Philosophy and God

[Yog]

Lets suppose, for a minute, that God is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. If we hold this assumption for any length of time then we come to a strange and startling conclusion: God is a paradox. There become mental experiments that God simply cannot accomplish. Take the silly old cliche, God cannot build a wall it cannot jump. In this simple mental experiment we have created a flaw in the perfection. We have created something God cannot do. Even if God could build a wall he could not jump then the paradox still holds. Even if we assume that a necessary condition on the perfection of God is that God cannot be constrained by time and space then God still cannot jump that wall. In this instance God doesn't even have a physical body to "jump" with. If the presupposition of perfection is that God can do anything at any time for any reason then we have a serious philosophic problem. That problem is that as long as God is perfect then God is a paradox. You might even go so far as to argue that a necessary condition on perfection is the absence of Paradoxisms. I would personally find this a strong argument.

If all of the logic tracks then we have a big problem in our conception of God. But is there a remedy?

Consider the following: man is inherintly flawed. Man is imperfect. We could even apply the same logic to the universe as a whole. The universe is flawed and man is a product of the universe. There is a somewhat strange and pleasing symmetry to this logic. On one hand we have God, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and on the other we have the universe, flawed. Everthing that God cannot do in and of itself can be accomplished by the universe. Suddenly this symmetry vanquishes the paradoxes. God cannot build a wall he cannot jump but God can build a wall unscalable by anything in the universe. The universe cannot construct a wall that God cannot scale. If we view God and the universe as necessary haves to the whole then we have a harmony. In this system it could be said that God and the universe are mutually dependant. One cannot preceed the other. There has to be a universe for there to be a God and vice versa. The uinverse is subject to the constraints that are not present on God.

In the end, in this line of philosophic thinking, we could say that God exists because we do and we exist because God does. Both institutions are interdependant upon the other.

If you are confused by all of this then consider yourself in good company. :)

[waywardgirl]

God is just this giant abstraction that I can't grasp anymore. God has been turned into a notion by philosophers that think they are some whole other level than those who anthropomorphize God but it's all just a notion in the end. I've lost all hope for finding something I can understand. I just hold on to all my cradle Catholic beliefs for something tangible that I can use to raise my kids one day. Just holding on to pictures of my white Jesus, Santa Claus and the Easter bunny for some nostalgic glimpse into that "oceanic" feeling I felt as a kid.

[Yog]

I just hold on to all my cradle Catholic beliefs for something tangible that I can use to raise my kids one day. Just holding on to pictures of my white Jesus, Santa Claus and the Easter bunny for some nostalgic glimpse into that "oceanic" feeling I felt as a kid.

For faith I look no further than Kierkegaard. As for grasping God there is no need, as God is equally likely to exist or not to exist. Both arguments are equally valid and so neither are truly valid. In the abscence of reason only faith can exist and faith is singularly the most difficult thing a person could ever do. Then why commit yourself to it? Good question, I don't see a need. I don't see any moral or ethical necessity to commit yourself to a being that may or may not exist with equal liklihood. Condemnation to hell, perhaps. No need as the deterministic nature of the existence of God obviates any individual of responsibility of their actions here on earth.

Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are just fun and their pagan nature is infinitely more enjoyable than the Christian corrupted holidays they have become.

So if I believe all that then why post the concept to begin with? Because I find it interesting. The notion that man and God might be a symbiotic existence and each interdependent upon the other is a much more interesting concept than man as completely dependent upon God. Could the concept ultimately lead to the obviation of the infliction of determinism upon man? I don't know, but that would be an excellent avenue for intellectual exploration.

[waywardgirl]

Kierkegaard is good when it comes to notions of anxiety...but for God I can't make the leap of faith. I'm stuck in the aestetic as he says. I'm a secular humanist, thats failing at it, everytime I turn on the news it reaffirms that I'm wrong.
God might just be a projection of the Oedipal complex like Freud says, but frankly I don't know at all.

[Yog]

I don't think there is a need for the leap. It's enough to know that it's necessary and the chasm is waiting for the jumper.

[Esko]

Lets suppose, for a minute, that God is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. If we hold this assumption for any length of time then we come to a strange and startling conclusion: God is a paradox. There become mental experiments that God simply cannot accomplish. Take the silly old cliche, God cannot build a wall it cannot jump. In this simple mental experiment we have created a flaw in the perfection. We have created something God cannot do. Even if God could build a wall he could not jump then the paradox still holds. Even if we assume that a necessary condition on the perfection of God is that God cannot be constrained by time and space then God still cannot jump that wall. In this instance God doesn't even have a physical body to "jump" with. If the presupposition of perfection is that God can do anything at any time for any reason then we have a serious philosophic problem. That problem is that as long as God is perfect then God is a paradox. You might even go so far as to argue that a necessary condition on perfection is the absence of Paradoxisms. I would personally find this a strong argument.

If all of the logic tracks then we have a big problem in our conception of God. But is there a remedy?

Consider the following: man is inherintly flawed. Man is imperfect. We could even apply the same logic to the universe as a whole. The universe is flawed and man is a product of the universe. There is a somewhat strange and pleasing symmetry to this logic. On one hand we have God, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and on the other we have the universe, flawed. Everthing that God cannot do in and of itself can be accomplished by the universe. Suddenly this symmetry vanquishes the paradoxes. God cannot build a wall he cannot jump but God can build a wall unscalable by anything in the universe. The universe cannot construct a wall that God cannot scale. If we view God and the universe as necessary haves to the whole then we have a harmony. In this system it could be said that God and the universe are mutually dependant. One cannot preceed the other. There has to be a universe for there to be a God and vice versa. The uinverse is subject to the constraints that are not present on God.

In the end, in this line of philosophic thinking, we could say that God exists because we do and we exist because God does. Both institutions are interdependant upon the other.

If you are confused by all of this then consider yourself in good company. :)

Hmmm... We can suppose that god is perfect, omnipotent and omniscient BUT we cant explain or comperhend with our brains or maths or science or anything what it means to be these things. Its the same like trying to solve Fermat´s last theorem with maths from the dark ages or trying to divide an angle in three equal parts with only a straightedge and a compass. Its impossible. Thats why we encounter many kinds of paradoxes when trying to think about god with no proper "tools".

Why would you say the universe is flawed? I think the universe is fantastically made. Theres gravity, electromagnetic force, weak and strong nuclear forces, gluons, photons, gravitons and so on to keep stuff together, theres electrons, neutrons and protons to make atoms, theres quarks to make all kinda other particles... What is flawed about some electron with a certain energy? Whats flawed about a bunch of electrons and protons and neutrons and all kinda other things that make up us humans for example? If electrons didnt have that certain mass, or if gravitational forces werent exactly like they are for example i wouldnt be here typing right now :D

You also have to determine what flawed means, and what it means as opposed to "perfect". Is there a universal kind of "flawed"? Sure, i could say my old crappy lava lamp is "flawed" because it doesnt work properly but thats just from my perspective. The universe could might as well say ITS TOTALLY PERFECT since its EXACTLY in the place its supposed to be and doing EXACTLY what is is supposed to be doing since theres absolutely nothing against the laws of nature residing in it(no missing electrons and such). Its flawed in my perspective only because of my idea of a "lavalamp" and what those things are supposed to do. One could even argue that its a perfect lamp because he likes lamps that work whenever they please :D

Anyways, sorry for the long philosophy :D My point is that humans cant argue about things they cant (yet) comperhend :D

[Yog]

Anyways, sorry for the long philosophy My point is that humans cant argue about things they cant (yet) comperhend

Ahh case in point: a flaw.

According to the dictionary a flaw is: a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault. Simply put a flaw is anything not perfect. Since the universe is composed of imperfections then it is fundamentally imperfect and hence flawed. Or in other words the universe is what God is not.

[k2hsharpe]

"That problem is that as long as God is perfect then God is a paradox"

"According to the dictionary a flaw is: a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault."


perfection is such a strange concept, unattainable everywhere, desirable nowhere.
And as for the poor old 'Flaw'. What did it do to deserve such bad press? I like Flaws. For me a Flaw, by denying perfection, defines beauty.
An example, a poor one since it is a personal one ... women. Most young women are pretty. Truth be told, most young people are pretty. But prettiness doesn't last, nor should it. Except in those parts of the world dominated by American culture. Americans seem to define beauty in a woman by prettiness. It's the strangest thing to see women held up as ideals of beauty that seem to be merely prettiness past it's use by date. Continental Europeans on the other hand seem to have a different sense of what is beauty in a woman. The women they proclaim to be beautiful often have that most maligned of things ... flaws. For me Flaws rescue objects and women from mere prettiness, and if they are lucky elevate them to beauty.

Thank God for Flaws, perfection is irrelevant.

[Esko]

Ahh case in point: a flaw.

According to the dictionary a flaw is: a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault. Simply put a flaw is anything not perfect. Since the universe is composed of imperfections then it is fundamentally imperfect and hence flawed. Or in other words the universe is what God is not.

Ahh yes, true, but the dictionary explenation always leaves room for opinions for what is actually flawed or not. One could argue that the universe is made of perfections because there doesnt seem to be anything flawed about the laws of nature or the little particles and energy that make up everything.

If we assumed there were lots of universally flawed things, what if a lot of flawed things make one huge perfect? :D

Who are we to say what is perfect or flawed? After all we can only know one thing for sure with our limited senses: "i exsist" :D

[Yog]

Who are we to say what is perfect or flawed? After all we can only know one thing for sure with our limited senses: "i exsist"

Actually this is apriori knowledge and doesn't rely on senses at all. A man completely deprived of senses could argue his own existence based simply on the fact that he reasons. Cogito ergo sum: I think therefore I am.

If we assumed there were lots of universally flawed things, what if a lot of flawed things make one huge perfect?

Since perfection is the absence of flaws I would reject this argument. Your argument also suggests that it would be possible for something to be perfectly flawed, that something could be so marred with imperfections as to be perfect. You might even say that you are suggesting that God is omniscient exactly because it is completely incapable of reason. That is most probably the funniest thing I have read in some time and definitely worthy of story.

A man seeks perfection. He realized that his conception of perfection is limited but his conception of flaw is perfect. To achieve perfection he decides to become perfectly flawed so he sets about to mar himself in the most imperfectly perfect way he can. He ends by making himself brain-dead and transforms into God. That would be a devilishly sweet story full of such supreme sarcasm and irony I don't think I can resist writing it.

perfection is such a strange concept, unattainable everywhere, desirable nowhere.
And as for the poor old 'Flaw'. What did it do to deserve such bad press? I like Flaws. For me a Flaw, by denying perfection, defines beauty.
An example, a poor one since it is a personal one ... women. Most young women are pretty. Truth be told, most young people are pretty. But prettiness doesn't last, nor should it. Except in those parts of the world dominated by American culture. Americans seem to define beauty in a woman by prettiness. It's the strangest thing to see women held up as ideals of beauty that seem to be merely prettiness past it's use by date. Continental Europeans on the other hand seem to have a different sense of what is beauty in a woman. The women they proclaim to be beautiful often have that most maligned of things ... flaws. For me Flaws rescue objects and women from mere prettiness, and if they are lucky elevate them to beauty.

Thank God for Flaws, perfection is irrelevant.

k2hsharpe, this is a very asthetically pleasing argument and well said. Nicely done.

[agonzalez]

:D This is one of the reasons I'm Pagan. I didn't like the idea of someone who's 'perfict' being in charge of were I go after I die. My eities are't. They screw up, they mess uck with people for the heck of it. My husband's Christian, though. I was able to tick him off when I jokingly siad I was the recencarnation of all seven sins...

