God's Will
- Thread starter XxtraMannish
- Start date
So according to you:
1. When I study History, I am really conducting/studying science.
2. I should be quarelling with "invention" (because that is more specific than science).
My statement is only as troubling as the readers ability to understand and interpret it. Not only that, but a main point in my statement was religion; and even if what you said were true, you still failed to incorporate religion into anything you said thereby rendering your "arguement" invalid.
There are specific fields of science in which they study specific subjects. A scientist is someone, usually accredited, who studies one or more of these specific fields. There are methods created and used by scientists when studying one or more of these fields of science.
Common people did not grab a handful of dust, some leaves and mix them in a bowl of water to create an atomic bomb. It was thoroughly studied by scientists and physicists for years with the specific goal of creating this bomb.
You are trying to generalize science way too much.
1. When I study History, I am really conducting/studying science.
2. I should be quarelling with "invention" (because that is more specific than science).
My statement is only as troubling as the readers ability to understand and interpret it. Not only that, but a main point in my statement was religion; and even if what you said were true, you still failed to incorporate religion into anything you said thereby rendering your "arguement" invalid.
There are specific fields of science in which they study specific subjects. A scientist is someone, usually accredited, who studies one or more of these specific fields. There are methods created and used by scientists when studying one or more of these fields of science.
Common people did not grab a handful of dust, some leaves and mix them in a bowl of water to create an atomic bomb. It was thoroughly studied by scientists and physicists for years with the specific goal of creating this bomb.
You are trying to generalize science way too much.
It's funny coming back to arguments both for and against religion. I've seen them all, partly from these message boards, but mostly through discussion with theists.
Only one thing is clear from every single argument I've ever heard. There is no proof that God exists. Simple as that. You can write a million page book detailing all of the 'evidence' you have supporting the existence of God, and not one single sentence in that book will consist of true evidence.
Those of us who believe in the scientific method don't need to put forth any arguments against God. After all, why is God any different from other mythical creatures or deities? To all those theists out there - if somebody told you they believed in Odin, would you accept their arguments, even though there is no evidence supporting it? I doubt it very much. yet if you believe in God, then by rights you must believe in Ra, Thor, Zeus, Buddah, centaurs, hydra and the loch ness monster. If you disagree, then why?
To those of you posting in this thread who believe in God, why do you believe in 'him'?
That's all. Why do you believe in 'him'?
Only one thing is clear from every single argument I've ever heard. There is no proof that God exists. Simple as that. You can write a million page book detailing all of the 'evidence' you have supporting the existence of God, and not one single sentence in that book will consist of true evidence.
Those of us who believe in the scientific method don't need to put forth any arguments against God. After all, why is God any different from other mythical creatures or deities? To all those theists out there - if somebody told you they believed in Odin, would you accept their arguments, even though there is no evidence supporting it? I doubt it very much. yet if you believe in God, then by rights you must believe in Ra, Thor, Zeus, Buddah, centaurs, hydra and the loch ness monster. If you disagree, then why?
To those of you posting in this thread who believe in God, why do you believe in 'him'?
That's all. Why do you believe in 'him'?
Of course, God wouldn't want to mislead you with "proof" because that would imply that God's existence is contingent upon some precarious material circumstance; as though God wouldn't exist or that one ought to cease believing in God's existence if that circumstance were not met. Then again, God might not have a problem misleading you into thinking that the proof you demand is a valid criteria for ascertaining the existence of an absolute God. God can be a trickster if you want Him to be. Where else did the devil learn it?
I have no problem with the belief in Odin. It is just inconsequential to me. So it doesn't matter. Let them all exist. Makes no difference to me. Anyway, I find it funny that a disbelief in the existence of the loch ness monster doesn't make one atheistic since no one has yet to arbitrarily attach the label "god" onto it. I mean, what would stop Xenu from being a god? What criteria is there for being called a god? Does Xenu just fall short of that? How so? If there are space-aliens with the ability to, say, control wether, are they not gods because we have some distinct sci-fi concept of space-aliens that excludes the label "god"? These are questions I think we ought to consider.
I have no problem with the belief in Odin. It is just inconsequential to me. So it doesn't matter. Let them all exist. Makes no difference to me. Anyway, I find it funny that a disbelief in the existence of the loch ness monster doesn't make one atheistic since no one has yet to arbitrarily attach the label "god" onto it. I mean, what would stop Xenu from being a god? What criteria is there for being called a god? Does Xenu just fall short of that? How so? If there are space-aliens with the ability to, say, control wether, are they not gods because we have some distinct sci-fi concept of space-aliens that excludes the label "god"? These are questions I think we ought to consider.
