Page 2 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,703
Location: Claremont, California

20 Aug 2009, 9:56 am

I think that if there is a creator or if there is anything out there residing in some non-material realm then we must first learn about our own minds so that we can perceive such entities. There is not enough information to go on as of yet and although many people feel/sense a God presence, nobody has proof of it yet. But, if there was proof then we can talk. Until then I think it's a waste of time searching for things when we don't have the proper mind expansion tools to go exploring.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,141
Location: New Human Empire

20 Aug 2009, 1:01 pm

MissConstrue wrote:
No Khan......this thread's a trap... :lol:


I recalled someone posting his/her interest in the Baha'i faith earlier. Guessing that the person in question would read this topic, I posted a link to what Abdul Baha wrote.

We don't argue. :)



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 19,810
Location: Earth

20 Aug 2009, 1:15 pm

Khan_Sama wrote:
MissConstrue wrote:
No Khan......this thread's a trap... :lol:


I recalled someone posting his/her interest in the Baha'i faith earlier. Guessing that the person in question would read this topic, I posted a link to what Abdul Baha wrote.

We don't argue. :)


"Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress." :wink:

__Mohandas Ghandi


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,141
Location: New Human Empire

20 Aug 2009, 1:20 pm

I happened to see a video today, you may find it interesting.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld97og4R1FM[/youtube]

Actually, I saw another one which I must post for its sheer awesomeness. :P

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5WP1U4T27k&feature=related[/youtube]



gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,898
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

20 Aug 2009, 1:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
If there were such absolute evidence that God exists, then that belief would no longer be "religious", IMO.

Interesting, partially because some religious people do think that absolute evidence exists. We see a pursuit of it with the proofs of Aquinas, and Anselm, and even today we see people out there promoting the idea that evidence exists, with examples such as the ID movement, and the varied apologists. Now, one can say that those ideas are BS, but I see no reason to attribute to malice something that can be attributed to folly, and as such I think all of these people believe the power of their arguments and consider them "absolute evidence". So, how absolute would absolute evidence have to be? Is it matter of societal agreement, a believed empirical proof that God is necessary for something to have emerged, or even could a logical argument be accepted?


If "God exists and everyone knows it", then that would mean that the existence of God would be beyond reasonable doubt, like saying "this chair exists and everyone knows it". The existence of the chair is not a religious belief, it is just common sense.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

20 Aug 2009, 4:05 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
If "God exists and everyone knows it", then that would mean that the existence of God would be beyond reasonable doubt, like saying "this chair exists and everyone knows it". The existence of the chair is not a religious belief, it is just common sense.

Well, the chair has no religious value at all though. I consider "religious belief" to also refer to the content of said belief. I mean, if the content of a belief includes things such as spirits, gods, and things like that, then the belief is religious in my eyes. I am not going to say that one cannot also use religion belief in a more negative sense of "strong belief without significant proof", but I don't think that this is traditional religious belief given that historically the prevalence of any religious belief within the originating culture was so overwhelming that to them the existence of God likely would have been what they considered "common sense" rather than some leap. The notion of a "religious leap of faith" is much more modern I think, and conservative circles usually don't have this kind of view of religious belief.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,567
Location: Sweden

20 Aug 2009, 4:41 pm

Khan_Sama wrote:
MissConstrue wrote:
No Khan......this thread's a trap... :lol:


I recalled someone posting his/her interest in the Baha'i faith earlier. Guessing that the person in question would read this topic, I posted a link to what Abdul Baha wrote.

We don't argue. :)

I don't take people who never argue very seriously. Such people never get further than their opening statement.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,564
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

20 Aug 2009, 4:42 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
1) Why do you think that God exists, or that God doesn't exist? Would you consider your reason to be proof, relatively good evidence, or what?


I tend to think he exists based on, mostly, the purposelessness of our existence, the strange order of natural laws and the progression of our earth's history, the basic premise of our universe's existence at all based in the kinds of energy that it is, many large and small coincidences through our human history which lend themselves more to a God who prefers to make his presence known in little ways on some levels rather than abstaining from any earthly involvement (ie. while the deist view can be tempting on some levels, especially when looking at the sheer amount of evil that takes place in this world - I still think its more likely that there is direct involvement). Do I think that my own evidence would work for everyone? No, its anecdotal just like a tough trial with a hard split between prosecution and defense would easily hang a jury. The hard evidence - both ways - is more interpretive than concrete.

