|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/18/2008 9:21:16 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
The natural world cannot explain the reason for the developement of conscience, consciousness, guilt, sapience itself.
I believe it can. The violent clash of human survival instinct and self awareness would be expected to result in everything you mentioned. Perhaps you are correct. If so we must accept, as I stated previously, that despite what human curiosity has discovered, the challenging bits that remain in question are "just magic."
quote:
"Chance" does not explain any of it, it only exacerbates the problem.
Regarding what exactly. Chance isn't thought to explain anything that I know of. Please explain.
quote:
And while the problem of division within the church itself may serve to drive away many weaker believers, it is not the fact of a weak supernatural, but the fact of a disbelieving following which is responsible for that.
When the Christian world splits into thousands of denominations, how can we expect a world of unbelievers to see in us anything salvageable or desirable for them to emulate?
Well yes divided groups are more easily conquered of course but it's also important to remember that ideas simply do not gain truth as they gain adherents. If they did then the "idea of Islam" should have considerable validity to you seeing as how it's 1.5 billion strong, growing rapidly, and comprised primarily of only two denominations, Sunni and Syi'ah. No, larger followings do not make ideas more believable, not for you, not for me, and not for anyone. A logical human will not take "numbers" of believers into account when he or she decides if something is worthy of his or her belief. They will make the decision on their own, as have you, and as have I.
quote:
If however, the churches all came together,and in truth, taught the same thing, and expressed one faith, the world could then see in us something beyond our natural man, and look to see what it is we have that they might benefit from. Then it would be a simple matter of teaching so they could grow from faith to faith.
see above
quote:
I do not think the natural world will ever replace the supernatural explanations for what is beyond natures pervue.
I'm not sure what exactly you assume to be "beyond nature's purview" but if it is the actual answer to the ultimate question of "why is there anything at all instead of nothing at all", then I really don't think it will either; especially not in my lifetime. Assuming I'm understanding you correctly and the question is "why is there something instead of nothing", I think there very well may NEVER be a sufficient scientific answer. I'm not sure that is sufficient grounds for humanity to continue inventing new magical answers though.
But, for now, baring an extraterrestrial visit from a billion year old society of aliens with all the answers, I'll simply agree that I'm not sure we can look up and see this answer no matter what kind of telescope we build. But I haven't heard a good reason to need an answer other than simply "it just is", or "there is something instead of nothing, just because". I mean, if it's ok for the answer to be "it just is" in response to "why is there a God instead of no God", then it's ok for the answer to be "it just is" in response to "why is there something instead of nothing". If logic is anything it is absent of double standards like this.
But which concept should we side with? Which concept has a more proven track record? A vast number of human made gods have been forgotten because humans learned the true origin of the natural phenomenon the gods had been invented to explain. This has happened over and over and over again throughout human history. Humans once imagined a god to explain why the sun moves across the sky; why the seasons change; why the rain falls; why volcanoes erupt; why the earth quakes; why the stars come out at night; and why we die. Science, which is nothing more than disciplined application of the human inquisitiveness that WE ALL SHARE, has now explained each and every one of those things sufficiently for widespread belief in their respective gods to basically vanish from the face of the earth.
Every human has every reason to side with the explanatory power of science. It is only from within that we can find the reasons to deny it. If we elect to deny science and side with the supernatural, the question is are we doing it for ourselves or for the good of mankind.
As I said earlier for most of human history, all questions of divinity and the divine were quite comfortably answered with purely natural psychological reactions to the awe inspiring world. Those answers amounted to saying "it must be magic". It remains utterly fascinating to me that even today, and even behind the veneer of arguments that pretend to be based on reason and evidence where surely none exists, the bottom line has not changed since Neandertal first raised his eyes to the stars and felt the stirrings of what he thought was his soul.
Many of us still feel that "it's just magic."
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/19/2008 5:04:39 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/19/2008 9:00:42 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(wayward1) Perhaps you are correct. If so we must accept, as I stated previously, that despite what human curiosity has discovered, the challenging bits that remain in question are "just magic."
Chance isn't thought to explain anything that I know of. Please explain.
(theo) I think we are speaking of the same thing, only I name it "chance" while YOU name it "magic."
quote:
(theo) When the Christian world splits into thousands of denominations, how can we expect a world of unbelievers to see in us anything salvageable or desirable for them to emulate?
(wayward1) Well yes divided groups are more easily conquered of course but it's also important to remember that ideas simply do not gain truth as they gain adherents. If they did then the "idea of Islam" should have considerable validity to you seeing as how it's 1.5 billion strong, growing rapidly, and comprised primarily of only two denominations, Sunni and Syi'ah.
I still differentiate between those who were taught by their parents, and those who were converted by the bomb.
quote:
(wayward1) No, larger followings do not make ideas more believable, not for you, not for me, and not for anyone. A logical human will not take "numbers" of believers into account when he or she decides if something is worthy of his or her belief. They will make the decision on their own, as have you, and as have I.
