Proof of God

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by c0de, Oct 14, 2008.

  1. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
    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?

    Must be true then ;)
     
  2. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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?
     
  3. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0



    Enlightenment + NewDawn




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




    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.
     
  4. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0

    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...
     
  6. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  7. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.)

    Good way of saying it.
     
  8. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes they do.

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

    Can't they?
     
  9. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  10. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    ND

    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.



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

    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.
     
  12. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  13. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    Namaste code,

    thank you for the post.

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

    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.

    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.

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

    metta,

    ~v
     
  14. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh. I wasn't arguing against that. Your kids could still have a terrific upbringing.
     
  15. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.


    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.


    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.


    yep, unfortunately that is very true.
     
  16. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    Namaste code,

    thank you for the post.

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

    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.


    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
     
  17. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0


    Hey Vaj




    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.
     
  18. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  19. farhan

    farhan Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    29
    How will this come to light? Why would you call them God?

    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.
     
  20. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page