I'll add to this though - I'm still quite uncertain what kind of God this is or what he really wants. While I was raised Catholic for example, too many free will issues seem to be a complete joke, I tend to put science and common sense out front and the bible - while I do reference it here and there - comes distant second because I think that 1) a God who created this reality should have just as many truths manifest in reality, therefor science, logic, reason, mathematics, etc. are just as much lines to God as going to church....that is *if* the bible is even an accurate tool to get to know God.... 2) so much tampering went on and so much in the way of politics in even the first couple centuries of the church (eg. the Catholic/Gnostic split) that I have to trust reality and common sense over written word since written word can be abused horridly by both politics and revisionist historians.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
2) Let us say that God exists and everyone knows it, and that God is the creator of the universe, the source of moral values, and so on. If such a being existed in such a manner, then would basing our legal system around this religion be justified? If only you knew it, but you were confident in your knowledge, would basing your votes around this religion be justified? If it isn't justified, then is the claim that people must make secular laws even if these laws are evil and how would you justify an obligation to promote/tolerate evil laws?


It really depends on what we're talking about. We're already on a Judao-Christian build of ethics and values, for the most part the laws now even are still founded in that basis. I think its appropriate to assert 'natural laws' or unalienable rights in terms of our existence - ie. with or without a God, even in the case that we had certainty of no God, we need to maximize the value of our collective life experience to even make being here and procreating worth more than break-even. That said, I have to agree that specific religious dogma needs to be kept out of law, mainly in that we have to admit - its an agnostic world and that said laws need to make just as much sense in light of or in the absence of a creator, ie. if a law can be justified through means other than religion and it can be justified that the law is a net good - then there is no problem. Issues like abortion though are extremely sticky because, where you fall on this can have a big effect on where you stand on it (though yes, there is speculative economic view of what's being forfeited through the loss of human life but - speculative usually isn't tangible to surmount to good or solid evidence).

So, laws have to first and foremost increase the public weal, and ultimately if a God created the world in which we live, than any good law is in fact wittingly or unwittingly following the laws that God set into motion - thus giving it religious/moral accuracy.


Awesomelyglorious wrote:
If you do believe in God, then what kind of evidence would it take for you not to believe in God? What kind of historical evidence? What kind of philosophical evidence? What kind of evidence found in the world around you? What kind of tragedy? Can you think of any evidence, or do you feel as if you would have to be wrong on too much to change your mind? Is your level of required evidence intellectually dishonest or why do you think it is honest?


That's a really difficult question, mainly because if truth of examined reality gives us the shape of the container that we're in and tells us more about where we came from and why we're here - its circular. For an atheist any new scientific discovery revolving around our origin further emasculates the 'God of the gaps', for a theist it just defines what God built further.

I've had the question pop in to my mind in the past and I almost wrote a post about it. Mainly I wanted to ask the atheists "If we lived in a world like that of Harry Potter, one that oozed with magic, where anything could happen, where I could shoot fireballs out of my hands or trees and mountains could sing - would that necessarily say anything about the existence or non-existence of a God?". I see the argument against theists being just as impression-driven, ie. I'm not sure what an atheist would expect to see if this was a universe with a God, just like I'm not sure what I'd expect to see if this was a universe without a God.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

20 Aug 2009, 4:59 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
It really depends on what we're talking about. We're already on a Judao-Christian build of ethics and values, for the most part the laws now even are still founded in that basis. I think its appropriate to assert 'natural laws' or unalienable rights in terms of our existence - ie. with or without a God, even in the case that we had certainty of no God, we need to maximize the value of our collective life experience to even make being here and procreating worth more than break-even. That said, I have to agree that specific religious dogma needs to be kept out of law, mainly in that we have to admit - its an agnostic world and that said laws need to make just as much sense in light of or in the absence of a creator, ie. if a law can be justified through means other than religion and it can be justified that the law is a net good - then there is no problem. Issues like abortion though are extremely sticky because, where you fall on this can have a big effect on where you stand on it (though yes, there is speculative economic view of what's being forfeited through the loss of human life but - speculative usually isn't tangible to surmount to good or solid evidence).

So, laws have to first and foremost increase the public weal, and ultimately if a God created the world in which we live, than any good law is in fact wittingly or unwittingly following the laws that God set into motion - thus giving it religious/moral accuracy.

Yeah, I mostly asked this question to approach a radically theocentric Judeo-Christian ethic. Why? Because unless you have approached it, there is a good possibility you will not really think about it and write it off. I am not defending it's correctness, but obviously systems have to partially be understood from within.

Quote:
That's a really difficult question, mainly because if truth of examined reality gives us the shape of the container that we're in and tells us more about where we came from and why we're here - its circular. For an atheist any new scientific discovery revolving around our origin further emasculates the 'God of the gaps', for a theist it just defines what God built further.

I've had the question pop in to my mind in the past and I almost wrote a post about it. Mainly I wanted to ask the atheists "If we lived in a world like that of Harry Potter, one that oozed with magic, where anything could happen, where I could shoot fireballs out of my hands or trees and mountains could sing - would that necessarily say anything about the existence or non-existence of a God?". I see the argument against theists being just as impression-driven, ie. I'm not sure what an atheist would expect to see if this was a universe with a God, just like I'm not sure what I'd expect to see if this was a universe without a God.

That is an interesting question, hopefully people would have responded to make it an interesting thread as well.