(theo) Maybe not, but SURVIVAL certainly adds a dimension that could not be foreseen. If you are going to be killed, but spared only if you pledge your "faith" to a concept, the tendency is to see survival as beneficial over "faithfully dying." They may not take "numbers of believers" into account, but they WILL take "number of bullets and bombs" into account.
Islam is just as much an attack religion as Catholicism has been in prior history. BOTH are ignorant of the fact God is not pleased with their methods. "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me." [John 16:2-3]
quote:
I do not think the natural world will ever replace the supernatural explanations for what is beyond natures pervue.
(wayward1) I'm not sure what exactly you assume to be "beyond nature's purview"
Why, the "supernatural" of your reference of course.
quote:
(wayward1) but if it is the actual answer to the ultimate question of "why is there anything at all instead of nothing at all", then I really don't think it will either; especially not in my lifetime. Assuming I'm understanding you correctly and the question is "why is there something instead of nothing", I think there very well may NEVER be a sufficient scientific answer. I'm not sure that is sufficient grounds for humanity to continue inventing new magical answers though.
(theo) Again, that word "magic" to mean what I reference as "chance." Things do not just HAPPEN.
quote:
(wayward1) But, for now, baring an extraterrestrial visit from a billion year old society of aliens with all the answers, I'll simply agree that I'm not sure we can look up and see this answer no matter what kind of telescope we build. But I haven't heard a good reason to need an answer other than simply "it just is", or "there is something instead of nothing, just because". I mean, if it's ok for the answer to be "it just is" in response to "why is there a God instead of no God", then it's ok for the answer to be "it just is" in response to "why is there something instead of nothing". If logic is anything it is absent of double standards like this.
(theo) If in fact "logic" truly is "absent of double standards" there would be no "dillemma," i.e., a situation requiring a choice between two equally impossible solutions. In fact it has been stated by mathematicians,
"anything can be "proved" by the use of Logic." It just takes a properly worded major premise, subtended by a properly worded minor premise to produce a dillemma as conclusion.
"It is unreasonable to reason two contradictory facts are believable and both (remember; contradictory facts) are true."
What then of sentences number A and B;
A. Sentence B is true.
B. Sentence A is false.
Both are declarative statements. Both are believable. Both are reasonable. Both are true.
A - B is true
B - A is false
If A (b is true) is true; (A is false) is true, and A is false! Which is what B states. So, if A is true, B is true.
If A (b is true) is false;(A is false) is false, and A is true! Which states that B is true, which states that A is false! So, if A is false, B is true.
Whether A is true or false, B is true.
quote:
(wayward1) But which concept should we side with? Which concept has a more proven track record? A vast number of human made gods have been forgotten because humans learned the true origin of the natural phenomenon the gods had been invented to explain. This has happened over and over and over again throughout human history.
(theo) why then do humans still invent gods?
quote:
(wayward1) Humans once imagined a god to explain why the sun moves across the sky; why the seasons change; why the rain falls; why volcanoes erupt; why the earth quakes; why the stars come out at night; and why we die. Science, which is nothing more than disciplined application of the human inquisitiveness that WE ALL SHARE, has now explained each and every one of those things sufficiently for widespread belief in their respective gods to basically vanish from the face of the earth.
(theo) I think that would be true only if 'we all" share the "disciplined application," not the "human inquisitivenes." I think you may be addressing the "ideal" rather than the reality. ONLY IF all humans had equal access to scientific application, could all humans do anything at all specifically regarding god in any form or fashion. The sad truth is scientific application is still available to a select few. A larger few than previously, but still a select FEW.
quote:
(wayward1) Every human has every reason to side with the explanatory power of science. It is only from within that we can find the reasons to deny it. If we elect to deny science and side with the supernatural, the question is are we doing it for ourselves or for the good of mankind.
(theo) But that is an ASSIGNED reason. Not every human is answerable to what is reasonable for every human. Usually, what is reasonable for every human is known only to a few, and the few assign the concept of "reasonable" to the masses. The reality is far different from the expectation. So far different it becomes "unreasonable" by virtue of the vast disconnect between the few, and the masses the few hope to influence with their truth.
quote:
(wayward1) As I said earlier for most of human history, all questions of divinity and the divine were quite comfortably answered with purely natural psychological reactions to the awe inspiring world. Those answers amounted to saying "it must be magic". It remains utterly fascinating to me that even today, and even behind the veneer of arguments that pretend to be based on reason and evidence where surely none exists, the bottom line has not changed since Neandertal first raised his eyes to the stars and felt the stirrings of what he thought was his soul.
Many of us still feel that "it's just magic."
(theo) I have performed many "magic" tricks to entertain my grandchildren and great grandchildren, but it is still "tricks" and not "magic." Possibly you are confusing "magic" with "supernatural" which is beyond the pervue of the "Natural." THAT is precisely where God comes into the picture.