[Nobody]

Ahh yes, true, but the dictionary explenation always leaves room for opinions for what is actually flawed or not. One could argue that the universe is made of perfections because there doesnt seem to be anything flawed about the laws of nature or the little particles and energy that make up everything.

If we assumed there were lots of universally flawed things, what if a lot of flawed things make one huge perfect? :D

Who are we to say what is perfect or flawed? After all we can only know one thing for sure with our limited senses: "i exsist" :D


Nature has no flaws? I doubt that. Cancer. It is a flaw. When a certain cell of the body (not nessecarily human) becomes sick, it destroys itself as to not infect other cells. However, there are cells incapable of destroying themselves (you could say they're incapable of protecting the organism they are a part of). Because of this flaw this "dead" cell exists as a sort of hazard to other cells. They are infected and repeat the pattern. They do not selfdistruct but die as a part of the body they are attached to, killing more and more of the fascade they are attached to.

Did that make any sense?

[unbittentongue]

Let's say that God perfect..etc. etc.. and if that is the case then he obviously knows what goes on and what will go on. Then why create a world that is becoming so "corrupt" if he already knew it was to become that way. All the bad things that have happened to anyone and everyone, why does he let all that happen as well?

[Rusty Klichowicz]

Firstly what we are calling flaws is a subjective opinion. Cancer for example, because it kills humans is thus something that is 'wrong' with the world. I beg to differ. I think it perectly 'right'. It is an unpleasant disease for us to deal with but it is part of the world's control over us to keep our populaton at a manageable level.

But secondly I would like to question the necessity of having an intellectual understanding of God, who obviously is beyond that. I have what I might call a "knowing" that God exists and remain intellectually confused. I don't use bright academically structured sentences, I haven't read Kierkegarde. I haven't read the Bible. I can explain things in metaphors like this question of God's existence and the $64 000 question of what this is actually about, what happens to us when we die?

A caterpillar cannot conceive of itself becoming a butterfly. It's difficulty in this is that it is not self aware, therefore it cannot picture itself on the twig any more than it can associate itself with the insect flying by. It might know that change is coming but it has no idea what and how it's going to be.

I am aware of the presence of something other than the tangible world around us, some call that presence God, others have different explanations formed by their background and culture. But everywhere you go you will see that people are aware of it and their cultures are formed around its reverence.

If that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent the he IS all those.

[Nobody]

Firstly what we are calling flaws is a subjective opinion. Cancer for example, because it kills humans is thus something that is 'wrong' with the world. I beg to differ. I think it perectly 'right'. It is an unpleasant disease for us to deal with but it is part of the world's control over us to keep our populaton at a manageable level.


I'm sorry. I did not mean to label the sickness as a flaw all together. I was referring to the cell, that is flawed, hence bringing forth this disease. Of course it is perfect in its own way. It works just the way it is supposed to, while the origin of it (the corrupt cell) did not. Get what I meant? :)

(I guess you could say, you believe in fate, which would mean: That cell worked just the way it was supposed to. But that's a totally different topic)

[Mr. Blocks]

I personally agree with Einsteins version of "god". And it is not the religious kind.

[Introspective]

I know this is an old discussion, but I took the time to read through and appreciate the depth of the topic and its participants, and I was moved to add somewhat to it. Let me say first, I am not a highly educated person in a book sense, so I will not be quoting Socrates, or Plato. Freud was a spoiled deviant child, though some of his works are quiet poetic in their own right, but I do not have the mastery of his works to include them. But I do have a heartbeat. I do have a rhythm. I do have a part of my intellect that is drawn towards discussions such as this, and I like to think, there is at least negligible value in what my years of truth seeking has shown me.

I believe God is indeed perfect. Our definition of perfection is what is flawed.

Our perception that perfection contains neither errors, nor inconsistencies is ludicrous. It is the fantasy of men who envisioned angels with “wings” simply because their books said they “flew” and their medieval minds only knew of birds flying, so logic progressed that angels must have wings. And even now the paradigms that they encroached onto the consciences of humanity, rules our subconscious. Question that? Close your eyes and picture an angel. Find me one ancient manuscript describing the wings. It is our imagination, it does not exist.

So we must all accept from the start of any intellectual journey, that our vessel is flawed.
Thinking outside of the box is seldom done, till one sees himself in the box.

I contend that the vessel is perfect. The flaws make it so.

My definition of perfection is truth. Not my truth or your truth, but THE truth. If there is truly dark matter holding the fabric of matter together, then surely there is one truth that is universal allowing that law to exist.

I have hungered for this truth since days of watching Baptist fables, me looking around and asking, why don’t I see this in you? And wondering how can there be so many contradictions spilling from the same fountain? Do I believe in God? No. Not the one you do.

When you wash out all the static, the picture it leaves is so simple, it doesn’t exist, and yet it does, we are just blinded by the static. Like dark matter covered by the light. No prove of its existence, yet proof all around.

There is one universal truth, call that what you will, I call that God; and it resembles nothing taught in the temples today.

We are perfectly flawed.

“Lets suppose, for a minute, that God is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. If we hold this assumption for any length of time then we come to a strange and startling conclusion: God is a paradox. There become mental experiments that God simply cannot accomplish. Take the silly old cliche, God cannot build a wall it cannot jump. In this simple mental experiment we have created a flaw in the perfection. We have created something God cannot do.”

I take issue with the idea that God’s perfect, omniscient and omnipotent character means He must be able to do everything, that there can be no limitations. AH, omniscient and omnipotent seems to be the issue. Not so, only in the medieval interpretation.

There are many things that truth cannot do. Convince the fool, change its answer, and compete with folly. That proposal only paradoxes the “God” of this world. Narrow is the gate and few there be that find it. The shear magnitude of their masses testifies against them by and through their own books.

INCONSISTENCY!!! That is what cannot exist in “truth”, that is my premise. It is not limitation. Everything is limited; the wilting flower taught me that.

“Consider the following: man is inherintly flawed. Man is imperfect. We could even apply the same logic to the universe as a whole. The universe is flawed and man is a product of the universe. There is a somewhat strange and pleasing symmetry to this logic. On one hand we have God, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and on the other we have the universe, flawed. Everthing that God cannot do in and of itself can be accomplished by the universe. Suddenly this symmetry vanquishes the paradoxes. God cannot build a wall he cannot jump but God can build a wall unscalable by anything in the universe. The universe cannot construct a wall that God cannot scale. If we view God and the universe as necessary haves to the whole then we have a harmony. In this system it could be said that God and the universe are mutually dependant. One cannot preceed the other. There has to be a universe for there to be a God and vice versa. The uinverse is subject to the constraints that are not present on God.”


This is a beautiful notion, and a joy to contemplate.

Man is imperfect because he is flawed??? I contend with this premise.

I say he is perfect BECAUSE we are “imperfect”.

How else could we have the means in which to grasp at these thoughts??? How can you know right without wrong? I say right would indeed exist, but we would be unable to grasp it as there would be no representation for us to understand. We would not recognize it as “right” or choice because there would be neither, only existence. No flavor.

Side note: Death is just an illusion in our minds as way to shield us as we pass out of this womb and into “life”. The spiritual are only half “life”, the rest are dead in the womb. Who knows how painful the transition truly is??? Maybe a black out is mercy in its purest form. Wipes the memory of my dead twin.

But I digress…

Think for a moment of our conception of “God” as always existing, a being that is “life” incarnate. The point is at some time it was just Him. He being the only. The beginning. Was He “God” then? Can a king be a king with no kingdom? Can a ruler be a ruler without subjects? No, He was only existence.

“God” in the classical sense cannot exist without the universe. So you are both correct, perfect, and at the same time flawed.

Truth can exist, without “signs” and effects of its existence, which can only exist in a sibilant brain. The “signs” are just the only way we have to know of its existence, and purposely done so, and thereby a choice is offered, the stew is flavored.

If I have no magnet, does that mean there is no magnetism? Or is the magnet just the physical manifestation of the spiritual law that exists with or without our “knowledge”?

I could “prove” my theory on this no more than a nay sayer but I believe our “physical universe” is nothing but the body of the spiritual “man”. And the man is life, and the life is truth, and the truth is “God”. And this Truth exists in the very framework of ones ability to deny it.

So the wiccans have some truth to their “religion”
So the Baptist have some truth to their “religion”
So the Buddhist, so the Catholics, protestant, atheist alike, have truth to their “religion”.
But can never grasp at the flaws, because they cannot accept the flaws of the “God”, that only exists in their perceptions.

All have truth, mixed with a little lie. Imperfect, and yet …each having its place as a waymark.

He is perfect. And my definition is flawed. In this portion, I agree with your synopsis.

I would love for this discussion to be revived.

I have more to both hear and say. Everyone should join, it is a worthy discussion.

[Jazzy Bear]

I know this is an old discussion, but I took the time to read through and appreciate the depth of the topic and its participants, and I was moved to add somewhat to it. Let me say first, I am not a highly educated person in a book sense, so I will not be quoting Socrates, or Plato. Freud was a spoiled deviant child, though some of his works are quiet poetic in their own right, but I do not have the mastery of his works to include them. But I do have a heartbeat. I do have a rhythm. I do have a part of my intellect that is drawn towards discussions such as this, and I like to think, there is at least negligible value in what my years of truth seeking has shown me.

I believe God is indeed perfect. Our definition of perfection is what is flawed.

Our perception that perfection contains neither errors, nor inconsistencies is ludicrous. It is the fantasy of men who envisioned angels with “wings” simply because their books said they “flew” and their medieval minds only knew of birds flying, so logic progressed that angels must have wings. And even now the paradigms that they encroached onto the consciences of humanity, rules our subconscious. Question that? Close your eyes and picture an angel. Find me one ancient manuscript describing the wings. It is our imagination, it does not exist.

So we must all accept from the start of any intellectual journey, that our vessel is flawed.
Thinking outside of the box is seldom done, till one sees himself in the box.

I contend that the vessel is perfect. The flaws make it so.

My definition of perfection is truth. Not my truth or your truth, but THE truth. If there is truly dark matter holding the fabric of matter together, then surely there is one truth that is universal allowing that law to exist.

I have hungered for this truth since days of watching Baptist fables, me looking around and asking, why don’t I see this in you? And wondering how can there be so many contradictions spilling from the same fountain? Do I believe in God? No. Not the one you do.

When you wash out all the static, the picture it leaves is so simple, it doesn’t exist, and yet it does, we are just blinded by the static. Like dark matter covered by the light. No prove of its existence, yet proof all around.

There is one universal truth, call that what you will, I call that God; and it resembles nothing taught in the temples today.

We are perfectly flawed.

“Lets suppose, for a minute, that God is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. If we hold this assumption for any length of time then we come to a strange and startling conclusion: God is a paradox. There become mental experiments that God simply cannot accomplish. Take the silly old cliche, God cannot build a wall it cannot jump. In this simple mental experiment we have created a flaw in the perfection. We have created something God cannot do.”

I take issue with the idea that God’s perfect, omniscient and omnipotent character means He must be able to do everything, that there can be no limitations. AH, omniscient and omnipotent seems to be the issue. Not so, only in the medieval interpretation.

There are many things that truth cannot do. Convince the fool, change its answer, and compete with folly. That proposal only paradoxes the “God” of this world. Narrow is the gate and few there be that find it. The shear magnitude of their masses testifies against them by and through their own books.

