning of my life? Why am I here? What happens after I die? Science cannot deal with culture, art, ethics, and so forth. Science is the art of the soluble.
I know you people get really frustrated at me for saying this, but I see God as being the most powerful conceivable substance - and the most powerful conceivable substance is the most reasonable explanation for the first cause. I see God as being necessary rather than unnecessary, personal rather than absent, infinite rather than finite, eternal rather than mortal, because these traits are beneficial rather than the alternative.

I will (once again) be absent in this discussion for a while. I simply don't have enough time to research such a wide range of topics although I find it very interesting. I will make a return, and respond to the objections to my evidence for the resurrection. In the mean time, I strongly recommend those who are interested to read/listen to Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. The audio is available on YouTube, and the apologetics is basically at the start (after the introduction) and then the topic changes to Christian behaviour, etc. Thanks.

 

[DGXR]

If there were any irrefutable, physical evidence that God exists, there would be no need for faith - faith means truly believing in something despite the absence of any evidence. I have enough life experiences to know that I am not in charge, to know that there is something or someone greater than me in this world who is caring for my well-being and doing for me what I cannot do for myself. Everyone's different, this is just my stance on the whole "either God is or God isn't" discussion. God is.

 

[huskeR32]

Of course science works. The fact is that science explains, only a fool would disagree that it doesn't. The existence of God is a logical explanation as to why science explains.

No, it's not. There's nothing logical about believing in god. Logical things are supported by evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of god, so belief in god is not logical. Instead, you could say "The existence of god is one of many explanations as to why science explains," and you'd have a somewhat acceptable statement on your hands.

Of course, there doesn't have to be an explanation for the "Why?" at all. The real question to everything around us is "How?" Insisting that there must be a "why" to everything seems to me to serve only one purpose: To provide the question that religion can then be an answer to.

Look, the universe just is. We, the human race, just are. Things we have observed and learned through science just are. There's no reason for any of it other than the implications of infinite probability. Asking "Why?" is folly.

I want to bring people to the realisation that scientism (the belief that science is all knowledge, or that science can or will explain everything) is totally false.

This is a baseless opinion. For the hundredth time TankAss, if you're going to state something as if it's unequivocal fact, provide some evidence to support it. Alternatively, you could choose to state is as an opinion. Then you could continue to not back up any of your claims.

At first, your habit of passing off unsubstantiated opinions as fact was easier to forgive. The longer you keep doing it though, the more irritating it becomes, and the more arrogant, ignorant and narrow-minded you sound. I suggest that for once, you really take a moment to try and understand this.

EDIT: The above sounded a little harsh in retrospect. I don't mean to say that you are those things, but it comes off that way when you continue to pass off religious belief as fact, even when numerous people have asked you to stop or to provide evidence.

First of all scientism isn't a statement of science, it's a philosophical statement. And, as Sir Peter Medawar said, Science can not hope to answer the elementary questions we asked as a child - What is the meaning of my life? Why am I here? What happens after I die? Science cannot deal with culture, art, ethics, and so forth. Science is the art of the soluble.

As I said above, you're operating on the assumption that these questions need to be asked, and that they have an answer. You're detracting from science for it's inability to answer unanswerable questions. It's illogical, and a waste of time.

I know you people get really frustrated at me for saying this, but I see God as being the most powerful conceivable substance - and the most powerful conceivable substance is the most reasonable explanation for the first cause. I see God as being necessary rather than unnecessary, personal rather than absent, infinite rather than finite, eternal rather than mortal, because these traits are beneficial rather than the alternative.

Notice how you presented this as an opinion? This is what I mean. I have no problem with you writing things like this. No matter how much I disagree with it, I have to respect your opinions and thoughts.

I will (once again) be absent in this discussion for a while. I simply don't have enough time to research such a wide range of topics although I find it very interesting. I will make a return, and respond to the objections to my evidence for the resurrection. In the mean time, I strongly recommend those who are interested to read/listen to Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. The audio is available on YouTube, and the apologetics is basically at the start (after the introduction) and then the topic changes to Christian behaviour, etc. Thanks.

I'll save you the time: there isn't any. Evidence for Jesus having been a real person? Yeah, there's some. For his divinity and resurrection? None that I know of. If there was, the question of god's existence would be a lot easier to answer!

 

[niky]

The existence of God is a logical explanation as to why science explains.

Repeating a disproven idea over and over doesn't make it any less false.

I want to bring people to the realisation that scientism (the belief that science is all knowledge, or that science can or will explain everything) is totally false.