When I can read an account from historical documents, that gives precision to details of events not set to happen until two hundred plus years after the telling thereof, I listen and watch for historical documents telling of the outcome thereof. Both are found in the Jewish scriptures. And when the one telling the events to happen, further tells the name of one yet unborn, for the express purpose of identifying himself as God, to the as yet unborn, it gets my attention.
This is precisely what happened When God told Isaiah that the Jews would go into captivity, and would be released by their captor to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city, and the temple, and further, that the captor king would bear the expenses of the project. Then God placed the capstone on the time capsule of prophecy. He named the king. Cyrus, king of Persia fulfilled the prophecies two hundred plus years later, and was convinced that in fact Jehovah is exactly who he claimed to be.
Proof? Not at all. Evidence? Most certainly. Believable? to the believing, of course. To the unbelieving, not a chance. "logical?" Nope! "Faith?" Above all possible doubt. "Magic?" Explain the "magician" and we have come full circle.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/19/2008 4:39:50 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) I think we are speaking of the same thing, only I name it "chance" while YOU name it "magic."
I think we're speaking of different things. What I name "magic" is the notion that a supernatural being created everything that is. What you name chance I took be be natural processes resulting in the appearance of something coming from nothing.
The truth is that there's no reason to think there has ever been nothing.
quote:
I still differentiate between those who were taught by their parents, and those who were converted by the bomb.
Teaching by parents is shaky territory. Parents are stewards to their children. I'm not sure they have the right to dictate or even predispose their children to any one religion. Children deserve a chance to choose for themselves.
quote:
(theo) Maybe not, but SURVIVAL certainly adds a dimension that could not be foreseen. If you are going to be killed, but spared only if you pledge your "faith" to a concept, the tendency is to see survival as beneficial over "faithfully dying." They may not take "numbers of believers" into account, but they WILL take "number of bullets and bombs" into account.
I feel very threatened by Islam, but it doesn't drive me to Christianity. It drives me to military service.
quote:
Why, the "supernatural" of your reference of course.
What reason do you have for assuming any supernatural thing to have ever happened. You've explained why you think people in the past believed supernatural things to have happened, but what reason does that give you for assuming any supernatural thing has ever happened. Many supernatural things are written about in history, but you don't believe those. You only believe the ones about the God of Abraham.
quote:
(theo) Again, that word "magic" to mean what I reference as "chance." Things do not just HAPPEN.
Yet this gives you no reason to doubt that God "just HAPPENED". Again with the double standards.
quote:
"It is unreasonable to posit two contradictory [ideas] that are both true."
I think that would have made your point precisely with out all the "A's" and "B's" but I could be missing something. That's why I appealed to your logical sensibilities and asked which one just "seemed" more likely to be true.
quote:
(theo) why then do humans still invent gods?
That's a good question. My feeling is that our collective understanding of the conflicting forces within us all has not been elevated to a sufficient level to supplant such invention. Most of us don't have to invent any Gods though. We can simply fall in line with the masses and believe as we are expected to believe.
quote:
(theo) I think that would be true only if 'we all" share the "disciplined application," not the "human inquisitivenes." I think you may be addressing the "ideal" rather than the reality. ONLY IF all humans had equal access to scientific application, could all humans do anything at all specifically regarding god in any form or fashion. The sad truth is scientific application is still available to a select few. A larger few than previously, but still a select FEW.
It's "available to" vastly more people than chose to avail themselves of it. But I agree that it's not as universally available as say "religions". Not sure what you're getting at with this though.
quote:
(theo) But that is an ASSIGNED reason. Not every human is answerable to what is reasonable for every human. Usually, what is reasonable for every human is known only to a few, and the few assign the concept of "reasonable" to the masses. The reality is far different from the expectation. So far different it becomes "unreasonable" by virtue of the vast disconnect between the few, and the masses the few hope to influence with their truth.
I suppose this is true, but as access to scientific discovery becomes more and more widespread people will have less and less of an excuse.
quote:
(theo) I have performed many "magic" tricks to entertain my grandchildren and great grandchildren, but it is still "tricks" and not "magic." Possibly you are confusing "magic" with "supernatural" which is beyond the pervue of the "Natural." THAT is precisely where God comes into the picture.
And perhaps you are erroneously separating supernatural and magical as somehow not synonymous
Magic n.
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
quote:
When I can read an account from historical documents, that gives precision to details of events not set to happen until two hundred plus years after the telling thereof, I listen and watch for historical documents telling of the outcome thereof. Both are found in the Jewish scriptures. And when the one telling the events to happen, further tells the name of one yet unborn, for the express purpose of identifying himself as God, to the as yet unborn, it gets my attention.