If the belief in the existence of something without proof doesn't logically translate into the belief of anything without proof; with what criteria are you drawing the distinction?
You believe in the existence of God without proof, why then would you fail to believe in the existence o anything else without proof?
And if you do believe that is possible for all of the Gods listed to exist simultaneously, how could you have decided without any type of evidence which God was our creator and which God to worship?
That there exists these fleeting material forms that interact with each other in what we feel comfortable calling in aggregate, "universe" might be an indication that an absolute being exists upon which it all rests, which is why I'd be quicker to lean more toward cosmological arguments than teleological ones. However, this is still a consideration of God that is supported by something illusory in comparison. If, somehow or other, the whole universe ceased being manifest, yet the individual consciousness that you are remained in some unmanifest form, that cosmological argument would no longer suffice. Therefore the perfect basis for understanding God is on the eternal platform, rather than the transient material one.
The bottom line is that there are certain axioms that theists or transcendentalists accept and there are certain axioms that physicalists accept. We're each running off of different starting points, so it is difficult to really talk to each other. I'd argue that, for the strong theist or transcendentalist, self-knowledge is first knowledge. Whereas the physicalist's first knowledge pertains to the material world around him or her. The theist is more meditative and introspective, and the physicalist (which tends to be atheist) looks at the external world before considering what is self. And so the physicalists theorize that self is nothing more than a product of some material arrangement, and furthermore, since they don't feel there is a distinct self or soul that animates the individual body, they similarly feel no need to consider a superself or supersoul that is overall responsible for animating or maintaining the totality we call universe.
If someone comes up to me and tells me that it is prophesied in their holy book that an evil gnome will descend upon the earth and cause its destruction, my response is one of nonchalance. It is not that I necessarily disbelieve this person. It is just that it doesn't matter to me since it doesn't pertain to that understanding of God I attempted to delineate above. If, on the other hand, someone comes and tell me that their holy book prophecies the coming of the flying spaghetti monster and they attribute this being with the qualities of God - i.e. eternally full in power, wisdom, etc. - then they are really just talking about God. Whether or not I am particularly convinced that God appears in the form of a monster made of spaghetti that flies isn't important. We're still referring to the same entity. So if someone presents a deity to me that is purported as having the qualities of a supreme God, then I make no distinction. If Zeus in fact holds these qualities, then for all purposes, "Zeus" refers to God. On the other hand, if the so-called deity fails in some way to hold these qualifications, then his or her existence is insignificant to me. That is how I view it. This is how I draw a distinction. So my answer is, let them all exist. Life goes on as usual.
The bottom line is that there are certain axioms that theists or transcendentalists accept and there are certain axioms that physicalists accept. We're each running off of different starting points, so it is difficult to really talk to each other. I'd argue that, for the strong theist or transcendentalist, self-knowledge is first knowledge. Whereas the physicalist's first knowledge pertains to the material world around him or her. The theist is more meditative and introspective, and the physicalist (which tends to be atheist) looks at the external world before considering what is self. And so the physicalists theorize that self is nothing more than a product of some material arrangement, and furthermore, since they don't feel there is a distinct self or soul that animates the individual body, they similarly feel no need to consider a superself or supersoul that is overall responsible for animating or maintaining the totality we call universe.
If someone comes up to me and tells me that it is prophesied in their holy book that an evil gnome will descend upon the earth and cause its destruction, my response is one of nonchalance. It is not that I necessarily disbelieve this person. It is just that it doesn't matter to me since it doesn't pertain to that understanding of God I attempted to delineate above. If, on the other hand, someone comes and tell me that their holy book prophecies the coming of the flying spaghetti monster and they attribute this being with the qualities of God - i.e. eternally full in power, wisdom, etc. - then they are really just talking about God. Whether or not I am particularly convinced that God appears in the form of a monster made of spaghetti that flies isn't important. We're still referring to the same entity. So if someone presents a deity to me that is purported as having the qualities of a supreme God, then I make no distinction. If Zeus in fact holds these qualities, then for all purposes, "Zeus" refers to God. On the other hand, if the so-called deity fails in some way to hold these qualifications, then his or her existence is insignificant to me. That is how I view it. This is how I draw a distinction. So my answer is, let them all exist. Life goes on as usual.
Some very bad reasoning here
The Loch Ness monster is something the existence of which can be objectively and experimentally verified. In other words, it is a hypothesis that can be proven, although it's not exactly a falsifiable one because the absence of evidence does not proof nonexistence. Even if you were to drain the whole lake and not find it, you could still say "Oh, it used to live there, it's just that now it's extinct". Which makes thorough falsification practically impossible (but not in theory).