What you mean is: I want to introduce people to a concept they're unfamiliar with and which has never been mentioned before in this thread, so I can attack it. Because I still can't find a good argument against science itself. Next, I suppose you're going to say that all Atheists are Marxists? (not that there's no precedent for that, given how many times Stalin has been brought up in this thread.)

-

Belief systems have nothing to do with Science or the question of whether or not there is a God. The answer is either yes, no or I don't know.

 

[Normy]

No.

N

 

[Zenith]

No.

N

And the entire thread sat back in stunned silence. That post was so well structured and informative, I'm going to stop interneting now.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Of course science works. The fact is that science explains, only a fool would disagree that it doesn't. The existence of God is a ( (1) logical explanation) as to why science explains.

(2)I want to bring people to the realisation that scientism (the belief that science is all knowledge, or that science can or will explain everything) is totally false. First of all scientism isn't a statement of science, it's a philosophical statement. And, as Sir Peter Medawar said, Science can not hope to answer the elementary questions we asked as a child - What is the meaning of my life? Why am I here? What happens after I die? Science cannot deal with culture, art, ethics, and so forth. Science is the art of the soluble.

(1) Husker and Niky handled this. All I'll add is this - look up the definitions of terms before you use them. You've misused 'evidence', now 'logic'.

(2) I'm pretty sure you just pulled the idea of 'scientism' out of thin air. No one here, and no proper scientist, claims that Science answers these questions. In fact, no one here disuptes your right to claim God as the answer to issues such as mortality and the meaning of life. We will disagree with you there, often vociferously, but where you properly state that as an opinion, you are safe. You, though, seem to think there is a logical case for God's influence upon Science, at least insofar as the origin of existence and the role of morality, for which you say there is evidence. This is where Science will actively protest. I repeat - understand what logic and evidence are before you use the terms.

As for Science's stance on culture? You've basically claimed that Anthropology is not a science. To be fair, there are some "hard scientists" (physicists, geologists, biologists, etc.) who might tend to agree with you, but the general observer won't.

 

[Denur]

Why am I not surprised that "scientism" turns-up in this thread.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'".

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

[jcm]

You're wrong

You are currently in a coma in which you've created an entire society of what you call humans. You've created planets, spieces of animals, plants, languages, conspiracies, songs, vehicles, myths, religions, and more, all within your dream. Your very, very deep subconsious has told you that it's time to wake up, and I'm simply here telling you. I am merely a creation of your imagination telling you to wake up.

Think I've just made this up to mess with? Really? Okay fine, prove my theory wrong. Prove that it isn't possible. Go ahead, try.


And when I say prove me wrong, I really mean prove your deep subconsious wrong.

 

[Tesla]

Damn, that's deep.

 

[niky]

Hmm... where to start?

Unfortunately, we already know the limits of our brains. That they can only store limited amount of information. Thus, sensory data fed to the brain is re-interpreted based on stored data that's already in there. Unless you consciously desire to and have an outside interpreter, it's very hard to create completely new information in a dream. There are limits to how much dream background your brain can generate, unless your surroundings provide extra sensory cues (which is how we can dream out-of-body experiences... our eyes open in our sleep).

While the fact that you're dreaming masks your perception of this lack of solidity, you can test it out for yourself.

(I do this exercise often when I dream, because I have a sleep disorder. I have very, very lucid and realistic dreams that are very difficult to wake up from.)

If I feel I'm stuck in a dream, I examine my surroundings for self-consistency. I make sure that every single sensory input is accounted for. Unfortunately, once you look for a sensory input, your body provides it for you, but once you start to do this, you can actually feel/hear inputs coming from the real world, and can note discrepancies between that and your dream environs. Sucks if your eyes are open and the brain gives you a picture of the room you're actually sleeping in. (It happens)

If I can exit the room or area I'm in, I'm forcing my brain to create new backgrounds instead of adapting to the one I'm in, which makes it harder to make them seem pervasively real. The brain sometimes cheats and resets me in the same room, but when it does that, I obviously know I'm dreaming.

I then check the flow of time and causality. Dreaming is like being drunk or on medication. Time skips around erratically. Again, the dream-state masks your awareness of this, but if you make a conscious effort to check the flow of time, you'll see it, bright as day.

Eventually, if you apply enough analysis to any dream, no matter how pervasively real it seems, you start to notice the inconsistencies in your made-up little Universe. Logical inconsistencies = not real.

Once you break through that barrier, it's pretty easy to wake up.

*I don't know how easy this would be for Dolphins, who dream while awake.

-

As I've said before (since this was brought up before):

The Universe is self-consistent. The flow of time is self-consistent. If you cut yourself, you bleed. If you hit yourself, you bruise. If you drop an apple, it falls towards the ground exactly as gravity says it should. No matter how much analysis you put towards trying to pick holes in the fabric of the Universe, it remains self-consistent. Thus, you must accept it at face value. Any dream that is completely indistinguishable from reality is reality, for all intents and purposes.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Damn, that's deep.