This is precisely what happened When God told Isaiah that the Jews would go into captivity, and would be released by their captor to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city, and the temple, and further, that the captor king would bear the expenses of the project. Then God placed the capstone on the time capsule of prophecy. He named the king. Cyrus, king of Persia fulfilled the prophecies two hundred plus years later, and was convinced that in fact Jehovah is exactly who he claimed to be.
Proof? Not at all. Evidence? Most certainly. Believable? to the believing, of course. To the unbelieving, not a chance. "logical?" Nope! "Faith?" Above all possible doubt. "Magic?" Explain the "magician" and we have come full circle.
This is interesting. How about if I admit straight off that the writers whose work you read surely believed everything they wrote was true? How does this establish evidence for anything beyond the fact that they believed it. If they believed it they would have written convincing accounts of it. So how does a convincing account of it make the event more likely to have actually happened. I think its convincing nature only makes it more likely that they believed it. I also think it's convincing nature says nothing whatsoever of how true it is.
If it does, then there are a slew of other supernatural events written about that you should also investigate as "possibly true".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/19/2008 5:25:20 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo) I think we are speaking of the same thing, only I name it "chance" while YOU name it "magic."
(wayward1) I think we're speaking of different things. What I name "magic" is the notion that a supernatural being created everything that is. What you name chance I took be be natural processes resulting in the appearance of something coming from nothing.
No! What I reference as "chance" is those things that natural process cannot possibly be responsible for. That is why I named some of them; i.e., conscience, consciousness, sapience, guilt, and etc. These things cannot be defined through natural process.
quote:
(wayward1) The truth is that there's no reason to think there has ever been nothing.
(theo) With that I quite agree. Though I do think the "something" that would be, is not defined.
quote:
(theo) I still differentiate between those who were taught by their parents, and those who were converted by the bomb.
(wayward1) Teaching by parents is shaky territory. Parents are stewards to their children. I'm not sure they have the right to dictate or even predispose their children to any one religion. Children deserve a chance to choose for themselves.
Oh I quite disagree. Most parents of whom I have known, certainly felt a God-given responsibility to "raise up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Whether it turns out to be an accurate application of what God wants remains to be determined. But it still remains as one of the "rights" reserved to parents in just about every civilization.
quote:
(theo) Maybe not, but SURVIVAL certainly adds a dimension that could not be foreseen. If you are going to be killed, but spared only if you pledge your "faith" to a concept, the tendency is to see survival as beneficial over "faithfully dying." They may not take "numbers of believers" into account, but they WILL take "number of bullets and bombs" into account.
(wayward1) I feel very threatened by Islam, but it doesn't drive me to Christianity. It drives me to military service.
Oh I did not intend to convey taht Islam would drive anybody to Christianity, rather that the bombs of Islam would probably drive many to Islam.
quote:
(theo) Why, the "supernatural" of your reference of course.
(wayward1) What reason do you have for assuming any supernatural thing to have ever happened. You've explained why you think people in the past believed supernatural things to have happened, but what reason does that give you for assuming any supernatural thing has ever happened. Many supernatural things are written about in history, but you don't believe those. You only believe the ones about the God of Abraham.
(theo) Oh, that's not true at all. I think supernatural things happened in abundance prior to the flood of the Genesis account. Sons of God coming unto the daughters of men and begetting a race of Giants... It open up an unstopperable jug of possibilities. I think that single reference could well be the source of all the ancient "god myths" of antiquity. The stories of Gods walking among men and begetting children with them; stories of antiquity that defy nature, (supernatural) may all come from this one source.
quote:
(theo) Again, that word "magic" to mean what I reference as "chance." Things do not just HAPPEN.
(wayward1) Yet this gives you no reason to doubt that God "just HAPPENED". Again with the double standards.
(theo) But I never have believed God "just happened." God IS. He didn't "happen." There is a vast difference. For something or someone to "happen" there must be a "cause." God was not "caused." Nor did He "happen." He IS. It is a subtle but necessary distinction.
quote:
(theo) why then do humans still invent gods?
(wayward1) That's a good question. My feeling is that our collective understanding of the conflicting forces within us all has not been elevated to a sufficient level to supplant such invention. Most of us don't have to invent any Gods though. We can simply fall in line with the masses and believe as we are expected to believe.
(theo) Sort of accept the collective concept?
quote:
(theo) But that is an ASSIGNED reason. Not every human is answerable to what is reasonable for every human. Usually, what is reasonable for every human is known only to a few, and the few assign the concept of "reasonable" to the masses. The reality is far different from the expectation. So far different it becomes "unreasonable" by virtue of the vast disconnect between the few, and the masses the few hope to influence with their truth.
(wayward1) I suppose this is true, but as access to scientific discovery becomes more and more widespread people will have less and less of an excuse.
(theo) The parallel argument has been made for God.
quote:
(theo) I have performed many "magic" tricks to entertain my grandchildren and great grandchildren, but it is still "tricks" and not "magic." Possibly you are confusing "magic" with "supernatural" which is beyond the pervue of the "Natural." THAT is precisely where God comes into the picture.
