Proof of God

[Tao_Equus]

I don't think you can simply slice it off as an effect of language. Do not forget humankind's troubles with violence. We are territorial omnivores, and we are happiest in small cliques not in metropolitan closets. We have many dangerous neuroses, and belief is something we individually relish. How many species are there that you know of, that actually would appreciate hallucinations, but humans love talking about dreams and hallucinations. (and aliens)

I do not slice it off, I am well aware that the range of factors that led to the emergence and perpetuation of the religious experience are extremely varied and effect individuals in many specific ways. But I did not have time to write a comprehensive discourse and made a simplification based on one bit of data.
There are a number of species that positively relish getting high. Elephants and baboons for example as two species with highly complex social structures.

.

Well that is not the basic idea of God, in my opinion. "God is spirit" refers to our inability to transfer hope to others and our children via language. I could care less how camels fart, but the ideas will always be something buried by language -- not the direct expression of it. I hate that I have to rely upon words, because they cannot transfer ideas well enough. Words cannot reproduce me, cannot remember me. You want to see beneficial concepts created in your children, yet you cannot simply speak those into them. They have to have an epiphany, or its just words. In the words of religion "Conversion is a miracle." Kids just don't listen. These ancient texts are something for the kids to think about.

Are religions so fragile that they must be hammered into our kids? Can they not be allowed self-discovery? We do not need religions to teach them morality and ethics ( indeed trying to do so creates insurmountable contradictions ), why not just let children be children?

I like the Bubble Theory best, because I heard about it somewhere one time.

Must be true then

 

[Tao_Equus]

New Dawn

Just answer these two questions with a rational answer and it would help me a great deal to appreciate atheism.

Newtons first law of motion:


As a believer it is easy for me to assume that creation was the cosmological vertical process of involution or from unity into diversity. Evolution then is climbing back up the ladder of this involutionary descent into creation. It is a cycle.

However, without the source and the process of involution, what is the force that stimulates universal motion that according to Newton's law could not have begun by itself?

First off there is no evidence to suggest that whatever led to the expansion we see in the universe was ever the perfect state you imply. Removing that your idea really has nothing on which to hinge. It is only an idea. Nothing more.
Newton was a great mind but in some things he was a complete buffoon. Most especially in his fevered effort to link everything to his theistic model.

Also, what is the force that inspires earth's biological evolution? Mitosis was a good way for life to continue. There is simply no logical explanation why sexual reproduction should take its place. There is no advantge to it if not considered within the context of the cycle of involution and evolution maintained by the Creator. Tell me the advantage of sexual reproduction over mitosis? What is the logical reason for this evolution if there is no advantage in it?

I am no evolutionary biologist but off the top of my head two simple organisms a long time ago found themselves next to each other. Probably as the result of a viral presence some DNA was transmitted from the one to the other. This produced an organism with the combined DNA and characteristics that enabled it to thrive and multiply. Viruses can and do transmit DNA and insert it into the code. So there was an outside influence.... but are you going to say god is a virus?

 

[c0de]

Enlightenment + NewDawn

Actually I disagree.

I have read lots of words, yet nothing that convinces me it is rational, or even safe, to commit yourself to that which followers themselves admit they are NOT MEANT TO UNDERSTAND!

If you disagree, that is fine. We disagree with you.

This research is working with the whole truth or fragments of it? We really understand precisely what gravity or quantum theory are? Their every effect and counter effect in the physical universe?

It is obvious that you have not understood the point that the
fine-tuned model is trying to make. If you had, then you would
realize how out of place these questions of yours are when
considering your original objection regarding probabilities.

You objected to the timescale that I used, but if you examine
the way this universe is set up you will realize that the odds of
everything arising in the way it did are non-existent in finite
time and space. This is why atheists usually place all their hopes
in multi-verse, but they do not realize that even if multi-verse
theory gets accepted as a science, it it will not contradict God
logically.

 

[enlightenment]

I know it's fine to disagree with you.

I know it's fine for you to disagree with me.

Here's a thought.

As an adult, why not follow whatever religion you choose, but as a child, don't teach them about religion?

Once they are old enough to understand, then they can choose to be religous or otherwise.

Religion can be a powerful thing, even if I reject the idea of a 'god'.

You wouldn't let a child get behind the wheel of car until a certain age, would you?

Why not?

Because it would be irresponsible.

 

[c0de]

Here's a thought.

As an adult, why not follow whatever religion you choose, but as a child, don't teach them about religion?

Once they are old enough to understand, then they can choose to be religous or otherwise.

Religion can be a powerful thing, even if I reject the idea of a 'god'.

You wouldn't let a child get behind the wheel of car until a certain age, would you?

Why not?

Because it would be irresponsible.

I actually kind of agree with that. Religion is taught to children as a part of a culture...
and unfortunately, that is just what it ends up becoming...

