Do you believe in God?

[Public'sTwin]

It also allows us to look at ourselves as being much more important in the universe.

Claiming to be the 'chosen race' (or children, whatever adjective it is they choose from time to time) isn't plenty enough justification to look at yourselves as being important in the Universe?

 

[Danoff]

Doesn't Objectivism insist God does not exist?

If Objectivism declares that God strictly does not exist (which I very much doubt), then I disagree on that point.

 

[niky]

"Thou art God", is the phrase, as I'd grok it.

It's significantly different from "We (exclusively) are the chosen ones" as it states that everyone is part of God, not just the chosen people.

Which actually lessens the importance of the individual in that he/she is not more important than others who do not believe in the same religion.

Which means that, whether you believe in pantheism or not, you're saved anyway.

 

[Public'sTwin]

It's significantly different from "We (exclusively) are the chosen ones" as it states that everyone is part of God, not just the chosen people.

Actually I was referring to two different examples: the Hebrew peoples, and Man - the race - as a whole. (As in contrast with chimps, dogs, flying squirrels.)

Which actually lessens the importance of the individual

You don't say?

 

[Blitz187]

Some interesting quotes which made me think of this thread immediately.

- "The difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that the old-fashioned idea of God has become incredible or implausible." - Alan Watts

- "You don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look in you." - Alan Watts

 

[eight6er]

I don't believe in god, not as I was brought up to believe anyway. I like to read about physics casually and the more I learn about it the more I cannot deny that there is something god like in this universe. I think there are many things we may never comprehend, and it is only the arrogance of humans that makes us think anything we do has any significance to "god".

So basically what I'm trying to say is, I don't know which option to vote for

 

[Duke]

Some interesting quotes which made me think of this thread immediately.

- "The difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that the old-fashioned idea of God has become incredible or implausible." - Alan Watts

Actually, the difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that so many people refuse to acknowledge the incredibility and implausibility.

 

[Dotini]

So basically what I'm trying to say is, I don't know which option to vote for

Hold onto that vote!!
Duke and his supermoderators and the great contributors here at GTPlanet are well on the way to redefining the definition of "God" and its meaning in the modern world.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Hold onto that vote!!
Duke and his supermoderators and the great contributors here at GTPlanet are well on the way to redefining the definition of "God" and its meaning in the modern world.

At the risk of sounding like the love-child of Douglas Adams and Ayn Rand, I'm not entirely sure we need a redefinition of "God" - indeed I don't think we really need the idea of "God" anymore whatsoever, except in a historical and anthropological context.

It seems like the general shape of such a redefinition would place any such god well within the realm of the natural world and as such would make it (eventually) knowable. In this case, it would make more sense to think of it in those terms. If it turns out there is some sort of immaterial unknowable force at work (which I find highly unlikely), I'd think trying to "transfer the tags" to 'it' from 'God' would be just as pointless. If it were to be accurately described, it should be done on its own terms, not on the basis of adaptations of antiquated ideas.

 

[Dotini]

At the risk of sounding like the love-child of Douglas Adams and Ayn Rand, I'm not entirely sure we need a redefinition of "God" - indeed I don't think we really need the idea of "God" anymore whatsoever, except in a historical and anthropological context.

It seems like the general shape of such a redefinition would place any such god well within the realm of the natural world and as such would make it (eventually) knowable. In this case, it would make more sense to think of it in those terms. If it turns out there is some sort of immaterial unknowable force at work (which I find highly unlikely), I'd think trying to "transfer the tags" to 'it' from 'God' would be just as pointless. If it were to be accurately described, it should be done on its own terms, not on the basis of adaptations of antiquated ideas.

A thoughtful group of ideas there, Crafty. But I would respectfully disagree that we don't need to resolve the question of God. Just take a look at the world around us and at a glance we see a rotting mass of contradictions that pose mortal problems, issues of life and death for our planet and humanity. Many of these contradictions are found right here in this forum, with thread titles like Creation vs Evolution (religion vs science), Knowledge - Blessing or Curse?, Torture, Racism, End-times, Euthanasia, Aliens, Does Freedom Exist?, Does Free Will Exist?, Media Bias, Collapsing National and Global Finance, Does Global Warming Exist? Does or Should Unconditional Love Exist?

Only the most extreme Pollyanna would say that ours is a happy and untroubled world, free from the threat of any kind of harm or destruction to our freedom, property, our economy or the lives of us and our children.

So our grappling with these questions is not idle, pointless, profitless or just for the fun of debate.

If we were able to more accurately describe god and bring it into the realm of the natural world, I'd say it was a service to humanity just as much as it would be to resolve any of those other issues that are dividing global civilization. We've already had a generation of Douglas Adams/Ayn Rand love children. That was the "me" generation. The pursuit of individual pleasure and profit has its place, but not at the cost of a perpetual war of unresolved contradictions. If we have character, values and purpose, we will continue to meet in these forums and elsewhere, and resolve our differences.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Denur]

If we were able to more accurately describe god and bring it into the realm of the natural world, I'd say it was a service to humanity just as much as it would be to resolve any of those other issues that are dividing global civilization.