(wayward1) And perhaps you are erroneously separating supernatural and magical as somehow not synonymous
Magic n.
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
(theo) Erroneously? No! I think the definition you have provided depends too much upon a basic assumption, that the supernatural and magic reference the same things.
Water goes into the ground, enters the grape root, goes up through the stem and makes grapes; grapes make wine. That is a natural process. Jesus turned water into wine. That is supernatural, in that it eliminates (or speeds up) proccesses in the middle. Magic, on the other hand, would be to make wine appear without recourse to the water.
quote:
(theo) When I can read an account from historical documents, that gives precision to details of events not set to happen until two hundred plus years after the telling thereof, I listen and watch for historical documents telling of the outcome thereof. Both are found in the Jewish scriptures. And when the one telling the events to happen, further tells the name of one yet unborn, for the express purpose of identifying himself as God, to the as yet unborn, it gets my attention.
This is precisely what happened When God told Isaiah that the Jews would go into captivity, and would be released by their captor to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city, and the temple, and further, that the captor king would bear the expenses of the project. Then God placed the capstone on the time capsule of prophecy. He named the king. Cyrus, king of Persia fulfilled the prophecies two hundred plus years later, and was convinced that in fact Jehovah is exactly who he claimed to be.
Proof? Not at all. Evidence? Most certainly. Believable? to the believing, of course. To the unbelieving, not a chance. "logical?" Nope! "Faith?" Above all possible doubt. "Magic?" Explain the "magician" and we have come full circle.
(wayward1) This is interesting. How about if I admit straight off that the writers whose work you read surely believed everything they wrote was true? How does this establish evidence for anything beyond the fact that they believed it. If they believed it they would have written convincing accounts of it. So how does a convincing account of it make the event more likely to have actually happened. I think its convincing nature only makes it more likely that they believed it. I also think it's convincing nature says nothing whatsoever of how true it is.
If it does, then there are a slew of other supernatural events written about that you should also investigate as "possibly true".
(theo) The problem with your assertion is that the historical accounts agree with the scriptural accounts. The result being, it really happened.
As for your reference to "a slew of other supernatural events written about that you should also investigate as "possibly true," I am not interested in tracing out supernatural events unless and untill there is a connection claimed for scriptural interest. It is not supernatural per se, that interests me.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/19/2008 5:32:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/19/2008 8:25:26 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
No! What I reference as "chance" is those things that natural process cannot possibly be responsible for. That is why I named some of them; i.e., conscience, consciousness, sapience, guilt, and etc. These things cannot be defined through natural process.
Well, not sure how to take the exclamation marks but no need to get heated by what follows. The thread is about whether it is purely logical to believe in God. We're just trying to answer that question. But talk about assuming too much. "Things that natural process cannot possibly be responsible for" huh? Wow. You know more than all of science. A field being in its infancy doesn't give us a sufficient reason to assume the things you've listed will not one day have natural explanations. Given the frequency with which we see a few of them in the animal kingdom my guess is they occur quite naturally given sufficient time. But that's my guess, not what I think your "god is not possibly responsible for". I can no more say "your God is not possibly responsible" for those things than you can legitimately say they are "things that natural process cannot possibly be responsible for". If your faith hinges on these things being 100% beyond the realm of science then I suggest you ignore science for the next 10 or 20 years. You might not like what you learn.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Oh I quite disagree. Most parents of whom I have known, certainly felt a God-given responsibility to "raise up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Whether it turns out to be an accurate application of what God wants remains to be determined. But it still remains as one of the "rights" reserved to parents in just about every civilization.
Well, you're very much welcome to that opinion. I consider it borderline child abuse. If you don't consider it child abuse then do you consider the Muslim parents to have done their children any disservice at all? If an Islamic father "raises up his child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Allah" do you think the child is more likely or less likely to find Christ? Hmmm? I wonder.
The statistical frequency with which that child will remain a Muslim to his dieing day should dictate that his father has damned him to hell by teaching him the wrong religion, according to Christians.
Surely you're not suggesting that teaching children religion is ok, so long as it's your religion?
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) Oh, that's not true at all. I think supernatural things happened in abundance prior to the flood of the Genesis account. Sons of God coming unto the daughters of men and begetting a race of Giants... It open up an unstopperable jug of possibilities. I think that single reference could well be the source of all the ancient "god myths" of antiquity. The stories of Gods walking among men and begetting children with them; stories of antiquity that defy nature, (supernatural) may all come from this one source.
They may, or they may all come from our superstitious nature.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) But I never have believed God "just happened." God IS. He didn't "happen."
Oh, so things can "BE" without having been "caused to be" then?
quote:
There is a vast difference. For something or someone to "happen" there must be a "cause." God was not "caused." Nor did He "happen." He IS. It is a subtle but necessary distinction.