INCONSISTENCY!!! That is what cannot exist in “truth”, that is my premise. It is not limitation. Everything is limited; the wilting flower taught me that.

“Consider the following: man is inherintly flawed. Man is imperfect. We could even apply the same logic to the universe as a whole. The universe is flawed and man is a product of the universe. There is a somewhat strange and pleasing symmetry to this logic. On one hand we have God, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and on the other we have the universe, flawed. Everthing that God cannot do in and of itself can be accomplished by the universe. Suddenly this symmetry vanquishes the paradoxes. God cannot build a wall he cannot jump but God can build a wall unscalable by anything in the universe. The universe cannot construct a wall that God cannot scale. If we view God and the universe as necessary haves to the whole then we have a harmony. In this system it could be said that God and the universe are mutually dependant. One cannot preceed the other. There has to be a universe for there to be a God and vice versa. The uinverse is subject to the constraints that are not present on God.”


This is a beautiful notion, and a joy to contemplate.

Man is imperfect because he is flawed??? I contend with this premise.

I say he is perfect BECAUSE we are “imperfect”.

How else could we have the means in which to grasp at these thoughts??? How can you know right without wrong? I say right would indeed exist, but we would be unable to grasp it as there would be no representation for us to understand. We would not recognize it as “right” or choice because there would be neither, only existence. No flavor.

Side note: Death is just an illusion in our minds as way to shield us as we pass out of this womb and into “life”. The spiritual are only half “life”, the rest are dead in the womb. Who knows how painful the transition truly is??? Maybe a black out is mercy in its purest form. Wipes the memory of my dead twin.

But I digress…

Think for a moment of our conception of “God” as always existing, a being that is “life” incarnate. The point is at some time it was just Him. He being the only. The beginning. Was He “God” then? Can a king be a king with no kingdom? Can a ruler be a ruler without subjects? No, He was only existence.

“God” in the classical sense cannot exist without the universe. So you are both correct, perfect, and at the same time flawed.

Truth can exist, without “signs” and effects of its existence, which can only exist in a sibilant brain. The “signs” are just the only way we have to know of its existence, and purposely done so, and thereby a choice is offered, the stew is flavored.

If I have no magnet, does that mean there is no magnetism? Or is the magnet just the physical manifestation of the spiritual law that exists with or without our “knowledge”?

I could “prove” my theory on this no more than a nay sayer but I believe our “physical universe” is nothing but the body of the spiritual “man”. And the man is life, and the life is truth, and the truth is “God”. And this Truth exists in the very framework of ones ability to deny it.

So the wiccans have some truth to their “religion”
So the Baptist have some truth to their “religion”
So the Buddhist, so the Catholics, protestant, atheist alike, have truth to their “religion”.
But can never grasp at the flaws, because they cannot accept the flaws of the “God”, that only exists in their perceptions.

All have truth, mixed with a little lie. Imperfect, and yet …each having its place as a waymark.

He is perfect. And my definition is flawed. In this portion, I agree with your synopsis.

I would love for this discussion to be revived.

I have more to both hear and say. Everyone should join, it is a worthy discussion.

"We are perfectly flawed."
What you just said was amazing. my views are slightly disrupted. thankyou, so much. one thing is, you put
"atheist alike, have truth to their “religion”."
atheists do not have a religion, it is simply the lack of one, and following the truth that has been found in science.

[Introspective]

Ah Minty, but what is religion at its core but a belief that regulates ones thoughts and actions? In that aspect, the "lack of a religion", is their religion. Thank you for joining :)

[Mr. Blocks]

The "lack of religion" is not OUR religion. With Athiests, there is no "us". We share the believe that religions are false, but that does not mean we should all be banded together into the same "religion". That idea is utterly ridiculous.

The lack of something, does not mean you have something of the same kind, in your own way. It's an entirely different thing. We do not believe in the idea of a religion, we don't practise anything of the kind. Because we follow the idea of science (for exmaple), does not mean we should be given such a label because people can't think of a different way for it's meaning? It doesn't infact need to be labelled at all.

God is everything around us, god us the universe, god is nature, god is our own being. I do not believe there is an almighty watching over us. I believe it is a thought that has plagued the minds of humans for thousands of years. As a being with a conscious thought, we strive for the answers, and when we can not find an answer of which we can not understand, we will tend to think of something that will explain it.

"God the almighty". Is an idea.

With words and opinions, you can make the same thing, sound like two completly different ideas. And is why I believe we shouldn't be smitten with how someone is to type something. Be right or wrong, there is no such thing. We have our own perceptions of what is right, of what is wrong.

If you were in a room with 19 other people, and the majority were wrong about "what is 2+2?". Over time, they would become right if they were to answer with "5". The majoiry exceeds over the minority, it's a way of evolving thought. If most people believe it to be truth, then truth it will be.

For me, I delve into what man CAN explain and does know what is out there. I believe the truth to be so much more rewarding then to fool myself with something I can never, and may never prove.

The existance of God is inevitable, but the existance of an extremely complex god is highly unlikely. And for that my perception of what is god differs from that of the religious.

Being a human being, I am my own god. My life will god by my own choices, by what I do and do not do. It does not rely on a deity that I have no real proof of being real.

Being human beings, we hold the fate of the entire world in our hands. I don't believe we have been granted anything by a supernatural being, I believe we evolved in a unique way. And the amounts of evidence to support this idea is astronomical.

I believe, instead of one just processing their own thought on "what may". I think it's far more productive to be able to say "This is". Their is a truth, and I believe only science is able to guide us there.

As a human being, I would and do hold the ability to convince myself of anything, if I so thought of it enough or I wanted it to be. And is why you just can not put your whole faith into our species. We are inteligent, just not enough to obviously realise what is and isn't. And the majority do win.

To quote myself above, to make more of a point:

""God the almighty". Is an idea."

An idea is what would be better for our species, but it is not an idea, it is a belief. A belief is something you just can not change with the majoiry. Ideas change, a belief system does not. That is a problem, you offer no help in guiding the truth along. To think you have the truth, and believe in it. Well that's pretty much set in stone.

[Yog]

An idea is what would be better for our species, but it is not an idea, it is a belief. A belief is something you just can not change with the majoiry. Ideas change, a belief system does not. That is a problem, you offer no help in guiding the truth along. To think you have the truth, and believe in it. Well that's pretty much set in stone.

The idea you are getting at here is faith. Faith is a belief in something that is fundamentally unprovable. A person does not have faith in mathematics. Even if all of society were to change the definition of four into five so that two plus two actually equals five, then we are talking about a change in definition not in the function of mathematics. The logic, the function of math is universal and grounded in posteriori knowldege. In other words math is something that is. There is no faith in mathematics. No one has faith in mathematics. People have faith in God. Why? Because fundamentally the notion of God cannot be proven. The greatest power of the Christian church was to make faith an easy proposition, but the more you think about it the more you realize you are standing at a cliff with an invisible bridge.

[Introspective]

Hello Morph Phoenix, glad you stepped into the discussion. I sensed some anger in your reply. I assure you I have no intentions of offending, unfortunately such is unavoidable in topics such as this. So I do not take it personal, and hope you will not as well. This is meant only for intellectual stimulation. I can respectfully disagree with a fellow man. I can respectfully disagree with his positions, without loosing respect for his right to hold it. So with that said, let us talk…

“The "lack of religion" is not OUR religion. With Athiests, there is no "us". We share the believe that religions are false, but that does not mean we should all be banded together into the same "religion". That idea is utterly ridiculous.”

That idea is utterly proven in your response. Just as Protestants have many fractures in their “religion”, they all share a common premise, that being that God is “almighty”, and then they wander into their own directions with the definition of what that “means” and their own interpretations. And so the atheists all share a common premise, that God is not the “almighty” being as the religious say. Then they fracture off in their “denominations” of thought and their own interpretations.

But boil it all down to its base, and it is a “belief” that guides their thoughts and actions, and that by definition IS a “religion”. Your religion is humanism. Your “god” is yourself and your intellect. I am certainly not trying to offend in any manner, but a religion you have indeed. And it is a shared religion of all atheists, you simply belong to many different “denominations” of thought, just as any other religion.

Now back to my quote,

So the Baptist have some truth to their “religion”
So the Buddhist, so the Catholics, protestant, atheist alike, have truth to their “religion”.

My only intentions was that all “religions” or belief systems contain a little truth, mixed with a little “lie” or misinterpretations, and yes, that includes yours AND mine.

I in no way said all atheists think the exact same things or are all “lumped” into one narrow thought. I was simply saying that even an “atheist” has a “religion”. You have shown us yours quite well with your response. You are fervently religious, and I respect that. I sense that the offense is that you are being “labeled” religious and that thought detests you.

“The lack of something, does not mean you have something of the same kind, in your own way. It's an entirely different thing. We do not believe in the idea of a religion, we don't practise anything of the kind. Because we follow the idea of science (for exmaple), does not mean we should be given such a label because people can't think of a different way for it's meaning? It doesn't infact need to be labelled at all.”

“Labelers” are what we are. Science, your “Bible”, is nothing but the art of labeling, describing, identifying, cataloging, etc. What you are failing to grasp is not that you lack nothing at all. You have a belief system that dominates your reality, the way you interpret it, and the way you interact with mankind. That sir, I contend, IS a religion by its definition. If you care not for the label makes no difference, no more than the lack of concern for gravity will allow you to float off. And it is no different, only the interpretation your religion has shown you is different. You are as devout to your “god” as they are theirs, and I am mine.

“God is everything around us, god us the universe, god is nature, god is our own being. I do not believe there is an almighty watching over us. I believe it is a thought that has plagued the minds of humans for thousands of years. As a being with a conscious thought, we strive for the answers, and when we can not find an answer of which we can not understand, we will tend to think of something that will explain it.”

And here the “10 commandments” of your religion are being described. Count the number of times you use the words “I believe” through out your reply and dare say you have no religion…

“"God the almighty". Is an idea.”

And here is your primary premise, which you can no more “prove” than any other religious denomination. Prove this scientist!!! You said you believe in the things that science can show to be real, and then I say again, prove this statement. The fact is you have no proof, your statement is an “idea” itself, and your “faith” in it is a requirement of your religion.

“With words and opinions, you can make the same thing, sound like two completly different ideas. And is why I believe we shouldn't be smitten with how someone is to type something. Be right or wrong, there is no such thing. We have our own perceptions of what is right, of what is wrong.”
“If you were in a room with 19 other people, and the majority were wrong about "what is 2+2?". Over time, they would become right if they were to answer with "5". The majoiry exceeds over the minority, it's a way of evolving thought. If most people believe it to be truth, then truth it will be.”

I contend with this notion, and I do however appreciate the way you eluded to my post as being persuasive. If those same people in that room decided to believe gravity had no effect on them if they flapped their arms, would they indeed “fly” off? No. So, scientist, there is Truth. It does not change for the fancy of mans intellect and cares not if we have yet “discovered, analyzed, and labeled” it.

You actually have proven my point. Yes collective agreement can change “perceptions”, just as those that see the wings on an angel, but that is just as an agreement that 2+2 = 5. It in no way changes the truth of the correct answer no more than your condescending tone for those religious will change the fact that you are as devotedly religious as they.

“For me, I delve into what man CAN explain and does know what is out there. I believe the truth to be so much more rewarding then to fool myself with something I can never, and may never prove.”