It is impossible to accurately describe god. All we can do is describe is what we'd expect of a god to be like. And even then, if an entity fulfilling that description were to reveal itself, would we still see it as a god or would we merely see it as a new 'force' in the Universe?

 

[Public'sTwin]

It is impossible to accurately describe god. All we can do is describe is what we'd expect of a god to be like. And even then, if an entity fulfilling that description were to reveal itself, would we still see it as a god or would we merely see it as a new 'force' in the Universe?

His whole point was predicated upon the "if" - to say it is impossible to describe God is irrelevant, because the outcome of his statement was conditional upon a situation in which we could. That is, he was speaking hypothetically.

 

[Dotini]

It is impossible to accurately describe god. All we can do is describe is what we'd expect of a god to be like. And even then, if an entity fulfilling that description were to reveal itself, would we still see it as a god or would we merely see it as a new 'force' in the Universe?

I stand corrected! Denur has made a crucial point. I should have said: "to more accurately describe god's workings and manifestation in the natural world and bring it into the realm of science." This implies the most rigorous possible observation and understanding of science, engineering, medicine, astronomy and all anomalous events. I am attempting to make god nothing less than a practical matter of fact - either finally falsified or validated.

Thanks to Denur and Public's Twin. Your participation in this project is vital.

Gratefully,
Dotini

 

[CraftyLandShark]

And even then, if an entity fulfilling that description were to reveal itself, would we still see it as a god or would we merely see it as a new 'force' in the Universe?

This more clearly illuminates what my point was - let that hypothetical new force in the universe be observed and described as accurately as possible, without adding to it the connotative baggage associated with the concept of a god.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Do you believe in god? No, never.

maybe this poll needs a fourth option "Of course, without her nothing would exist! "

 

[Public'sTwin]

This more clearly illuminates what my point was - let that hypothetical new force in the universe be observed and described as accurately as possible, without adding to it the connotative baggage associated with the concept of a god.

I pose the question: Would that not still leave behind the problem of Who is God?

Allow me to extrapolate:

Once "God", as the force has been understood to represent, has been deconstructed and outlined by a series of laws and theories regarding the observations made, I would argue that a majority of the population would still think that God - the entity - still existed somewhere and that we've merely discovered a kind of governing body, rather than our enlightened creator of sorts. By His very enigmatic nature, I would posit that if we had found and accurately described the single greatest, most powerful intelligent body - the Lord himself - that it would not be accepted as such simply by virtue of having actually succeeded.

 

[DK]

If God appeared on Earth, chances are, if he (or she, you never know) does know everything, people would spend a long time asking him/her questions. Some may be pure rubbish, others may be meaningful. Too bad the vast majority may be the rubbish questions.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I pose the question: Would that not still leave behind the problem of Who is God?

Allow me to extrapolate:

Once "God", as the force has been understood to represent, has been deconstructed and outlined by a series of laws and theories regarding the observations made, I would argue that a majority of the population would still think that God - the entity - still existed somewhere and that we've merely discovered a kind of governing body, rather than our enlightened creator of sorts. By His very enigmatic nature, I would posit that if we had found and accurately described the single greatest, most powerful intelligent body - the Lord himself - that it would not be accepted as such simply by virtue of having actually succeeded.

I see your point. I'm sure there will always be a segment of the population that demands an inexplicable entity-creator that requires faith as its justification rather than evidence. I suppose for this segment of the population the question of "Who is God" will indeed always remain, but the point I'm driving at is that if social progress as most of us view it is the goal, I think it's important, when speaking about fields of honest intellectual endeavor, for this question to be acknowledged as outmoded.

I certainly don't think it's possible to eliminate the question forever in a 'real world' sense, but I tend to think allowing parity of 'intellectual status' between the questions "Who is God" and "How and why does the universe work?" is dangerous and disingenuous.

 

[niky]

Indeed.

By stating the question as such, "Who is God."... you're already imposing three preconceptions on the "zero source". The first is that it is an entity of some sort. The second is that it's an identifiable individual entity. The third is that a "zero source" actually exists.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I certainly don't think it's possible to eliminate the question forever in a 'real world' sense, but I tend to think allowing parity of 'intellectual status' between the questions "Who is God" and "How and why does the universe work?" is dangerous and disingenuous.

First of all, I agree.

However, I wasn't equating the two - how and why does the Universe work? and Who is God? - I was consolidating them: Assuming we have identified and understood 'God', and that 'He' is why & how the Universe works, I was inferring that by proving God to be a measurable and definable entity, we have essentially negated His existence upon his discovery.

What's to be further interpolated from this conclusion is that no matter how close we get to understanding God or science - if they're related and compatible - is that the voices of established religion will still default to denial of His Earthly rendition.

My question served to find out your thoughts on the matter; has this explanation of it impacted the sentiments?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

First of all, I agree.

However, I wasn't equating the two - how and why does the Universe work? and Who is God? - I was consolidating them: Assuming we have identified and understood 'God', and that 'He' is why & how the Universe works, I was inferring that by proving God to be a measurable and definable entity, we have essentially negated His existence upon his discovery.