No, it's not. (But for the uninitiated we must show that you didn't know that already )

Hmm... where to start?

Unfortunately, we already know the limits of our brains. That they can only store limited amount of information. Thus, sensory data fed to the brain is re-interpreted based on stored data that's already in there. Unless you consciously desire to and have an outside interpreter, it's very hard to create completely new information in a dream. There are limits to how much dream background your brain can generate, unless your surroundings provide extra sensory cues (which is how we can dream out-of-body experiences... our eyes open in our sleep)...

While the fact that you're dreaming masks your perception of this lack of solidity, you can test it out for yourself.

(I do this exercise every single night when I dream, because I have a sleep disorder. I have very, very lucid and realistic dreams that are very difficult to wake up from.) ...


...The Universe is self-consistent. The flow of time is self-consistent. If you cut yourself, you bleed. If you hit yourself, you bruise. If you drop an apple, it falls towards the ground exactly as gravity says it should. No matter how much analysis you put towards trying to pick holes in the fabric of the Universe, it remains self-consistent. Thus, you must accept it at face value. Any dream that is completely indistinguishable from reality is reality, for all intents and purposes.

THIS is 'deep'. This is true introspection.

 

[jcm]

I know it's hard to accept new ideas, however just think about it. Are you able to actually prove to yourself that you aren't dreaming. And who says that when you wake up you'll look like you do in this dream, this dream is not reality. It's impossible to actually prove that it's not possible. It's a very different "off-topic" concept, however if you actually think about it without being pessimisstic then you will understand why this entire thread is pointless.

It is impossible to actually prove that the opposition is wrong. You can give the opposition 'facts', yet these don't really prove anything. Science is merely another religion. It claims it has the answers, and that all other religions are wrong without being able to prove that.

I really hope this makes as much sense on typed as it does in my head...

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I know it's hard to accept new ideas, however just think about it. Are you able to actually prove to yourself that you aren't dreaming. And who says that when you wake up you'll look like you do in this dream, this dream is not reality. It's impossible to actually prove that it's not possible. It's a very different "off-topic" concept, however if you actually think about it without being pessimisstic then you will understand why this entire thread is pointless.

It is impossible to actually prove that the opposition is wrong. You can give the opposition 'facts', yet these don't really prove anything. Science is merely another religion. It claims it has the answers, and that all other religions are wrong without being able to prove that.

I really hope this makes as much sense on typed as it does in my head...

This isn't a new idea. The idea you speak of is this: "It's impossible to prove a negative". This means that it's not possible to prove the incorrectness of the claim of incorrectness of ANOTHER claim, and is basically useless for the purpose of building knowledge. Many people have used this example many times, but it's a damned good one, which is why Bertrand Russell is famous to this day:

I can't PROVE that there's NOT a teapot orbiting Mars.

That doesn't mean it's very bloody likely, does it?

Paraphrased.

Science deals in overwhelming likelihoods upon which we can base predictions. God does not.

 

[niky]

Just wait. When the NASA manned mission gets there, they'll probably shove one out the airlock just to spite him.

-

Science is not a religion. It's a method of analyzing the environment and explaining it.

A method of explaining the mechanics behind the environment and the rules it operates under.

-

Again: If reality is self-consistent, with or without your active participation, then it's your reality, whether it is a dream, a psychological construct inside a Universe-sized non-anthropomorphic intelligence, a simulation being run on a hyperspatial computer or an illusion created by imaginary subatomic particles that cling together in certain strange ways.

-

We already know that this reality is not the primary reality. Nothing can be proved about what is outside, but we can prove that inside this reality, it is possible to be born, to feel pain, to cause pain and to die.

A "dream" is a subjective construct that can be bent to one's will. Obviously, without physical action, we can't bend this Universe to our will. Perhaps this means that this isn't our dream but someone else's. Doesn't matter. As long as the rules stay constant, we play the game by those rules.

Science doesn't claim to know anything about anything outside of those rules. So any claim that science is a religion, and that it denies the possibility or existence of something beyond the Universe is incorrect.

 

[jcm]

This isn't a new idea. The idea you speak of is this: "It's impossible to prove a negative". This means that it's not possible to prove the incorrectness of the claim of incorrectness of ANOTHER claim, and is basically useless for the purpose of building knowledge. Many people have used this example many times, but it's a damned good one, which is why Bertrand Russell is famous to this day:

I can't PROVE that there's NOT a teapot orbiting Mars.

That doesn't mean it's very bloody likely, does it?