 

[enlightenment]

I especially resent any practice which causes a child to suffer pain, as a result of a religous based practice.

There is no such thing as a Jewish child, or a Muslim child, or a Christian child.

A child is just a child.

Imo, it is little more than a form of assault to circumcise a child, male of female, without a sound medical reason.

Perhaps in days of old, there was a hygiene arguement for circumcision, but come on, that is not applicable these days, we have showers and proper hygiene, the procedure is unfair and needless.

If I started a religion today, one that grew in number, and as part of that religion, I advocated the removal of the little finger of a baby, would you defend that, as part of my religous culture, or would you want to see the practice made illegal?

 

[Dream]

Are religions so fragile that they must be hammered into our kids? Can they not be allowed self-discovery? We do not need religions to teach them morality and ethics ( indeed trying to do so creates insurmountable contradictions ), why not just let children be children?
221

Agreed, so how do you propose to stem this very human tendency? Children do need to be brought up with a philosophy of learning and love of life, don't they? You will ban the teaching of parental philosophies? I refer you to countries which have tried to ban the teaching of religion or a particular viewpoint. USSR. China. Europe. England. etc. How is your approach any better than theirs?

Though I agree kids shouldn't have to deal with crap, I don't see you coming up with a practical way of stopping it from happening. It seems outside the bounds of reason for me to decide what happens to another parent's children. I feel that my children would be better equipped to live but also recognize that I cannot rear someone else's children for them. The moment you think that you can, you have undermined your own free thinking. Suddenly might = right.

I would teach my children languages, history, science, math, love of learning and philosophy. I would teach them to pass that on to their children as well. If another parent taught their children snake handling instead of what I taught mine then they and their children just have to deal with the consequences for themselves.

(NewDawn, please see SouthPark episode "Go Go God" parts 1 & 2 . http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1012/ Caution: Mature audiences only, etc.)

I actually kind of agree with that. Religion is taught to children as a part of a culture...
and unfortunately, that is just what it ends up becoming...
225

Good way of saying it.

 

[enlightenment]

Children do need to be brought up with a philosophy of learning and love of life, don't they? .

Yes they do.

And they can do all of that, and be taught all of that, without bringing gods into it.

Can't they?

 

[Dream]

Yes they do.

And they can do all of that, and be taught all of that, without bringing gods into it.

Can't they?

No they cannot. That is the entire problem, enlightenment. Parents are their child's first gods, and more gods are created as soon as parents teach children anything at all. The challenge of fatherhood has always been to get sons to think for themselves, and frequently that challenge is not met. Child Development is a Science now. Children need parents, whom they automatically worship as gods.

 

[enlightenment]

No they cannot. That is the entire problem, enlightenment. Parents are their child's first gods, and more gods are created as soon as parents teach children anything at all. The challenge of fatherhood has always been to get sons to think for themselves, and frequently that challenge is not met. Child Development is a Science now. Children need parents, whom they automatically worship as gods.

Do they?

Well, I have children, and I have no notion that I am a god like figure to them, nor do I wish them to worship me, esp without question.

People are more than able to be good parents, and bring up good kids, without the god factor, that was my point.

There are plenty of v bad theist parents.

It is no assurance of quality control.

 

[Nick_A]

ND

First off there is no evidence to suggest that whatever led to the expansion we see in the universe was ever the perfect state you imply. Removing that your idea really has nothing on which to hinge. It is only an idea. Nothing more.
Newton was a great mind but in some things he was a complete buffoon. Most especially in his fevered effort to link everything to his theistic model.

Either the univere is a giant perpetual machine or it requires an input of energy. We can appreciate through friction how vibrations can slow down but without an additional force, why do they speed up?

To assume that there isn't a conscious source behind all this is just illogical. This is why intelligent men such as Einstein admit intelligent design as obvious.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

This is so obvious that the only people that don't get it are called "educators."

I am no evolutionary biologist but off the top of my head two simple organisms a long time ago found themselves next to each other. Probably as the result of a viral presence some DNA was transmitted from the one to the other. This produced an organism with the combined DNA and characteristics that enabled it to thrive and multiply. Viruses can and do transmit DNA and insert it into the code. So there was an outside influence.... but are you going to say god is a virus?

The trouble is that all these one celled beings of a type have the same DNA. To actually think that somehow a virus divided these one celled beings into male and female parts so that they could somehow reproduce is far fetched enough but then to assume that this one accident rather then being eaten by other organisms somehow survived to the point of allowing sexual reproduction to produce the varied results we see is virtually impossible. The logical probability of conscious intent is far more reasonable.

 

[enlightenment]

Let me ask the theists this, thanks.

If it eventually came to light that 'god' was not a single & supernatural creator, but rather a race of biological beings, who had created all life, by manipulating their own DNA, how would this impact upon your own religion?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste code,

thank you for the post.