LOL!!! And yet this is exactly what you are doing with your “disbelief” in “god”, and your assumptions you so vividly paint across my screen. What you are really saying is that you think yourself above them, smarter, more intellectual. As if they are “fool” ing themselves with something they can never prove, as if your “Bible” of science is more adequate then their books of faith. You sir, are doing the same as they, have some pie, for it is humble.

“The existance of God is inevitable, but the existance of an extremely complex god is highly unlikely. And for that my perception of what is god differs from that of the religious.”

An “atheist” who says the existence of god is inevitable, by definition, you are not then an atheist, perhaps a denomination change is in order. Again you are trying to contrast yourself with the “religious”, but show me the science in your statement! All you have shown is your religious beliefs, and with that proven the point that you are trying to contend with.

“Being a human being, I am my own god. My life will god by my own choices, by what I do and do not do. It does not rely on a deity that I have no real proof of being real.”

The religion/belief of Humanism at its finest. This is your choice, and I respect that.

"Being human beings, we hold the fate of the entire world in our hands. I don't believe we have been granted anything by a supernatural being, I believe we evolved in a unique way. And the amounts of evidence to support this idea is astronomical.”
Really, then why is evolution still after all these many years of “scientist’s” fervent searching still a “theory”???? And what is a theory??? Define it for me. Let me help,

Encarta Dictionary: English (North American)

“Abstract thought or speculation”; an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture…”

Again you are doing nothing but telling us your religious beliefs, you can no more prove your beliefs than can the Mormon, the Baptist, the Wiccan, and the Buddhist. As a matter of fact you may even show more faith in yours than they, theirs. You see things to support your religion through the lens of your own interpretations just as they. You are no better, no smarter, and no more “complete”, nor intelligent in your religion then they. You are simply one of the people in the room, contending that 2+2=5, because you have agreed. Your 5 is that you are god, that Darwin was correct, and that science is your Bible. But it is no more “provable” then the next.

“I believe, instead of one just processing their own thought on "what may". I think it's far more productive to be able to say "This is". Their is a truth, and I believe only science is able to guide us there.”I respect that religious belief, I respectfully disagree. And just by reference earlier you said “Be right or wrong, there is no such thing. We have our own perceptions of what is right, of what is wrong.”, so are you now contradicting that thought?

“As a human being, I would and do hold the ability to convince myself of anything, if I so thought of it enough or I wanted it to be. And is why you just can not put your whole faith into our species. We are inteligent, just not enough to obviously realise what is and isn't. And the majority do win.”

What??? Is that not exactly what you are doing when you say YOU are “god???? Is that not exactly what you are doing when you trust manmade “science” as your key??? You are contradicting yourself to no end.

“To quote myself above, to make more of a point:

""God the almighty". Is an idea."”

I see now why you quote yourself…

“An idea is what would be better for our species, but it is not an idea, it is a belief. A belief is something you just can not change with the majoiry. Ideas change, a belief system does not. That is a problem, you offer no help in guiding the truth along. To think you have the truth, and believe in it. Well that's pretty much set in stone.”
An idea and a belief in this context is the exact same thing man, where did you go to school for such “science”???? You disserve a refund. Next time you came to a intellectual discussion, check the bullets in your gun, for today they have all been blanks. You have contradicted yourself, given a tone of condescension for people of “faith”, and stated matter of factly that I “offered no help in guiding truth along”. Wow, you are indeed your “god”.

[FingerpaintingsoftheInsane]

One question... Can every one here agree that they are spiritual? Look at the root word, come back and answer.

[Mr. Blocks]

Hello Morph Phoenix, glad you stepped into the discussion. I sensed some anger in your reply. I assure you I have no intentions of offending, unfortunately such is unavoidable in topics such as this. So I do not take it personal, and hope you will not as well. This is meant only for intellectual stimulation. I can respectfully disagree with a fellow man. I can respectfully disagree with his positions, without loosing respect for his right to hold it. So with that said, let us talk…

Hey, I do get a little hot headed when certain things are said. I will go ahead and reply to your entire post and clear a few things up and answer other things. This will be based on how I see things and what I believe.

That idea is utterly proven in your response. Just as Protestants have many fractures in their “religion”, they all share a common premise, that being that God is “almighty”, and then they wander into their own directions with the definition of what that “means” and their own interpretations. And so the atheists all share a common premise, that God is not the “almighty” being as the religious say. Then they fracture off in their “denominations” of thought and their own interpretations.

But boil it all down to its base, and it is a “belief” that guides their thoughts and actions, and that by definition IS a “religion”. Your religion is humanism. Your “god” is yourself and your intellect. I am certainly not trying to offend in any manner, but a religion you have indeed. And it is a shared religion of all atheists, you simply belong to many different “denominations” of thought, just as any other religion.

When you compare what I'm saying to what "is" religious, I do believe that you are only mapping one thing out of it, and that is to "believe" in something. Humans, all humans believe in something, so every last person is religious? I have to disagree. I can see what your doing and I just do not agree with it. I don't think what I have counts as being religious. By simply believing something does not make you a religious person.

But to correctly explain what an Athiest is, by definition and further:

"Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist."

I don't believe there is a god due to my own logic. I will refuse things that contradict themselves to the point where it's just not possible that they can exist or be true. I am not and do not have this thought because I have faith of any kind, I have it due to my own reasoning within the world. I have reasoned enough to know that it can't be possible for such a being to exist. I have no faith that guides me into thinking that. I do not act on faith.

The differencies are subtle, but you must note them:

- I believe God does not exist;
- I do not believe god does exist.

Most accurately I am the second. We simply do not believe that god does exist. Which is different from believing that something does, or does not exist based on our own faith. The difference may be subtle, but I hope you can see it.

We do not believe in these things because we are bound by a faith or thought, it is by reason that we find our answers.

You say I'm religious when I lack the belief in a deity but I find my own answers eslewhere. To put your whole argument simply, it's offencive to most if not all Athiests. Athiesium differs from Religion and faith in so many ways. I do say that it is an insulting thought for the religious to say that we are of equal faith to them, when we do not believe in a deity. And the reasons that we do not believe does NOT act upon faith, but reason.

But boil it all down to its base, and it is a “belief” that guides their thoughts and actions, and that by definition IS a “religion”.

I base my ideals on reason, to be able to reason and find the truth based on logic and evidence.

The religious have faith, and they will and will not believe in certain things based on their "faith".

You can not tell me that they are the same thing.

Alot of religous people do throw the "you have faith" etc. But if that were so true, then why is it that Athiests are so freely attacked and damned by the religious? That is not hypoctritical? Instead (I believe in America) that they are attempting to stop the teaching of evolution in schools and why? Because their faith tells them that it's not true.

Honestly, the religious are a kind that believe in something based on faith. You believe in some kind of deity.

Athiests (or non-believers) believe in things based on reason. And it is by reason that we do not believe that a god does exist.

My only intentions was that all “religions” or belief systems contain a little truth, mixed with a little “lie” or misinterpretations, and yes, that includes yours AND mine.

I in no way said all atheists think the exact same things or are all “lumped” into one narrow thought. I was simply saying that even an “atheist” has a “religion”. You have shown us yours quite well with your response. You are fervently religious, and I respect that. I sense that the offense is that you are being “labeled” religious and that thought detests you.

But again you are wrong, Athiests do not have a religion simply because we lack the belief that a god does exist. I am not "feverently religious". I am passionate evidence and truth. And being told I'm religious is a mockery of it all. All you are doing, is confusing what I am, to what the religious are. I don't think your able to see where it is that I am coming from, because it would require that you don't think that everyone has the same "kind" of system you have.

We have a "system" that is open to change ALL the time. The religious simply do not have that. A noticable difference again.

“Labelers” are what we are. Science, your “Bible”, is nothing but the art of labeling, describing, identifying, cataloging, etc. What you are failing to grasp is not that you lack nothing at all. You have a belief system that dominates your reality, the way you interpret it, and the way you interact with mankind. That sir, I contend, IS a religion by its definition. If you care not for the label makes no difference, no more than the lack of concern for gravity will allow you to float off. And it is no different, only the interpretation your religion has shown you is different. You are as devout to your “god” as they are theirs, and I am mine.

What I think is, that since you aren't the only person of faith to have bought this idea upon myself, is that people of faith are unable to imagine what it is like to be someone like me. I don't have faith, you can't compare what we have to each other.

Your belief belongs to the "believers" whereas I am on a completely different pedetal to you. You are Thiest, I'm the opposite of that.. Athiest. Science is not a bible and shouldn't be compared to one. The differencies are vast.

We do not live by a book, we choose what we believe acting upon reason. You are right in that it does allow me to interpret things differently to how you would. But the way we interpret is far different to that of what a religious person would be bound to.

you are just finding ways to compare Science to a relgious faith. That's not a difficult task, what is difficult, is seeing how they are not the same thing. Something I do not think you'll grasp the idea of.

And here is your primary premise, which you can no more “prove” than any other religious denomination. Prove this scientist!!! You said you believe in the things that science can show to be real, and then I say again, prove this statement. The fact is you have no proof, your statement is an “idea” itself, and your “faith” in it is a requirement of your religion.

Athiests can not prove an almighty being does not exist, but then neither can you. If you can, then please show me the evidence in how you can?

What Athiest can show the religious is many different aspects of what they believe is infact false. Probably the largest fact would be that of Evolution. If you want evidence for it then I can assure you that there is an INCREDIBLE about of it in storage. But it is because the religious are bound by faith that they are unable to accept it as it is and move on. Instead we either get "thats false" or we find oursevles subject to new things to explain what evidence we have "creationists" for example. A poor attempt to dispell the magic that is evolution. Evolution is what science has shown me to be true, is that a decent enough example?

My statement is not an "idea". My statement is just unable to go as far as to prove the begining of everything. Instead we can actively use our logic to figure out what may be. Religion has it many flaws and contradictions, using those we can use our logic to not believe in a god of the kind described.

What I know has been proven, has it's factual evidence to prove it is not incorrect. We don't claim to know it all already, we are working toward the truth and to do that we can not rely on a kind of faith. We can have an idea on what may be, and then we either prove it or disprove it. I don't see where the faith is coming from, besides perhaps that I have faith that we will one day find the answers we seek, be it an actual god or otherwise. But that kind of faith can't be compared to the religious faith, but perhaps compared to the fact I have faith that my nephew will do well at school. My faith does not have an effect on what I actively believe in, unlike of course, the religious.

I contend with this notion, and I do however appreciate the way you eluded to my post as being persuasive. If those same people in that room decided to believe gravity had no effect on them if they flapped their arms, would they indeed “fly” off? No. So, scientist, there is Truth. It does not change for the fancy of mans intellect and cares not if we have yet “discovered, analyzed, and labeled” it.


I contend with this notion, and I do however appreciate the way you eluded to my post as being persuasive. If those same people in that room decided to believe gravity had no effect on them if they flapped their arms, would they indeed “fly” off? No. So, scientist, there is Truth. It does not change for the fancy of mans intellect and cares not if we have yet “discovered, analyzed, and labeled” it.

You actually have proven my point. Yes collective agreement can change “perceptions”, just as those that see the wings on an angel, but that is just as an agreement that 2+2 = 5. It in no way changes the truth of the correct answer no more than your condescending tone for those religious will change the fact that you are as devotedly religious as they.

your post was written in a persuasive way. It is the sort of writing that requires no evidence or real thought nor logic. It is merely written down.