It is the furthest possible thing from subtle. It is an abomination of logical and rational reasoning. It is the opposite of those things. It is a double standard and it is used to fit your mental needs. You having convinced yourself of it does not add one iota of validity to it.
If ANYTHING requires a cause for it to be then God requires a cause for it to be by exactly the same reasoning. The universe is not thought to have had a beginning though.
I don't think the Universe requires a cause for it to be. You can disagree with me, but you can't claim that God created the Universe and then assert that He doesn't require a cause. Infinite regress is a logical must. You read this line from me before "I assert that there can be no defensible objection to an eternal and uncreated entity by anyone also arguing that "god" is just such an entity." Have you something to offer that makes this "illogical" to say.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) The parallel argument has been made for God.
Yes, quite flippantly and without consideration for how difficult it would be to find God from a devoutly islamic home.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) Erroneously? No! I think the definition you have provided depends too much upon a basic assumption, that the supernatural and magic reference the same things.
Well, considering the absolute fact that they most certainly do reference precisely the same things I can't see how you've convinced yourself you are not in error. What God is believed to be capable of, if performed by any other being, would be exactly, real, MAGIC.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) The problem with your assertion is that the historical accounts agree with the scriptural accounts. The result being, it really happened.
That's interesting, and we are 100% certain of which came first, the scripture or the history, correct?
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/20/2008 4:13:50 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/20/2008 7:01:02 AM
|
|
|
SamSpick
Posts: 160
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: England
Status: offline
|
Wayward1,
quote:
The universe is not thought to have had a beginning though.
I'd like to read more about this. Any suggestions?
_____________________________
Of all your limitations, the greatest are the ones you don't even know about.
We cannot be judged guilty for our deviation from the alien moral code of our conqueror.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/20/2008 7:42:17 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
No! What I reference as "chance" is those things that natural process cannot possibly be responsible for. That is why I named some of them; i.e., conscience, consciousness, sapience, guilt, and etc. These things cannot be defined through natural process.
Well, not sure how to take the exclamation marks but no need to get heated by what follows. The thread is about whether it is purely logical to believe in God. We're just trying to answer that question. But talk about assuming too much. "Things that natural process cannot possibly be responsible for" huh? Wow. You know more than all of science. A field being in its infancy doesn't give us a sufficient reason to assume the things you've listed will not one day have natural explanations. Given the frequency with which we see a few of them in the animal kingdom my guess is they occur quite naturally given sufficient time. But that's my guess, not what I think your "god is not possibly responsible for". I can no more say "your God is not possibly responsible" for those things than you can legitimately say they are "things that natural process cannot possibly be responsible for". If your faith hinges on these things being 100% beyond the realm of science then I suggest you ignore science for the next 10 or 20 years. You might not like what you learn.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Oh I quite disagree. Most parents of whom I have known, certainly felt a God-given responsibility to "raise up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Whether it turns out to be an accurate application of what God wants remains to be determined. But it still remains as one of the "rights" reserved to parents in just about every civilization.
Well, you're very much welcome to that opinion. I consider it borderline child abuse. If you don't consider it child abuse then do you consider the Muslim parents to have done their children any disservice at all? If an Islamic father "raises up his child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Allah" do you think the child is more likely or less likely to find Christ? Hmmm? I wonder.
The statistical frequency with which that child will remain a Muslim to his dieing day should dictate that his father has damned him to hell by teaching him the wrong religion, according to Christians.
Surely you're not suggesting that teaching children religion is ok, so long as it's your religion?
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) Oh, that's not true at all. I think supernatural things happened in abundance prior to the flood of the Genesis account. Sons of God coming unto the daughters of men and begetting a race of Giants... It open up an unstopperable jug of possibilities. I think that single reference could well be the source of all the ancient "god myths" of antiquity. The stories of Gods walking among men and begetting children with them; stories of antiquity that defy nature, (supernatural) may all come from this one source.
They may, or they may all come from our superstitious nature.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) But I never have believed God "just happened." God IS. He didn't "happen."
Oh, so things can "BE" without having been "caused to be" then?
quote:
There is a vast difference. For something or someone to "happen" there must be a "cause." God was not "caused." Nor did He "happen." He IS. It is a subtle but necessary distinction.
It is the furthest possible thing from subtle. It is an abomination of logical and rational reasoning. It is the opposite of those things. It is a double standard and it is used to fit your mental needs. You having convinced yourself of it does not add one iota of validity to it.
If ANYTHING requires a cause for it to be then God requires a cause for it to be by exactly the same reasoning. The universe is not thought to have had a beginning though.
I don't think the Universe requires a cause for it to be. You can disagree with me, but you can't claim that God created the Universe and then assert that He doesn't require a cause. Infinite regress is a logical must. You read this line from me before "I assert that there can be no defensible objection to an eternal and uncreated entity by anyone also arguing that "god" is just such an entity." Have you something to offer that makes this "illogical" to say.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) The parallel argument has been made for God.