I am not saying that you can understand God, because He is
beyond reason. But there is a difference between understanding
God and knowing that He exists. This argument does not
deal with the nature of God. It deals with His existence.

to know that something exists is to understand something about that phenomena or noumena, namely it's existence.

Dude, your the one who used this term in this sense, remember?
These are your words that I was responding to:

So whats going on here???

in post #183 i responded to this statement of yours:

Our beliefs are beyond reason, not below it.

so i'm asking you to clarify what you mean by the term reason. no more, no less.

Bad example. Refer below at the response I gave to Paladin.

time?

if that is your example i would simply point out that clocks and watches measure the length of time it takes the earth to make one revolution... it's really not that tricky.

if you are speaking about times arrow then i would direct you to a wonderful text that discusses this very thing called "The Fabric of Existence" which explains what times arrow is and all of that sort of cool quantum mechanics and string theory sort of stuff.

of course one does not need to know "everything" about an object before one could make statements in a reasoned way about something. we can make very reasoned statements regarding electricity, we can even make machines that use it and regulate it and all of that yet there are still aspects of electricity that are mysterious. such mystery does not put them below, beyond, above or outside reason and logic which is what you are suggesting is the case with your deity.

I was referring to the Muslim perspective. My mistake,
I should have stated that.

no worries. indeed, taking different perspectives into account is a practice which is all too uncommon amongst us all, i fear.

metta,

~v

 

[Dream]

People are more than able to be good parents, and bring up good kids, without the god factor, that was my point.

Oh. I wasn't arguing against that. Your kids could still have a terrific upbringing.

 

[c0de]

so i'm asking you to clarify what you mean by the term reason. no more, no less.

I am not disagreeing with the definition of reason you gave.
Something being beyond reason simply means that it is not
in the capacity of the functions of the human mind to comprehend
it.

time?

if that is your example i would simply point out that clocks and watches measure the length of time it takes the earth to make one revolution... it's really not that tricky.

LOL well duh! But think about what time is exactly?
We don't really know because mathematically, we have no explanation
of what makes the present, past and future different. For example,
mathematically, there is no reason why we have memory of the past,
but no memory of the future. That is what I mean by something being
outside the comprehension of reason, yet still being able to discuss its
existence rationally. We do not understand time, yet we know that it is
there, that it exists.

of course one does not need to know "everything" about an object before one could make statements in a reasoned way about something. we can make very reasoned statements regarding electricity, we can even make machines that use it and regulate it and all of that yet there are still aspects of electricity that are mysterious. such mystery does not put them below, beyond, above or outside reason and logic which is what you are suggesting is the case with your deity.

All I suggested is that we can not comprehend God.
But that is not the same as saying we can not comprehend
the fact that He exists. That's all. There are a lot of things
that we can't understand, but we know that they exist.
Case in point: Gravity. Just because it is unexplained,
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

no worries. indeed, taking different perspectives into account is a practice which is all too uncommon amongst us all, i fear.

yep, unfortunately that is very true.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste code,

thank you for the post.

I am not disagreeing with the definition of reason you gave.
Something being beyond reason simply means that it is not
in the capacity of the functions of the human mind to comprehend
it.

then what, meaningfully, can be said regarding something which the mind cannot comprehend?

LOL well duh! But think about what time is exactly?
We don't really know because mathematically, we have no explanation
of what makes the present, past and future different. For example,
mathematically, there is no reason why we have memory of the past,
but no memory of the future. That is what I mean by something being
outside the comprehension of reason, yet still being able to discuss its
existence rationally. We do not understand time, yet we know that it is
there, that it exists.

time and space are the same thing... spacetime. the feature of "time" is a measure of change within "space". i think you may be confusing time with time's arrow, i.e. the direction in which we experience time. from a physicists point of view time is a photon with energy h (Planks Constant) which appears to be oscillating once per second. the reason why we have memory of the past and not the future is due to time's arrow and time's arrow is due to the quantinization of information, the transition from ordered to disordered in the universe as it expands. as it turns out humans understand a great deal about time... of course new information could always stand our current understanding on end and compel a new understanding.

the Fabric of Existence is a wonderful and accessible text if you are interested in a more thorough and technical discussion of time and time's arrow.

All I suggested is that we can not comprehend God.
But that is not the same as saying we can not comprehend
the fact that He exists. That's all. There are a lot of things
that we can't understand, but we know that they exist.
Case in point: Gravity. Just because it is unexplained,
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

it *is* explained.. that is, you know, part of the point of General Relativity.

but.. let's use time and gravity as standards for our discussion.

would you agree that time and gravity provide intersubjective evidence as to their existence?

metta,

~v

 

[c0de]

Hey Vaj

time and space are the same thing... spacetime.