The example you gave was quite a way off actually, it seems you missed the example point I was giving. If you look at the world as a whole, if you ask many people around you on what they know or believe, they will either tell you that they don't know or will give you the same answer as the man standing next to them. People are subjected to the majority. Be it media that presents the "truth" if people have nothing or little to combat that, then they will fall subject to it.

the core of a human being is as I said "there is no right or wrong". that's how it is before people are given ideas or facts about many things. And that is where "truth" becomes it's own. The fact we know of many truths that oppose each other, it would be ridiculous to say that two truths that oppose are both correct. That defies the idea of truth.

Chances are, if you are bought up by strong chritian parents.. you will become of th esame faith as they are. It is proven that young humans being don't have the time to ask questions, and they must believe in what they are told to be true, such as:

"Do not touch the fire, it'll burn you" - "Do not climb out of windows".

If children were to question such things, then the obvious outcome would be. And so to make my point, if you tell a child "this exists and this is truth". They won't question it, and they'll believe it. Simply because they have heard no different. And the problem with faith is, it leaves no reasoning.

LOL!!! And yet this is exactly what you are doing with your “disbelief” in “god”, and your assumptions you so vividly paint across my screen. What you are really saying is that you think yourself above them, smarter, more intellectual. As if they are “fool” ing themselves with something they can never prove, as if your “Bible” of science is more adequate then their books of faith. You sir, are doing the same as they, have some pie, for it is humble.

I find it amusing in how you can say your "respectful" yet you laugh at my views. Do not create a false echo my friend, if you lack the respect then do it that way. I do not need to talk to a sugarcoater.

Before you go off on a tangent, you would be kind enough to at least understand my point instead of laughing. I find that ignorance is difficult to deal with at times, I don't need it right now as I have taken my time to give you my answers. For I do believe that you have taken alot of it out of context for what it was meant.

Let's take what I said:

“For me, I delve into what man CAN explain and does know what is out there. I believe the truth to be so much more rewarding then to fool myself with something I can never, and may never prove.”

I do delve into what I can explain. I never said I could explain god, there are things Science just does not understand nor can it explain. I told you that I do not believe that god exists based on the reasoning with text. Religion has no evidence to prove the existance of god, yet it is their faith that makes them "correct". There was no need to throw an immature banter at me, either you see what I mean now, or you never will. but I can assure you that your comment made you seem quite ignorant of what it is that I was saying. Because you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

To explain more: When I said I do not believe their is god, does not automatically mean I can prove that. It is not something I delve into having known the truth, given facts. I base that thought on the describtion given by the religious for what god is, and it is vastly flawed. Something I find that I can not logically believe to be, just yet not entirely proven. when I mentioned "delve", it meant more along the lines of "evolution". Idelve into that having been presented a great amount of facts and evidence. As with my disbelief in god, is not based on "fact" but more logic and reasoning.

An “atheist” who says the existence of god is inevitable, by definition, you are not then an atheist, perhaps a denomination change is in order. Again you are trying to contrast yourself with the “religious”, but show me the science in your statement! All you have shown is your religious beliefs, and with that proven the point that you are trying to contend with.

Again you have taken my words out of the context they meant. I do not mean the "traditional" god. And so I am not folowing your own definition. "god" forbid I do not follow your own definition..

For the definition I am speaking of, go and look for the god Einstein gave. To quote:

"God does not play dice". Which is the "god" I am refering to.

I am sorry that your unable to understand that people whom use the word "god" do not actually mean the almighty being. All I have seen from you is drawn conclusions. I do hope that you do better when or if you respond to this text. I hope I have "explained" my views a little clearer, because I can note that I do not always do the best when I type things out. Because I also assume that people will understand, so I guess we are both at fault here.

“Being a human being, I am my own god. My life will god by my own choices, by what I do and do not do. It does not rely on a deity that I have no real proof of being real.”

The religion/belief of Humanism at its finest. This is your choice, and I respect that.

You can keep telling me what I am but you do not understand me at all, as proven with my replies. You could do better than to simply label me with whatever it is you choose.

Really, then why is evolution still after all these many years of “scientist’s” fervent searching still a “theory”???? And what is a theory??? Define it for me. Let me help,

Encarta Dictionary: English (North American)

“Abstract thought or speculation”; an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture…”

Again you are doing nothing but telling us your religious beliefs, you can no more prove your beliefs than can the Mormon, the Baptist, the Wiccan, and the Buddhist. As a matter of fact you may even show more faith in yours than they, theirs. You see things to support your religion through the lens of your own interpretations just as they. You are no better, no smarter, and no more “complete”, nor intelligent in your religion then they. You are simply one of the people in the room, contending that 2+2=5, because you have agreed. Your 5 is that you are god, that Darwin was correct, and that science is your Bible. But it is no more “provable” then the next.

First, you should look at the scientific definition of "theory". You are in error here, since you have used the wrong definition of what it is. It shows you have not really looked into what it means to be a Scientific theory. To explain it a little:

"A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments"

You can not have a theory without a fact. We have the theory of gravity because we notice the phenomenon of Gravity. We have the theory of evolution because we have the natrual process of evolution. Theories are not slung together on a latter of certainty that is lower than fact or law. A scientific theory is an exlpanation for a process or phenomenon seen in nature. Below a theory is a Hypothesis, there is nothing above a Theory. You can't reduce a theory to a fact or law because Theories, facts, and laws serve different purposes.

I guess it would be pointless to answer the next bit of what you said, since I'm sure know you understand what a Theory is (scentifically) then your view of what I said should change since I have shown you to be wrong about what you thought.

You might aswell count evolution as a fact by your own definition. It's been proven, mass amounts of evidence. I am sorry that you did not take time to look into what it meant to be a scientific theory.


“I believe, instead of one just processing their own thought on "what may". I think it's far more productive to be able to say "This is". Their is a truth, and I believe only science is able to guide us there.”


I respect that religious belief, I respectfully disagree. And just by reference earlier you said

I do wish you'd stop insulting me by saying everything that I say is religious. I have already shown you to have taken my words in ill fashion and not understood. I have explained how I am not religious. If you were respectful, then you would get off your high horse and realise that not everyone needs a religious faith.


“Be right or wrong, there is no such thing. We have our own perceptions of what is right, of what is wrong.”

so are you now contradicting that thought?

It's not a contradiction. I explained what I meant by that already (above). It's not on the same subjected idea.

“As a human being, I would and do hold the ability to convince myself of anything, if I so thought of it enough or I wanted it to be. And is why you just can not put your whole faith into our species. We are inteligent, just not enough to obviously realise what is and isn't. And the majority do win.”

What??? Is that not exactly what you are doing when you say YOU are “god???? Is that not exactly what you are doing when you trust manmade “science” as your key??? You are contradicting yourself to no end.

Again, I feel you misunderstood what I meant by that. I guess looking at it, it is possibly not needed for this discussion. It would go to explain how you can make anyone believe in anything, or at least the majority. I have explained abit on this above also, I hope you can find the links and put it all together instead of bashing me further.

It is not a contradiction.

“An idea is what would be better for our species, but it is not an idea, it is a belief. A belief is something you just can not change with the majoiry. Ideas change, a belief system does not. That is a problem, you offer no help in guiding the truth along. To think you have the truth, and believe in it. Well that's pretty much set in stone.”

An idea and a belief in this context is the exact same thing man, where did you go to school for such “science”???? You disserve a refund. Next time you came to a intellectual discussion, check the bullets in your gun, for today they have all been blanks. You have contradicted yourself, given a tone of condescension for people of “faith”, and stated matter of factly that I “offered no help in guiding truth along”. Wow, you are indeed your “god”.

No they are not. If you were to continue being so immature as to attack everything I say because you deem me condescending towards the faithful, then I shall digress from the discussion.

An idea is what Science has, based on logic, reasoning and facts. We are open to change and newer views if they can be proven to be truth.

A belief already has all the answers to everything, a belief knows where we came from, knows how we came to be, etc. It is not open to change if proven wrong.

An obvious thought, considering Science has proven religious ideas wrong already, but of course the belief is that it's not possibly true.

I don't understand how you didn't get that? Or were you blinded by annoyance towards me? I can say I'm slightly dissapointed, because in your first post I thought you were going to be a reasonably nice chap to discuss with this. It is obvious you became impatient, let's avoid that if possible.

All I can say is, if we are to discuss this further then we should both stop being childish in our own ways. I do apologise if offence has been caused but I feel this is a great topic to talk about. And really is it not in need of our sarcastic comments toward each other, because it doesn't help.

Also I would like to say that I do not error check my posts, and if something is really horribly spelled and you don't understand it, then let me know and I will revisit it so you can read it as it was meant.

[Mr. Blocks]

One question... Can every one here agree that they are spiritual? Look at the root word, come back and answer.

Is this the definition: concerned with or affecting the spirit or soul; "a spiritual approach to life"; "spiritual fulfillment"; "spiritual values"; "unearthly love"

If so then I'd have to say no, I'm not spiritual. That might not be it, if not that could you please post the definition of it here? I will note that I used to be somewhat spiritual when I was younger, but no longer.

[Introspective]

Hello Morph, sorry I've been gone for a bit, work and all. I read your reply, and I appreciate it. Let me start this “short” continuation by saying that I took your “tone” of your previous writing to be condescending, and I responded rather harshly at times within my response because of that. I am not excusing it as being ok, nor justifying, just explaining. I am not the type of person who goes to a battle without a like weapon, so since condescension, I perceived to be your weapon of choice; I brought a bit of my own. Perhaps that was my misunderstanding; if that is the case then I apologize. So long as you can maintain civility, I certainly can as well. I appreciate your point of view, and I do feel as though I understand it to an extent.

(Side note: you should edit your post; some of the quotes from my post were not in green as the majority was, giving a new reader the perception that some of my words were yours. I’m sure this was not intentional, but it is what it is.)

I have only a few points with regard to the above back and forth, one is the definition of “theory”, I got mine straight from the dictionary. It is certainly not incorrect. Your definition however, I would like to know your source for that, you did not supply it. I did so you can check out its authenticity; I would request you do the same.

Gravity is not a “theory” as you stated above. Gravity is a fact. There are “theories” surrounding why there is gravity, but its existence is fact, not theory, so you are incorrect there.

Evolution is still a “theory” because it is not proven. Yes there is “evidence” that led to the theory, yes there are some “facts” that are mingled in; but there are facts mingled into creationism as well. But neither is proven, evolution still has its “missing link”, and creationism still has its missing “creator”. But I do not wish to make this a conversation of evolution vs. creationism, etc. Frankly neither could be proven and perhaps both are correct and wrong at the same time. It can not be “tested” scientifically so neither of us could prove the other wrong or right. We will just respectfully disagree.

I think that maybe our disconnect is semantics. Here is the nut shell of it. I contend that you are indeed “religious” because of the definition of “religious” that I am using fits. It is not the definition that you are maintaining, hence the semantic disagreement.

I hold that a religion is

“a belief of “God” that affects the way in which a person interacts with humanity and it gives the basis for their logic”.

In effect it is, what they “believe” to be true about God, and the beginning, nature, and destiny of man.

I contend that everyone is “religious” in that manner. I do not imply that you are “religious” in the same manner as a person of “faith”; however, everyone has a belief system, that belief system is not filled with only facts, as no one has all the answers; therefore, at least a portion of their belief system is “theory” or “hypothesis” because by nature we try to fill in the gaps.

Atheists have a “belief” about “God”. Their belief is that “He” does not exist. This “belief”, regardless of the “how” it is derived, is still in its simplest form, a “belief” that cannot be proven to be fact. By definition then it is no more than a “theory”, “hypothesis”, and a “belief” system.