Paraphrased.

Science deals in overwhelming likelihoods upon which we can base predictions. God does not.

When I said 'new idea' I simply meant the specifics of the idea, which I also realise that I didn't actually write on here. I only wrote the very basic part of the concept to get you thinking.

You are very right in saying that you can't disprove this theory. This is the same with all religions as well as Science, and my theory. If told you that when you woke up from this very long dream you would be 100x smarter then you think you are in the dream, could I be disproced?

Probably not (I could only be disproved if I messed up while writing that, which I probably did

I'm not going to post the rest of this brilliant concept, because the only reason I posted any of this was to prove a point. You can't disprove either side of the argument, so why bother. The vast majority of these posts are unnesecary. No one is able to win this argument. Ever.

P.S. This was written on an Ipod at 12:37am local time, forgive my many spelling/grammemememratical errors.

P.S.S. Just remember that this is merely you're very, very deep subconsious trying to tell to start figuring out a way to get out of this dream.

P.S.S.S. Also, don't bother trying to wake up, a higher race then yours is currently sedating you so that they can conduct expirements on you.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Just wait. When the NASA manned mission gets there, they'll probably shove one out the airlock just to spite him.

Bahahah I wouldn't be surprised

Science is not a religion. It's a method of analyzing the environment and explaining it.

A method of explaining the mechanics behind the environment and the rules it operates under.

This.

Again: If reality is self-consistent, with or without your active participation, then it's your reality, whether it is a dream, a psychological construct inside a Universe-sized non-anthropomorphic intelligence, a simulation being run on a hyperspatial computer...

...

Science doesn't claim to know anything about anything outside of those rules. So any claim that science is a religion, and that it denies the possibility or existence of something beyond the Universe is incorrect.

That blackened bit, I think, at least, is the problem in this sort of discussion. Reality cannot be considered self-consistent if an entity beyond its limits is able to interfere with it at will.

If someone accepts this is a proper limit of reality, this person can be reasoned with.

If not, the person in question denies everything we as humans know about reality, and is outside the proper framework of discussion.

But you, I, and many others, keep discussing it with them. We need a way to unite the discussion. I don't yet know what that is because this idea just popped into my head...

When I said 'new idea' I simply meant the specifics of the idea, which I also realise that I didn't actually write on here. I only wrote the very basic part of the concept to get you thinking.

You are very right in saying that you can't disprove this theory. This is the same with all religions as well as Science, and my theory. If told you that when you woke up from this very long dream you would be 100x smarter then you think you are in the dream, could I be disproced?

Probably not (I could only be disproved if I messed up while writing that, which I probably did

I'm not going to post the rest of this brilliant concept, because the only reason I posted any of this was to prove a point. You can't disprove either side of the argument, so why bother. The vast majority of these posts are unnesecary. No one is able to win this argument. Ever.

You basically rehashed your previous post, substantively, so let me rehash mine: You can't disprove ANYTHING. Not with any certainty.

So given that, what's the point of the ideas you propose, assuming you're not trolling?

 

[jcm]

I should probably point out that I accept Science as reality.

Or at least I used to until I came up with my brilliant concept...


...Which I chose not to believe because it's too conceptual for me to fully comprehend.


EDIT: I'm not trolling. Read the last paragraph of my post. That's my point. Technically, my concept is equally valid as Science or Christiantiy because it can't truly be disproved. The only thing seperating these ideas is that my concept is being taught in schools, or enforced as The Truth in a country. It's just an idea which is most likely wrong. It's not possible to disprove Chritiantiy, so why bother. You say I rehased my idea, you do realise that basically every single post in here is just rehasing the same idea right? There's no use arguing when you can't truly prove the answer. It's unnesesary to continue rehashing the same ideas over 6000 posts.

Once again I apoligize for my spellllllling

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I should probably point out that I accept Science as reality.

Or at least I used to until I came up with my brilliant concept...


...Which I chose not to believe because it's too conceptual for me to fully comprehend.

A concept is an idea built upon observation of specific occurances.

List some specific occurances to support your 'concept', or admit trolling.

I'm not trolling. Read the last paragraph of my post. That's my point. Technically, my concept is equally valid as Science or Christiantiy because it can't truly be disproved. The only thing seperating these ideas is that my concept is being taught in schools, or enforced as The Truth in a country. It's just an idea which is most likely wrong. It's not possible to disprove Chritiantiy, so why bother. You say I rehased my idea, you do realise that basically every single post in here is just rehasing the same idea right? There's no use arguing when you can't truly prove the answer. It's unnesesary to continue rehashing the same ideas over 6000 posts.

Once again I apoligize for my spellllllling

<edited out>