And to some extent, I did try to poke a little partially because I believe something more akin to what you do about how people believe. I mean, I doubt that there really are testable hypotheses and things like that for theism or atheism, so much as we move around with our basic impression of how theism and atheism would show themselves in the universe.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

20 Aug 2009, 11:13 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
So forcing your beliefs on others is inherently wrong? After all, if you have a true belief about what is moral, how could you not force it on others? To me, it does not seem as if our legal structure and society are neutral, but rather they have to take stances in regards to the proper sources of knowledge and proper beliefs of individual people in society, do you disagree though and think our society is actually truly neutral?

To the extent that they do not harm others, yes, forcing my beliefs on others is wrong.

Quote:
Additionally, even if you do not like forcing your will on others, would allowing something considered as evil as murder take place be tolerable, even if all individuals consented to this?

All individuals, including the one being murdered? That seems unlikely.


Quote:
Additional question: Do you believe that a liberal/libertarian view of the freedom of other people is moral even if God told you otherwise? Because if something is necessarily moral, then even God's word cannot refute it, but if it isn't then how far can the moral problem be taken?

If God told me otherwise, then my current stance is wrong. But God does not regularly speak to me unambiguously.

Quote:
If God came and told you that all blonds have to be killed by your hand, and he gave you solid proof of his existence in some form or fashion(anything as material as you want just so long as you couldn't use it as evidence in a court of law when you could get tried for murder), would you go around killing blonds? Why or why not? Let's assume God is vague about the specific reasoning behind this and tells you to kill blonds on faith?

Hm. I can completely rule out the possibility that I've gone insane?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

20 Aug 2009, 11:29 pm

It seems unlikely a belief can be forced on anyone unless there is actual medical manipulation of intimate thought processes and the nervous system. You can force people to say what they don't believe which is what happens within a theological totalitarian system but that is an entirely different matter.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

20 Aug 2009, 11:44 pm

Orwell wrote:
To the extent that they do not harm others, yes, forcing my beliefs on others is wrong.

Inherently wrong? Interesting.

Quote:
Quote:
Additionally, even if you do not like forcing your will on others, would allowing something considered as evil as murder take place be tolerable, even if all individuals consented to this?

All individuals, including the one being murdered? That seems unlikely.

I used a simile. It means that I am not literally referring to murder, but rather referring to something with a level of evilness similar to that of murder. We can even point to something where no consent could be given, for example if abortion really is the destruction of a human being, then it could be argued as murder. However, in this case, one of the issues could be blasphemy.

Quote:
If God told me otherwise, then my current stance is wrong. But God does not regularly speak to me unambiguously.

Well, I am trying to get to an issue of "there is no ambiguity" and "your current stance is wrong" to sort of see the kind of mental reaction I could get.

Quote:
Hm. I can completely rule out the possibility that I've gone insane?

I don't believe that sanity or it's counterpart objectively exist, so I really can't answer that question. After all, if insanity is "mental disorder" then an entity known as "mental order" would have to exist. I don't know how one could philosophically establish the notion of "mental order" without using an arbitrary reference to normality and social convention, and the issue is that insanity, in order to actually exist, must not be in relationship to either, but rather must be objective rather than subjective.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

21 Aug 2009, 12:30 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Inherently wrong? Interesting.

Yes. I wish to be free from compulsion by others, so I must not compel them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Quote:
I used a simile. It means that I am not literally referring to murder, but rather referring to something with a level of evilness similar to that of murder. We can even point to something where no consent could be given, for example if abortion really is the destruction of a human being, then it could be argued as murder. However, in this case, one of the issues could be blasphemy.

I see. This would then depend on other factors. Am I given a mandate to act as an enforcer of God's will? It doesn't seem to be my place to occupy such a role.

Quote:
Well, I am trying to get to an issue of "there is no ambiguity" and "your current stance is wrong" to sort of see the kind of mental reaction I could get.

If there is no doubt about God, and there is no ambiguity, and my current stance is wrong, then my stance would of course have to change. Is that what you were looking for?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

21 Aug 2009, 1:57 am

I recently found out about the baha'i faith, it's an interesting one. Kinda sad they're being persecuted for their beliefs though.... Especially when they don't even preach hostility (from what i gathered).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

21 Aug 2009, 7:04 am

Orwell wrote:
If there is no doubt about God, and there is no ambiguity, and my current stance is wrong, then my stance would of course have to change. Is that what you were looking for?


No only is there doubt about God's existence (that is God, the supernatural being that transcends physical space and time), there is not an iota of empirical evidence that unambiguously supports the notion that such a God exists. Not a crumb of evidence. Not a smidgin. Not a bit. The belief in the existence of a supernatural, transcendent God is pure wishful thinking. It is understandable wishful thinking. Few people are comfortable with the knowledge that they will surely die. They need something to bolster the idea there is a Life beyond life. Pure hogwash. We are all going to die and that will be the end of us.

ruveyn