In that manner it is no different than the “theists”. Their belief is that “He” does exist. This “belief”, regardless of the “how” it is derived, is still in its simplest form, a “belief” that cannot be proven to be fact. By definition then it is no more than a “theory”, “hypothesis”, and a “belief” system.

So my intention was only to show that for anyone to judge any other person as “foolish” for their view on “God”, is ridiculous. It is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

An atheist has “faith” in their “belief system”. Because like it or not, someone IS correct in this debate. Either there is a “God” that created mankind, and that act in and of its self shows a purpose for it; or there is not a “God” that created mankind, and therefore we as a species are self regulating.

An atheist has enough “faith” in what his logic, intellect, science, etc etc has shown him that they do not consider the adverse ramifications that the “Theists” swear they will suffer, and most times thinks it funny.

They have “faith” in what science has shown to be “true”; ignoring the contradictions within science itself and all the times it has shown something to be “true”; only later to learn that was wrong, and now this is “true”.

For boil it down to its root and what is faith? I say it is a firm and passionate belief of what is “true”, when it is impossible to prove that it is “true”. Yes you have logical evidence that supports your belief or “faith”; but so to do the “Theists”.

So not to belabor the point but here’s the equation as I see it:

Atheist = Belief (Faith) that “God” does not exist causing corresponding actions (works) based on that Belief (Faith and or religion)

Theist = Belief (Faith) that “God” does exist causing corresponding actions (works) based on that Belief (Faith and or religion)

In that way we are all the same, no one any smarter than the other. No one anymore provably correct than the other. I know you will still disagree because you feel science is based on “facts”; therefore your criteria that forms your opinion is superior to those of “religion”. I would respectfully disagree, for there is something to be said of the “fact” that these long held beliefs on “God” are so permeate through every culture and race on this planet even before intermingling.

I prefer to listen too, and analyze both sides of the argument; for I “believe” the case for the existence to be far more convincing. I do realize that is only conjecture but I am a human as you, and I feel it is as obvious a “fact” as you feel “evolution” is. But I realize my mental frailty so I will listen to opposing points of view with interest and pick apart what I see as the good and the bad for further study. I will be the first to admit that it could be me that is wrong. But if I feel I am correct, I have no problem debating the substantive issues.

So, one could understand that for me, I see it as complete hypocrisy for someone to belittle or think themselves more intelligent than another person based on their approach to “God”. I actually think that is quite a personal thing, and what is “right” for me, may not be what is “right” for another, and we could still both be perfectly in tune with where we are to be in this universe.

For as I said in the above back and forth, I "believe" there is a little truth and a little error in ALL "religious/belief systems/logical deduction" with respect to this topic; and that certainly includes mine.

I appreciate your addition to this discussion.

[Yog]

They have “faith” in what science has shown to be “true”; ignoring the contradictions within science itself and all the times it has shown something to be “true”; only later to learn that was wrong, and now this is “true”.

I will take a small issue with this statement. There is no such thing as faith in what science has shown to be true. If it has been shown to be true via the scientific method and the experiment repeated so that the original hypothesis was either proven or disproven, then I can't think of any instances in modern science where the experiment was later proven to be opposite of what was originally shown. Fact and law in Science are faithless. There is no need to believe in them as they are fact. Theories in science come and go all the time, but theories are not fact. Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics are fact. They wouldn't be law unless they were time tested and proven absolutely true. If there is even the faintest hint of doubt then the law would be theory. That is why Einstein's theory of specific relativity is still theory despite being proven 99.9% true. Now it's true that many many hypothesis that were believed to be true were later disproven and many theories have fallen by the wayside in a similar manner, but once the truth is scientifically established ... well go ahead and chisel it in a stone tablet and lock it up in a gold covered chest with winged figures adorning the top.

That being said, carry on Montegue.

[Introspective]

I see your point, but there has been an "evolution" of science. At one time science had doctors applying leaches to the sick to bleed them, was that "fact" or "theory" to those people with the blood being drained from their bodies? In the same way the “theory” of evolution is taught as “fact”, but it is clearly not. So my point of that was that we may, say 50 years from now, due to advances, completely blow apart that gold covered chest of some current scientific "fact" because we have discovered a new way of analysis that shows that our current testing methods were flawed and gave a false, but yet still repeatable conclusion. However I agree that my choice of articulation could have been better. :)

[Yog]

I would draw a distinction between what the media and non-scientists think of as scientific fact and what scientists actually think is fact. Snake-oil salesmen in the late 1800s sold mixtures consisting of heavy doses of laudnum as a "scientific cure-all." That doesn't make it scientific. I once had a vacuum cleaner salesman try and tell me that the body of the vacuum he was trying to sell me was made of a polymer. I said, "you mean plastic." He said, "no, it's not plastic, it's a polymer." Before I closed the door in his face, I told him my shoestrings were also a polymer but I wouldn't make a vacuum cleaner out of them. That being said, I'm not sure anyone would consider leaching blood to be a scientific endeavor. I would argue that it is because of practices such as bloodletting to "realease evil spirits trapped in the body" that the scientific method was created in the first place.

If an experiment works, it works. The most likely change that tomorrows instruments might show is a change in the fifth decimal place of a measurement.

There is a reason modern science steers clear of theology like it's the bubonic plague rampaging through Europe. Besides there has never been a scientific theory that stated God couldn't have planned it to be this way. However there might be one that says all the animals of the world didn't fit in one boat. ;)

[Introspective]

Indeed. I would simply argue that religion (the ark story for one) is misinterpreted and yet seen or perceived by many to be fact; science will find the same within its dialog. For maybe creationism and evolution are both correct. The “interpretation” most religions apply to creationism is indeed skewed, but even evolution can not explain what or how or why the “big bang” happened. At some point “something” came from “nothing”; has not science showed that to be impossible? Is the law of cause and effect not scientific? Could it not be reasonable that both are possible?

[Yog]

I heard a theory once. The odds of something arising from nothing is one in infinity but given an infinite amount of time it's bound to happen once.

The current theory of the universe is that in the beginning it was a perfect 10 dimensional space. At some point in time the space—due to stresses in it's structure—fractured. It fractured into a six dimensional space and a four dimensional space. The six dimensional space curled up into a ball smaller than plank length. The four dimensional space began expanding to infinity. The amazing thing is that even though the six dimensional space is so tiny it's also connected to all points in the four dimensional space simultaneously.

Actually what is commonly referred to as the law of cause and effect is usually a misquoted version of newton's third law of motion. Usually this is said to be stated as for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. This is incorrect. The actual statement is: for every couple of forces there is another couple of forces of equal magnitude but opposite direction.

All force exists in pairs. It's not action/reaction. Both forces are created simultaneously in opposing directions. One does not cause the other to come into being. They both come into being at the same time. An interesting ramification of this law is that the sum total of all force and energy in the universe is 0. Since all force exists in pairs of equal magnitude but opposite direction then the sum of all opposing forces is 0.

And again, I'll say that there is nothing in science that rules out the existence of God or states that God could not have created the universe or the perfect 10 dimensional space that preceeded the universe. God is an independant metaphysical concept separate and distinct from science.

[Introspective]

That is very interesting to think about, "The current theory of the universe is that in the beginning it was a perfect 10 dimensional space. At some point in time the space—due to stresses in it's structure—fractured. It fractured into a six dimensional space and a four dimensional space. The six dimensional space curled up into a ball smaller than plank length. The four dimensional space began expanding to infinity. The amazing thing is that even though the six dimensional space is so tiny it's also connected to all points in the four dimensional space simultaneously." perhaps that six dimensional space is that which contains the "genesis" of our existence. But further than that, it seems to me it would take allot of faith to base your belief system on such hypothesis. Perhaps as much as one's faith that believes in a "God" Maybe one day science and religion will marry (Not talking of scientology) and bare a son called true enlightenment. I see no contradiction with science and my belief in "God". I believe one day they will be indistinguishable. :nunchuk:

[Yog]

Actually it's not so much faith as it is math. It's simply the only system that is currently mathematically viable. It's all based in super-string theory which is highly contentious at this point. At the fringes of super-string theory is M-theory. It's the most hotly contested of the theories currently being debated in theoretical physics. It's winner take all for the design of the universe.

[Mr. Blocks]

I do appreciate that you have seen a way to kindly reply to me, and I hope we are able to keep this a mutal thing from now on. I have just a limited amount of time to answer you here, so I will pick out things I feel I can explain a little better and see what you think about them.

Gravity is not a “theory” as you stated above. Gravity is a fact. There are “theories” surrounding why there is gravity, but its existence is fact, not theory, so you are incorrect there.

"Gravity is a fact." - Gravity is a fact, that fact being the "Law of Gravity". We know it exists, but a law offers no explanation of why or how it exists.

"But it's existance is fact, not theory, so you are incorrect there." - There are theories of gravity, theories explain why we have gravity and how it came to be. Theories aren't "law" or "fact" because they serve a purpose of explaining instead of stating it exists.

The theory of Gravity explains what and how gravity works. And the theory of gravity will always be, as long as there is nothing that can dispute it.

Laws and Theories serve different purposes. Law is fact, whereas a theory is a bunch of hypothosis that explain why and how we are here. Evolution isn't a law because it can't be fully tested to ensure that it is fact. But I can't say that makes it any less authentic, it is just the matter of time. It is by my own logic to say that Evolution is fact. I don't feel it's a matter of faith, but to me just my own common sense I feel nothing can possibly dispute this theory.

The "law of Evolution" if you will, would be the fact that we exist. The "theory of Evolution" would be the explanation of how we came to be.

Evolution is still a “theory” because it is not proven. Yes there is “evidence” that led to the theory, yes there are some “facts” that are mingled in; but there are facts mingled into creationism as well. But neither is proven, evolution still has its “missing link”, and creationism still has its missing “creator”. But I do not wish to make this a conversation of evolution vs. creationism, etc. Frankly neither could be proven and perhaps both are correct and wrong at the same time. It can not be “tested” scientifically so neither of us could prove the other wrong or right. We will just respectfully disagree.

To compare Evolution to creationisum, there are plenty of things that can be said about their ideas that can make it impossible for them to be speaking truth. It can't be tested that's true, but the credibility of both can be seen and judged for what they bring.

Atheists have a “belief” about “God”. Their belief is that “He” does not exist. This “belief”, regardless of the “how” it is derived, is still in its simplest form, a “belief” that cannot be proven to be fact. By definition then it is no more than a “theory”, “hypothesis”, and a “belief” system.

I'm not sure if I mentioned the way of explaining how I think to you above, but I can explain how your thought here just isn't how it is.

Athiest don't believe that God doesn't exist.

- We just don't believe that a God does exist.

Which is something that differs from "we believe he doesn't exist". It's a subtle difference but a difference it is. As far as we know there is no evidence to support their being a god, and also no evidence to say there isn't a God. We're not saying that we believe he doesn't exist, we just don't believe that he does exist.


In that manner it is no different than the “theists”. Their belief is that “He” does exist. This “belief”, regardless of the “how” it is derived, is still in its simplest form, a “belief” that cannot be proven to be fact. By definition then it is no more than a “theory”, “hypothesis”, and a “belief” system.


To explain my point of view I'll quote this:

"a “belief” that cannot be proven to be fact"

Belief - "We believe he doesn't exist". Which would need facts to prove that idea. Can not be proven to be fact, I agree.

But;

"We don't believe he does exist". This doesn't need facts on its behalf, but instead requires fact to prove it incorrect. Isn't relying on a fact to help prove it right.