Yes, quite flippantly and without consideration for how difficult it would be to find God from a devoutly islamic home.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) Erroneously? No! I think the definition you have provided depends too much upon a basic assumption, that the supernatural and magic reference the same things.
Well, considering the absolute fact that they most certainly do reference precisely the same things I can't see how you've convinced yourself you are not in error. What God is believed to be capable of, if performed by any other being, would be exactly, real, MAGIC.
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) The problem with your assertion is that the historical accounts agree with the scriptural accounts. The result being, it really happened.
That's interesting, and we are 100% certain of which came first, the scripture or the history, correct?
Only if you know when the scriptures were written, and compare that with the historical account which was written much later.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/20/2008 8:22:55 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
The universe is not thought to have had a beginning though.
I'd like to read more about this. Any suggestions? Yes, I also wonder who is thinking this fallacy in light of the scientific evidence for a beginning.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/20/2008 9:46:16 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(wayward1) The universe is not thought to have had a beginning though.
(theo) O.K.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion, that the universe did not have a beginning. So, God created Adam and Eve and Eve had God "moving the furniture" for six days?
You know? "Put that mountain over there," That ocean needs to go closer over here..., and oh, those continents look SIMPLY HORRIBLE all scrunched up in one location."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/20/2008 2:28:09 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamSpick
Wayward1,
quote:
The universe is not thought to have had a beginning though.
I'd like to read more about this. Any suggestions?
I'm going to start by saying that I don't think the origin of the universe is a show stopper for faith by any stretch of the imagination. That's why I've implored drmark to come over to a more defensible stance on this matter. You can abandon KCA, embrace a universe with no known beginning, and still have your faith in God. After all, all humans will EVER do in our lifetime is "look up", and God could easily make something appear any way He needed to to realize His plan.
But as for the suggestion you asked for, I assure you we can find anything on the internet that we want to find. Just as drmark has provided a link to where certain sectarian apologists go into great detail about the supposed "beginning of the universe". But since his link includes this line,
"What is so important about the Big Bang theory? By far, the most important idea is that it tells us the universe had a beginning."
we know that his link is not based on anything "scientific", but rather the common attempts to twist science to represent ideas so they align with scripture. In fact this issue has become such a favorite of said apologists that the majority of the links you find on the web regarding this issue belong to them. I admitted right up front that given the laziness with which scientists talk about the Big Bang, it's not a difficult thing to misunderstand. Most scientists do not cater to our level. They speak as if we all know the basic gist of the theory and they don't include qualifiers that would make it perfectly clear that when they say "beginning" they mean "beginning of the way it currently appears" and not "beginning of ALL TIME".
In fact, most real scientists would probably literally snub their noses at anyone who even asked such a question as "was the big bang the beginning of all time?" They wouldn't laugh but they would want to. They would disregard such a person because in their line of work, there isn't time to educate people about such things. Everyone is simply expected to know what the Big Bang can and cannot speak to.
As I have said previously, The "Big Bang Theory" itself is the theory of the instant exactly one Planck time after whatever started the universe on its current rate of expansion. The theory explicitly cannot address what existed before the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang, or whether our universe the only one, nor does it purport to.
What can be "logically inferred" by such an idea is of no consequence to real science. When it can be tested, they will speak to it.
As I have already stated, it is a fairly gross misrepresentation of any scientific understanding of the Big Bang to assert that it proves that the universe and time had a beginning. It is however, usually remarked that "our universe began with the big bang". What is meant by "our" universe is the currently visible universe. What is meant by "began" is started to expand from a smaller state.
Now, as for my suggestion, the scientific websites that contain the work of real cosmologists doing real work are usually sites you have to pay to access. If you want to learn about the actual meaning of the big bang theory, my "suggestion" is to go to the library and read scholarly journals of science. Science daily is an online source that I can recommend if you want "instant satisfaction". I'd suggest taking it with almost as much of a grain of salt as drmark's link, but not quite. This article discusses the direction this research has been going for several years now. Considering we have gained 98% of our knowledge of the universe in the last 50 years, a few years is a "lot" of time, especially with the speed of advancement we've been enjoying.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
And this was being said 10 years ago http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990126081004.htm
Note this line "In the closing years of the 20th century, we're learning enough to begin to peer across the gulf that separates our universe from its source at the beginning of, or perhaps even before, the Big Bang..."
And as I also already stated, I am only reflecting the general consensus of cosmologists; the scientists who actually do wrestle with the issues surrounding the origin and operation of the universe. What is misunderstood or even misrepresented about the big bang does not interest me.
The Big Bang is no more a beginning of the universe than any arbitrarily selected point on any line is the beginning of the line, infinite or otherwise.