Not exactly. "Spacetime" is any mathematical model which combines
space and time. In this model, space is comprised of 3 dimensions,
and time is the 4th.

i think you may be confusing time with time's arrow, i.e. the direction in which we experience time. from a physicists point of view time is a photon with energy h (Planks Constant) which appears to be oscillating once per second. the reason why we have memory of the past and not the future is due to time's arrow and time's arrow is due to the quantinization of information, the transition from ordered to disordered in the universe as it expands. as it turns out humans understand a great deal about time... of course new information could always stand our current understanding on end and compel a new understanding.

the Fabric of Existence is a wonderful and accessible text if you are interested in a more thorough and technical discussion of time and time's arrow.

No Vaj, you did not understand my point. The following is from the wiki
page about Time's arrow. This is what I was talking about:

"...meaning that the theoretical statements that describe them remain
true if the direction of time is reversed; yet when we describe things at
the macroscopic level it often appears that this is not the case: there is
an obvious direction (or flow) of time. "

Theoretically, time does not just go in one direction. That is just the way
we perceive time on the macroscopic level. This is what I was referring to.

it *is* explained.. that is, you know, part of the point of General Relativity.

I will ask you to acknowledge that our last discussion on this issue
already ended with the conclusion that gravity is something
which has not been "explained". If you think that Einstein "explained"
away gravity with General Relativity, then you are mistaken.
GR is a "description"of Gravity, it is not its explanation. And there is a
big difference between those two terms. This theory basically describes
gravity as a 'property of the geometry of space and time'. If you look at
the wiki page, you will find that the following words are used:

"In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the
four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever
matterradiation are present."

Notice the word "related"... if the word used there was "caused" instead
of related, then we would be closer to saying that we have an explanation
for gravity. But we do not. For that matter, the concept of "force" has never
actually been scientifically explained. This is why Science and metaphysics
are inseparable. This is why you can never take out induction completely from the
scientific method. This is why real scientists criticized Popper when he
tried to show "real" Science as needing to be based in deductive logic alone.

There are things, basic things about the universe, which are totally
beyond our reach. Lets turn the discussion around and apply these terms to
God. A description of God would mean things like describing God's
attributes. In Islam, God is known by 99 names. None of these names
contain any explanation of God. They are just descriptions of His attributes.

would you agree that time and gravity provide intersubjective evidence as to their existence?

The fact that an apple falls, is evidence that a force exists on
the apple which is pulling/pushing it down towards the earth.
This is the only "evidence" we have that Gravity exists. We can
see its consequences, but we can not actually see it. That is
is EXACTLY the case with God.

Einstein believed in God for this very reason. So did Bohr, so
did Newton, so did all the great scientists. They understood that
if we can believe in the existence of gravity, (of which only the
consequences are visible), then we have no choice but to believe
in God's existence, because there is just as much inter-subjective
evidence of God, then there is of gravity. Both are invisible, both
are unexplained, and we don't really know the causes behind either.
But the consequences of both are visible, in the universe, and in us.

So this is why I can say that there is proof of God's existence.
I have no explanation of God, just as I have no explanation of gravity.

then what, meaningfully, can be said regarding something which the mind cannot comprehend?

We (Muslims, Christians, Jews) only say about God what He Himself has
told us about Himself. This is where revelation comes in to the picture.
But this thread is not here to discuss the claims of each, it is discussing
God and His existence. So instead of speaking about God's attributes,
we are talking about the proof of His existence. Refer to the fine-tuned
model to see some of the "proof" of His existence.

 

[enlightenment]

Oh. I wasn't arguing against that. Your kids could still have a terrific upbringing.

Exactly, mate.

So, why not permit kids to be kids, then if they want to follow a religion at some point in the future, then fine, that would be fair enough?

 

[farhan]

Let me ask the theists this, thanks.

If it eventually came to light that 'god' was not a single & supernatural creator, but rather a race of biological beings, who had created all life, by manipulating their own DNA, how would this impact upon your own religion?

How will this come to light? Why would you call them God?

Exactly, mate.

So, why not permit kids to be kids, then if they want to follow a religion at some point in the future, then fine, that would be fair enough?

Well, why dont we allow them to fissionize a Uranium nucleus all by themselves. Why teach them e=mc2? Parents give kids the best of what they have... education, career, house .... why not religion? They can eventually leave it if they want to.

 

[enlightenment]

Well, why dont we allow them to fissionize a Uranium nucleus all by themselves. Why teach them e=mc2? Parents give kids the best of what they have... education, career, house .... why not religion? They can eventually leave it if they want to.

House etc, is hardly a comparison, mate.

In theory, yes, they can leave if they wanted to, at a later date.

Often too late by then, though. They have been indoctrinated and (in the case of cirumcision), physically violated.