I don't know if there is a god, I can't actually say that one doesn't exist at all (that would require faith). I'm just saying that I don't believe one does exist(doesn't require faith). What I'm not saying is that I believe there isn't a god at all because It can not be proven.

I do understand what you mean by how you see religion. But I do not agree with it. My view on religion holds more of a purpose than a belief system, it goes beyond the simple belief in "something" existing or not. And since I don't dwell on "something" existing, I don't see where I fit.

So my intention was only to show that for anyone to judge any other person as “foolish” for their view on “God”, is ridiculous. It is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

It was my opinion and it something I believe. Just as it is that you believe it to be ridiculous. I believe it lacks logic and evidence enough to consider it. I don't mean for it to be horrible, people will believe what they want. It is just in my thought that it's a foolish thing to believe in. The only thing that could possibly show me how it isn't foolish would be evidence. I can understand why people do believe, but I can't say I don't believe it isn't a foolish thing. I don't mean to offend with that idea. Perhaps the most ridiculous thing was to announce it as my opinion, but nothing more.


An atheist has “faith” in their “belief system”. Because like it or not, someone IS correct in this debate. Either there is a “God” that created mankind, and that act in and of its self shows a purpose for it; or there is not a “God” that created mankind, and therefore we as a species are self regulating.

You show just two options in this system you speak of. I gave you a third option to think about, above.

Our aim isn't to think on;

"does a god exist?" - we simply don't believe a god does exist. We don't state that it's fact that he doesn't exist. Which is what you are implying we do. We will either find one path or the other with evidence. If we find there is a god, then so be it. If we find evidence to say there isn't a god, then so be it. Until then we have nothing that tells us there is a god.

"God doesn't exist" and "God does exist" aren't apart of that idea. Those two ideas are based on faith. Put your faith in either of them and you believe it, and it becomes your "belief".

They have “faith” in what science has shown to be “true”; ignoring the contradictions within science itself and all the times it has shown something to be “true”; only later to learn that was wrong, and now this is “true”.

Can the same not be said for the forgotten God's in our species past? The norse gods, egyptian gods. All of which are now story as oppose to being thought of as truth. And yet not much has changed since, nothing to support why.

And with Science, I don't see how you regard it as faith. For what we are told to be "true" isn't down to someone "believing" it to be true. There would be tests or experiements being carried out to "prove" the idea. It doesn't require a belief in something when that something has been tested and proven. As we evolve we are able to delve further into the truth, and is perhaps why you'll see theories being proven wrong. I can't say any of this relies on faith of any kind.


For boil it down to its root and what is faith? I say it is a firm and passionate belief of what is “true”, when it is impossible to prove that it is “true”. Yes you have logical evidence that supports your belief or “faith”; but so to do the “Theists”.


What is it that theists have that could support their belief with evidence? It would be interesting to see what you think is adequete as a peice of evidence for such a topic. I don't believe I have seen a single peice of it for as long as I remember.

In that way we are all the same, no one any smarter than the other. No one anymore provably correct than the other. I know you will still disagree because you feel science is based on “facts”; therefore your criteria that forms your opinion is superior to those of “religion”. I would respectfully disagree, for there is something to be said of the “fact” that these long held beliefs on “God” are so permeate through every culture and race on this planet even before intermingling.

I don't see how the fact that our ancesters had the belief in a "God" makes any real valid point. I was saw a documentary on a tribe whom, upon being visited by a few men in a plane, began to worship them as "Gods" with a shrine, temple and all.

Perhaps it was because they couldn't possibly explain why or how they had got there, how they were able to fly.. or even why they were paler skin toned. I do think that the belief in God in our species past relies heavily on the fact we were unable to understand alot of things. As the ages go by we are capable of doing more and more. And so the belief in a "God" doesn't seem to be as inviting to the mind since we no longer require it.

If I were born thousands of years ago, I too would probably believe in a God. That would be due to the lack of information we have now.


So, one could understand that for me, I see it as complete hypocrisy for someone to belittle or think themselves more intelligent than another person based on their approach to “God”. I actually think that is quite a personal thing, and what is “right” for me, may not be what is “right” for another, and we could still both be perfectly in tune with where we are to be in this universe.

My intention wasn't to make out as though I was more inteligent. Are you refering to the "foolish" comment? I didn't mean for it to sound in that way, I don't think that those whom believe in a God are less capable than those whom don't. I just don't logically see how that could be, I don't and won't see myself as more inteligent based on someones approach to God. But I will see them as foolish for it.


Atheist = Belief (Faith) that “God” does not exist causing corresponding actions (works) based on that Belief (Faith and or religion)

Theist = Belief (Faith) that “God” does exist causing corresponding actions (works) based on that Belief (Faith and or religion)

I'll revamp the Athiest part:

Athiest: Idea = Do not believe a God does exist. Actions, implications and thoughts upon life in general are not effected greatly by this idea. They live by moral code.

I do agree that how you word it would be a belief, but honestly that is not a belief an Athiest should have. The way I word it makes it so there isn't a belief, I need no fact for what I wrote. Lack of faith in guiding life.

I feel I am repeating myself. Thanks for your reply.

[FingerpaintingsoftheInsane]

That was a quick answer?

[Introspective]

I have to tell you, I kind of felt like I was listening to Bill Clinton saying, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is". I will say I can understand why someone would not believe in the existence of a "God" due to the way that thought has been represented by organized religion. In that way we agree, I do not believe in that "gods" existence either. I only suggest that somewhere, at some point there was a catalyst for our universe, and I believe it is too complex to have not been intelligent. That is truth to me, and that is “God” to me. The characteristics of that “God” are highly debatable. I believe a sentient being, or beings collectively, “created” this experiment called mankind, and is prodding us along on a predestined course of development so that we may, as a species, become as they and share in the wealth of this universes storehouses. I think the knowledge of that is within every human because it has been encoded in our DNA. And hence the variety of “God” belief systems through out our history. I can prove that theory no more than I can prove why there is gravity. But I feel the circumstantial evidence for that theory is just as strong. Further, if you study religion, all the way back as far as secular and religious history will allow, you will find the same underlying “God” through out, regardless of the particular ways a culture chooses to express. There has to be something too such a mass conscious awareness.

[Mr. Blocks]

That was a quick answer?

I know eh? I got a little carried away again and I had something to say about it all. Pity me.

I have to tell you, I kind of felt like I was listening to Bill Clinton saying, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is". I will say I can understand why someone would not believe in the existence of a "God" due to the way that thought has been represented by organized religion. In that way we agree, I do not believe in that "gods" existence either. I only suggest that somewhere, at some point there was a catalyst for our universe, and I believe it is too complex to have not been intelligent. That is truth to me, and that is “God” to me. The characteristics of that “God” are highly debatable. I believe a sentient being, or beings collectively, “created” this experiment called mankind, and is prodding us along on a predestined course of development so that we may, as a species, become as they and share in the wealth of this universes storehouses. I think the knowledge of that is within every human because it has been encoded in our DNA. And hence the variety of “God” belief systems through out our history. I can prove that theory no more than I can prove why there is gravity. But I feel the circumstantial evidence for that theory is just as strong. Further, if you study religion, all the way back as far as secular and religious history will allow, you will find the same underlying “God” through out, regardless of the particular ways a culture chooses to express. There has to be something too such a mass conscious awareness.

In that way we agree, I do not believe in that "gods" existence either.

I have to apologize, I had assumed you had a belief in a particular religion, in which it threw me off your own personal "god".

I only suggest that somewhere, at some point there was a catalyst for our universe, and I believe it is too complex to have not been intelligent. That is truth to me, and that is “God” to me.

Why do you think it was too complex to not have been inteligent? For example, you would think the human body was too complex to not have been designed by an inteligent being? But we have the theory of evolution that explains how something simple can become very complex indeed. Not by the process of "chance" which is what I hear a lot of religious people mistake it for, but by the process of "Natrual selection".

We don't know the origin of everything, but I have to disgree that there must be inteligence behind it.

I believe a sentient being, or beings collectively, “created” this experiment called mankind

Your belief also (I must say) does answer this in a way that creates an even bigger question. If you believe that something so complex can not just be without action of an inteligent source, then in a way you shoot yourself in the foot because for something to create "complex" they must also be very complex themselves. And if not then your whole argument can't be valid unless you make this an "exception" which really would be a poor way of explaining. So in this case the beings you say have created us must have also then come from a complex maker, and so on and so on until of course we come to the origin of everything. These "beings" you speak of are not the origin of everything, perhaps the origin of us, but surely not everything.

Imagine if you will, that one day we humans will have enough computer power to create a simulation. And in this simulation we create many different types of "beings" that will exist. We design everything that can be apart of this "world". The most inteligent beings we create will ponder "Where did we come from". And the answer would be "God" created them. And that "God" would be us. And in how you worded your belief, it's questioning would end there. There is no "who created the creators" which is essentially the question we are asking ourselves at the moment. It's far too easy to believe that we have been created, when it lacks solid evidence and proof or even a proper explanation of "how".

But I feel the circumstantial evidence for that theory is just as strong.

Could you elaborate on this?

Further, if you study religion, all the way back as far as secular and religious history will allow, you will find the same underlying “God” through out, regardless of the particular ways a culture chooses to express. There has to be something too such a mass conscious awareness.

I don't agree that there has to be. It only shows that humans have the same default explanation for questions that "were not answerable". I don't see how just because humans in our history have had the idea of a "god" means that there must be one. Infact, there are ways of explaining why this was the case.

People whom think a lot need answers, we all have answers to our questions. Be it based on explainations or based on faith, we find our answers for the most difficult questions. It's not coincidence that more and more people are being averted from the idea of a god creator now we have other means to explain the world and explain how things could be. Back in our history there never was any real reason to believe that there wasn't a creator, but now there are plenty.

----

I know I've again disagreed with your idea, but if you could, would you not explain exactly how you came to have the beliefs you do? You haven't really explained anything about yourself or your beliefs but only "this is" and never "why this is". I am genuinely interested in what you have to say and I would appreciate your explaination of your god in your own words. In how you came to think that was truth.

[k2hsharpe]

*I believe a sentient being, or beings collectively, “created” this experiment called mankind

Your belief also (I must say) does answer this in a way that creates an even bigger question. If you believe that something so complex can not just be without action of an inteligent source, then in a way you shoot yourself in the foot because for something to create "complex" they must also be very complex themselves. And if not then your whole argument can't be valid unless you make this an "exception" which really would be a poor way of explaining. So in this case the beings you say have created us must have also then come from a complex maker, and so on and so on until of course we come to the origin of everything. These "beings" you speak of are not the origin of everything, perhaps the origin of us, but surely not everything.*

who created the creator? Always a difficult concept. I find it impossible to 'believe' in the Big Bang - how / where on earth did all the matter in the universe come from? Out of nothing came everything? Might just as well believe in a creator that existed before creation came into existence. Is the Big bang Theory hypothesis or fact? Buggered if I know but it is certainly widely accepted. As something real, something concrete. (Putting aside Dimensional spaces for the moment since the assumption that those dimensional spaces contained all our matter must require the arcane math of a physicist or philosopher to justify. And it still leaves the question as to what preceeded the creation of those dimensional spaces. Where did they come from?)

Then again, I have trouble believing in human conception leading to life. In accepting one cell leaving it's host body, travelling to another host body, joining with another single cell and .... Bingo! A whole new separate Life. Where on earth does that 'Life' come from? Not the physical organism but the 'Life' that comes to co-exist with that organism. Same place as all the matter in the universe at the moment of the Big bang came from before the Universe existed? Same place as God the Creator came from before the creation existed?