NO ONE who is respected in this field thinks otherwise, period. No matter how many times drmark says it, it won't become true.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/20/2008 6:07:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/20/2008 2:29:28 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(wayward1) The universe is not thought to have had a beginning though.
(theo) O.K.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion, that the universe did not have a beginning. So, God created Adam and Eve and Eve had God "moving the furniture" for six days?
You know? "Put that mountain over there," That ocean needs to go closer over here..., and oh, those continents look SIMPLY HORRIBLE all scrunched up in one location."
I'm not sure I follow you. We have perfectly good natural explanations and widespread geological understanding of how mountains developed and how continents move.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/21/2008 9:03:53 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(wayward1) when they say "beginning" they mean "beginning of the way it currently appears" and not "beginning of ALL TIME".
The "Big Bang Theory" itself is the theory of the instant exactly one Planck time after whatever started the universe on its current rate of expansion.
What is meant by "our" universe is the currently visible universe. What is meant by "began" is started to expand from a smaller state.
According to what you have stated, the "big bang" theory has nothing to do with where the universe came from, but rather how it began to expand from its smaller state?
So there is still no "scientific" theory as to the origin of energy and matter; space and time. When Christians and Jews attempt to explain the creation of the universe, why then do scientists get all bent out of shape over alleged "contradictions, if they are not even speaking of the same things?
We speak of origins, science addresses only beginnings long after origins; while scripture expresses time as having no beginning, space, matter, and energy as being created by God's utterance. How is it then understood to be contradicting science's "big bang" theory?
Help me to understand this.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/21/2008 9:14:13 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/21/2008 11:34:03 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Help me to understand this. I doubt you'll get much help in understanding God's truth from wayward1.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/21/2008 11:54:39 AM
|
|
|
Toto2u
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Wayward, I believe that you're general remark about drmark choosing to refer to off the wall references applies to theo_book. It may be that he has a solid argument about God manipulting the mountians etc. It seems though that he is just making a general comment.
The problem with his comment though, is that it isn't finished. "..no beginning.." "..God 'moving the futniture'.." --- and...???
The problem with God moving mountains is that it violates the laws of nature, which He very carefully put into place. God can do anything, but He wasn't trying to flex His muscles & show off.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just started a website investigating the nature of God, called GodQnA, and have my book 'The Two Eterniies' that delves into the limits that God placed upon His efforts. Please stop by and take a look.
_____________________________
God QnA: Seeking truth about the Entity we call God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/21/2008 1:17:39 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hmm, but was the indentation there BEFORE the steel ball was placed there? No, of course not, because both came into being at the same time. However, this makes it impossible to answer the question of whether perhaps teh steel ball didn't come into being to fill the form implied by the indentation -- if both happened simultaneously. What caused what? If nothing preceded the other, then how can a cause be spoken of if not poetically? The ball caused the indentation because the ball is heavy and the indentation has form only except due to the ball? But I thought both were do to some other fantastic cause that placed both of them there together, without having one existing without the other. It is taking license with hypotheticals, if you ask me -- as is all of this discussion of the nature or properties of God prior to creation of properties.
But perhaps you have a point you would liek to further express related to teh steel ball matter. I don't get it. I don't get the use in stretching the meaning of cause to something other than something concerning events or phenomena that are separated in time. It just seems like an exercise in being overly creative with the use of words. And for what purpose? I must then ask that question.
It actually doesn't matter if there was a before. If somehow both existed eternally, then the steel ball would still be the cause. The cause of the indentation is the steel ball, and as long as the steel ball and the pillow exist (even if they always had) the ball can be said to be the cause of the indentation, irregardless of when or if it began at some point.
Just to be clear, I am not talking here about what might cause a ball and pillow to exist, merely that something need not be a chronological antecedent to be a cause.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/21/2008 2:24:29 PM
|
|
|
SamSpick
Posts: 160
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
If somehow both existed eternally, then the steel ball would still be the cause.
I don't understand how an eternal thing can be the cause of another eternal thing. Surely the best we can say is that they appear to have a mutual and eternal co-existence?
_____________________________
Of all your limitations, the greatest are the ones you don't even know about.
We cannot be judged guilty for our deviation from the alien moral code of our conqueror.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/21/2008 2:35:39 PM
|
|
|
SamSpick
Posts: 160
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: England
Status: offline
|
Wayward1,
I was really after some book titles. Ones that will discuss and make clearer things such as this:
quote:
They speak as if we all know the basic gist of the theory and they don't include qualifiers that would make it perfectly clear that when they say "beginning" they mean "beginning of the way it currently appears" and not "beginning of ALL TIME".
You are stating that the scientific community generally holds open the possibility of time existing prior to BB. I need to go into this in more detail as it contradicts my current understanding; that the BB marks the beginning of all time.
Any pointers greatly appreciated.
_____________________________
Of all your limitations, the greatest are the ones you don't even | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