What's to be further interpolated from this conclusion is that no matter how close we get to understanding God or science - if they're related and compatible - is that the voices of established religion will still default to denial of His Earthly rendition.

My question served to find out your thoughts on the matter; has this explanation of it impacted the sentiments?

In that case, no, I suppose there's not really any impact. I've long maintained, a few times in this particular thread, that if 'God' actually presented himself (i.e. became measurable or definable) that he/it would cease to be a god, or prove him/itself not to have been a god in the first place.

Given that, the proper angle of attack to the problem is addressing those you describe who will maintain their belief despite, or indeed perhaps because of, claims of concrete proof.

Boiled down:

Philosophical minutia can be interesting, but that's not the arena from which useful change will arise.

 

[Dotini]

Given that, the proper angle of attack to the problem is addressing those you describe who will maintain their belief despite, or indeed perhaps because of, claims of concrete proof.

Boiled down:

Philosophical minutia can be interesting, but that's not the arena from which useful change will arise.

I don't understand. Do you mean to say that the problem is people of belief, and that useful change can arise only from attacking these people? Will it be necessary to physically liquidate these people in order to finally resolve the contradiction?

Just curious,
Dotini

 

[Mars Attacks]

No, I do not believe.

Why not being an experiment made by a superior extraterrestrial culture, which continues (becoming more and more dangerous…) just because they forgot to terminate it…(switch off)

 

[Dotini]

Nature, together with the journal Science, is amongst the most respected science journals.

From:
Nature 463, 644-647 (4 February 2010)

Coherently wired light-harvesting in photosynthetic marine algae at ambient temperature

Elisabetta Collini, Cathy Y. Wong, Krystyna E. Wilk, Paul M. G. Curmi, Paul Brumer & Gregory D. Scholes


"... This contrasts with the long-held view that long-range quantum coherence between molecules cannot be sustained in complex biological systems, even at low temperatures...."


Commentary by Dr. Radin: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/02/quantum-biology-now-quantum-psychology.html

Undoubtedly getting ahead of myself,
Dotini

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I don't understand. Do you mean to say that the problem is people of belief, and that useful change can arise only from attacking these people? Will it be necessary to physically liquidate these people in order to finally resolve the contradiction?

Just curious,
Dotini

Yes. I'm a homicidal maniac bent on religious genocide.

I'd have thought you were a little more perceptive than that. There's quite a difference between believing that religion is generally socially outdated and at times harmful (which I do), and wanting to go on a spree of "religious cleansing" (which I most definitely don't). The latter type of action is generally motivated by fundamental religious beliefs anyhow, which only serves to further illustrate my point.

All I'm saying is what I've said before - there's an entrenched culture war between the mentalities of faith-based belief and reason-based secularism. I just happen to believe that one viewpoint is proper and moral for man as he exists today, and one is a relic of bygone centuries that has no real place in post-enlightenment society. Individuals have the right to believe otherwise, but I certainly have the right to attempt to persuade them that they're wrong.

 

[Dotini]

- there's an entrenched culture war between the mentalities of faith-based belief and reason-based secularism. I just happen to believe that one viewpoint is proper and moral for man as he exists today, and one is a relic of bygone centuries that has no real place in post-enlightenment society. Individuals have the right to believe otherwise, but I certainly have the right to attempt to persuade them that they're wrong.

Ah, thanks, Crafty. I understand better now. Geezers have their good days and their less good ones.

For my own part, I am of course attempting a tricky synthesis. I do believe strongly in reason, and I abhor organized religion. My "problem" is that I have direct first person experience with a physics not currently fully understood nor recognized in the broad mainstream. I feel quite sure there are such things as psi, UFO's and possibly some sort of afterlife of the spirit or soul. Obviously, there might well be a rational basis for these manifold manifestations of higher power or powers, and thus some kind of basis for religious belief. I aim to falsify or validate these. I sincerely hope my approach doesn't overly annoy or threaten anyone who has already taken sides in the culture wars!

Yours,
Dotini

 

[CraftyLandShark]

If you rightly trust your observations, from my view, there must be a rational explanation for them. Whether you or any of us might understand such an explanation in our lifetime is a fair question, though, for you as an individual. Not having shared your sensory experience, I can't honestly and fully entertain the topic.

The general distinction we're drawing is an important one though, I must admit. That which is as yet inexplicable will always fall easy victim to skepticism (or a "God of the Gaps", it's important to note). This (skepticism) is good in most cases, but we have to be careful how we apply such skepticism - we risk blinding ourselves to valuable new information. I think your cited study of primitive tools is a good example, if it holds water.

 

[Denur]

Warning: If you are easily offended, then don't watch this, or anything else by Hans Teeuwen.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

...5. It is neither possible to prove nor disprove the existence of a deity, even a construct like FSM or IPU (or Moroni or Xenu).

I submit there is a way to prove it. You have to die. Then you'll have your proof, one way or another.

 

[Famine]

Eyewitness testimony is not proof.