Death is another thing I find impossible to get my head around. Before death there exists a tangible being able to be interacted with, able to be known. Able to be touched, smelt, tasted, remember things with, discover new things with. And in a microsecond? That person is suddenly as remote as the Pharaohs, as unknowable as the dinosaurs. I can get my head around the physical body ceasing to function but where did that life go?

I believe in God, I just don't know what God is. And I don't believe in the Judeo / Christian God. I believe the Universe has some sort of intelligence at it's heart. And in it's heart of hearts - compassion, love. This is what I suspect God to be. This is what I believe. Do you think this belief foolish? Erroneous? Should I not be able to believe that a caring, self knowing intelligence somehow came to be associated with the form and function of the physical / energic Universe? Whilst expected to believe in the Life that comes to be associated with the form and function of the physical / energic human body? Is not one as uncomprehensible as the other? As uncomprehensible as all the matter of our Universe coming into existence in a micro micro micro micro micro second? Out of nothing?

I've been following this thread with some interest. But it seems to me that it is often bogged down in the obviously inane contradictions of a Judeo / Christian creator God. The original Theatre of the Absurd? And when this happens, it seems that both sides flounder! What has God to do with omniscience, with omnipotence? With bloody morals? With judgement? Why must God be held responsible for the act of creation, made responsible for maintaining that creation? Again, buggered if I know is my only answer to that one.

And as a brief aside - Cancer. Mentioned above. Again morals seem to be invoked (population control, corruption of cells). If we are to take this stance then perhaps we should only define cancer as 'tragedy' for it's owner. For me cancer is simply 'perfection'. Cancer is exactly what it should be, when it should be - the perfect reflection of the conditions the cell, the tissue finds itself in when it finds itself there. It is not a moral judgement, it is not an affliction, it is not a flaw - it simply is what / where/ when it ought to be, given the conditions it arose from.

[Mr. Blocks]

I appreciate your joining. It adds a little more spice to the conversation here. And it was interesting to see what you had to say about all this.


who created the creator? Always a difficult concept. I find it impossible to 'believe' in the Big Bang - how / where on earth did all the matter in the universe come from? Out of nothing came everything? Might just as well believe in a creator that existed before creation came into existence. Is the Big bang Theory hypothesis or fact? Buggered if I know but it is certainly widely accepted. As something real, something concrete. (Putting aside Dimensional spaces for the moment since the assumption that those dimensional spaces contained all our matter must require the arcane math of a physicist or philosopher to justify. And it still leaves the question as to what preceeded the creation of those dimensional spaces. Where did they come from?)

The idea of "who created the creator" combats the idea that something complex can not come from something quite simple in the beggining. You could look at how evolution attempts to explain this, or even how we as human beings start in life (you mentioned cells and so I thought I'd use the idea of it). The process starts simple and becomes to be a complex thing.

Why do you find it impossible to believe the big bang theory, of which is suported by observational and scientific evidence. It's not a theory that says "This masive bang just came from nothing and happened for no reason". Science can't answer where everything came from, but that doesn't mean that the beggining of the universe didn't happen in the way that the big bang explains. I find it hard to understand how one can find it impossible to "believe" in a theory which has it's supports to explain the origin of the universe, yet can accept there being an inteligent being having created it.. when there is not a single bit of real evidence to support that idea.

I have to stress that I don't know the answers, but I refuse to just "believe" something created everything. Because like I said, if that were true then it begs an even more complex question. I think the worst thing people can do is "believe" they know the truth.

I also don't understand how or why religious people attack science with "It's only a theory it's not fact". When the idea of God is simply a hypothosis itself, not enough to be a Theory, and certainly not enough to be fact. I find it hard to except something as truth unless there is something that supports the idea of it.

We don't know where everything came from, but to announce that you "believe" you have the answer for it just isn't enough to be considered truth.

Then again, I have trouble believing in human conception leading to life. In accepting one cell leaving it's host body, travelling to another host body, joining with another single cell and .... Bingo! A whole new separate Life. Where on earth does that 'Life' come from? Not the physical organism but the 'Life' that comes to co-exist with that organism. Same place as all the matter in the universe at the moment of the Big bang came from before the Universe existed? Same place as God the Creator came from before the creation existed?

Would it not be like (imagine) if we were to create artificial inteligence capable of using language and "feeling" emotions. Wouldn't we be turning it's "power" on? And also we'd be turning it off.

I used to believe that we had a soul, I used to think "well where is the difference between life and death?". Then I just thought of myself as a biological robot type being. Being conscience or "awake" is life, being without that your in death.

I can understand your questioning and perhaps Science hasn't answered everything. But you mustn't give in to the easiest option of explaining everything. Because it doesn't really explain it at all. I want to know where we came from, and if something created us then I want to know where that thing came from. To believe in something requires no evidence, no basis.. just faith that your not wrong.

Death is another thing I find impossible to get my head around. Before death there exists a tangible being able to be interacted with, able to be known. Able to be touched, smelt, tasted, remember things with, discover new things with. And in a microsecond? That person is suddenly as remote as the Pharaohs, as unknowable as the dinosaurs. I can get my head around the physical body ceasing to function but where did that life go?

Where did that life go? It depends on how you view "life". If you believe that we have a soul somehow given to us to make us "alive" then that would be a question you would think about.

I don't think we have a soul or anything that is within us that makes us "alive". We have a brain that control us and enables us to view "life" as it is. When the brain isn't "on" you lose the ability to see life and experience it.


I believe in God, I just don't know what God is. And I don't believe in the Judeo / Christian God. I believe the Universe has some sort of intelligence at it's heart. And in it's heart of hearts - compassion, love. This is what I suspect God to be. This is what I believe. Do you think this belief foolish? Erroneous? Should I not be able to believe that a caring, self knowing intelligence somehow came to be associated with the form and function of the physical / energic Universe? Whilst expected to believe in the Life that comes to be associated with the form and function of the physical / energic human body? Is not one as uncomprehensible as the other? As uncomprehensible as all the matter of our Universe coming into existence in a micro micro micro micro micro second? Out of nothing?

What I think is that anyone that has to "believe" in something to answer the questions that can't be answered are ignorant and foolish to do so. I don't have the answers to everything but I believe that there is an explanation for everything and one day we'll figure it out. History would tell you enough.

It's also foolish to say "caring" when you use the word "God". Do we not live in the same harsh cruel world that is controled by man? Where war, disease and corruption is everywhere? I don't see why people have to also believe that "God" cares. If there is a "God" then he might not care about us at all, or at least not enough to make sure we are all happy and safe. That would also be a crazy assumption to have about a supernatural being capable of creating us.

The difference between God and the Big bang theory is:

God:

- Requires "belief" to believe.
- Is believed to explain everything without answering any real question.

Big Bang:

- Requires evidence to support it's idea.
- Gives us answers to how it would be possible for a Universe to form into what it is now.

They are of completely different mind frames. Inteligence has no baring on who believes what here.


I've been following this thread with some interest. But it seems to me that it is often bogged down in the obviously inane contradictions of a Judeo / Christian creator God. The original Theatre of the Absurd? And when this happens, it seems that both sides flounder! What has God to do with omniscience, with omnipotence? With bloody morals? With judgement? Why must God be held responsible for the act of creation, made responsible for maintaining that creation? Again, buggered if I know is my only answer to that one.

It is unless someone clearly states otherwise. Regardless your own belief and the believe of the Judeo Christian God are of the same principle. So it makes little difference of which I refer to, I don't go in depth but simply talk about the ability to hold belief in something like that.


And as a brief aside - Cancer. Mentioned above. Again morals seem to be invoked (population control, corruption of cells). If we are to take this stance then perhaps we should only define cancer as 'tragedy' for it's owner. For me cancer is simply 'perfection'. Cancer is exactly what it should be, when it should be - the perfect reflection of the conditions the cell, the tissue finds itself in when it finds itself there. It is not a moral judgement, it is not an affliction, it is not a flaw - it simply is what / where/ when it ought to be, given the conditions it arose from.

Wouldn't that be obvious though? Cancer isn't great if you have it, but for what cancer is and what it does, it almost always does it's job.

Another misconception that humans being or any other animals are "perfect". We have many imperfections like the fact we have a blind spot in our eyes, it offers no surivival value at all. We all have cancer cells of which isn't "perfect" since it can be fatal, and offers us no survival value.

Evolution explains how this happens.

[/QUOTE]

[Yog]

I must say I agree with the larger part of what Morph Phoenix has said in the previous post. I would like to expand briefly on the why it became so important for God to be omnipotent and omniscient.

Place yourself in the ancient world. In the Medeterranean alone there are at least 8-9 religions competing for dominance 2000 years ago. Summerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Greek, Roman (much of which absorbed Greek), Celtic, and a few others.

Now the purpose of religion and gods was to explain the world around them. It served the funcion of providing an explanation for things that could not be otherwise explained. This is why Zues was such an adulterer. Some men were thought to be adulterous because they were influence by Zues. The Greeks invented Zeus to explain the behavior for a segment of Greek society. Considering he was the king of the gods, what does this say about the prevelance of extra-marital sex in ancient Greek culture?

You are in this atmosphere of competing gods and trying to get your God to seem attractive to people of other religions so that you may convert them. Perhaps you are in Egypt and the person you are speaking to worships Ra. He says, "my god is the most powerful. He rules the sky and has the power to provide either good or bad harvest. He brings life to the world every morning. That is why I worship Ra."

You might respond, "I worship God, the god of gods. My god is all powerful. My god is all knowing. My god commands your false god to rise in the morning and set at night. That is why I worship God."

As you can see, the notion of omnipotence and omniscience is extremely powerful in such an environment.

In today's environment, where there is little competition what happens? There is no longer a need to compare dieties and have one seem to be supreme among gods. This is especially true in a world where Allah, Yahweh, God, Jehova are all seen to be the same. The dominant thought centers around the notion that there can only be one god so whatever that god is is the one. The lustre of omnsicience and omnipotence looses much of it's asthetic appeal. (For reasons of pure philosophy an arugment for the need of omniscience and omnipotence can still be made, but I won't go into that in this post.)

Now compound with that the extreme importance that the notion of free-will. It has been perhaps the dominant idea for the last 200 years or more. The cry of freedom is heard around the world over and over. Considering the importance of this notion and the inherint inconsistencies with omniscience and free-will, I can certianly see how modern man would begin to move away from God as omniscient. I would definitey refer to this notion as part of the Hegelian Dialectic—Zeitgeist.

[joethfc]

My opinion is that God is a superstition

[Nobody]

I feel sorry for you, if you have nothing more to say than that. At least some elaboration on your opinion, as to why?

[joethfc]

I feel sorry for you, if you have nothing more to say than that. At least some elaboration on your opinion, as to why?

ill leave that for another day - i just wanted to let people know where i stand - not to be offensive or overbearing

[Nobody]

ill leave that for another day - i just wanted to let people know where i stand - not to be offensive or overbearing

Looking forward to it :)

[joethfc]

Looking forward to it :)

because i dont want to make a bad first impression on here i will try and explain myself

i personally think the creation of god as being a holy father and almost like a greater being is superstitious and fits in well with the human nature to be superstitious - perhaps the loser definitions of the term god hold some water and that why im agnostic and not atheist

it is my personal belief that "love's the only engine of survival" and that is the love that can be seen from within when we realise we are nothing but a being - something that has never changed since we were born and perhaps before that