Anyway, the difference between cryptozoology and religion is that cryptozoology does not declare the existence of things that have control over each and every experimental system we could ever devise. So they are in principle testable and falsifiable. Something that God (whatever his name) isn't and that's why God is not useful for anything
The Loch Ness monster is something the existence of which can be objectively and experimentally verified. In other words, it is a hypothesis that can be proven, although it's not exactly a falsifiable one because the absence of evidence does not proof nonexistence. Even if you were to drain the whole lake and not find it, you could still say "Oh, it used to live there, it's just that now it's extinct". Which makes thorough falsification practically impossible (but not in theory).
Anyway, the difference between cryptozoology and religion is that cryptozoology does not declare the existence of things that have control over each and every experimental system we could ever devise. So they are in principle testable and falsifiable. Something that God (whatever his name) isn't and that's why God is not useful for anything
Actually, no...
The same can be said for many of the beings given deity status: "Oh, Indra used to visit earth and interact with people all the time, but not anymore." My point was that the "god" label is often arbitrary. We just so happen to not attach it to the loch ness monster. I am not sure if people have ever attached it to hydra, but hydra is really just a loch ness monster with a bunch of heads. I think I read that hydra is the offspring of the earth goddess, so maybe that makes him/her a deity according to the Greek tradition. If only loch ness had a few more heads. Too bad. Then again, having multiple heads has never been the criteria for deity status. So my reasoning still stands: we often arbitrarily give diety status to many beings claimed historically to have existed.
The same can be said for many of the beings given deity status: "Oh, Indra used to visit earth and interact with people all the time, but not anymore." My point was that the "god" label is often arbitrary. We just so happen to not attach it to the loch ness monster. I am not sure if people have ever attached it to hydra, but hydra is really just a loch ness monster with a bunch of heads. I think I read that hydra is the offspring of the earth goddess, so maybe that makes him/her a deity according to the Greek tradition. If only loch ness had a few more heads. Too bad. Then again, having multiple heads has never been the criteria for deity status. So my reasoning still stands: we often arbitrarily give diety status to many beings claimed historically to have existed.
No, we don't and you're again failing to grasp how we define God and why, because of that very definition he is useless for us
God is such a being that has such control over the universe we live in (or at least the portion of it we can somehow influence, which may or may not be the whole universe) that we can by no means prove or disprove his existence. Because you can always say "Oh, he's testing your faith, that's why the holy book gets so much things wrong, and that's why the experiment you did to show the claim of such and such religion is false was successful". This gets us absolutely nowhere which is one of the many reasons why God is a totally bogus concept that we should abandon ASAP.
God is such a being that has such control over the universe we live in (or at least the portion of it we can somehow influence, which may or may not be the whole universe) that we can by no means prove or disprove his existence. Because you can always say "Oh, he's testing your faith, that's why the holy book gets so much things wrong, and that's why the experiment you did to show the claim of such and such religion is false was successful". This gets us absolutely nowhere which is one of the many reasons why God is a totally bogus concept that we should abandon ASAP.
You are saying that we define a being as a "god" by not being able to prove or disprove its existence. You give the example that we could theoretically prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster, even though it might be argued now that it is no longer around. My counter argument is that the same can be said for many of the beings people traditionally attribute deity status. You have not in any way countered my argument. And whether or not some definition of God renders Him useless to us is irrelevant to this conversation.
Yet not all beings who are traditionally given deity status fall into this definition of "god" you provide. I have already given a counter example with Indra that works the same as your reasoning for why we might not find the Loch Ness monster. You haven't even provided a new argument here.
Yet not all beings who are traditionally given deity status fall into this definition of "god" you provide. I have already given a counter example with Indra that works the same as your reasoning for why we might not find the Loch Ness monster. You haven't even provided a new argument here.
Not really, the old Gods fit this definition quite well, it is just that the universe was much much smaller when these Gods were popular.
Which BTW is a big issue with Abrahamic religions too, because when they were invented the whole universe was the Earth and some layers of stars on a sphere around it, if even that. Then the 20th century comes, we learn about red shifts, quasars and so on, and suddenly somebody asks the inconvenient questions "Why would a God put is in the middle of nowhere in such a vast universe, if we're so important for him, why would he wait 13 billion years to do it, and why would the he send us his son so that we can pray to him in the last 1/6,000,000th part of history?"
Which BTW is a big issue with Abrahamic religions too, because when they were invented the whole universe was the Earth and some layers of stars on a sphere around it, if even that. Then the 20th century comes, we learn about red shifts, quasars and so on, and suddenly somebody asks the inconvenient questions "Why would a God put is in the middle of nowhere in such a vast universe, if we're so important for him, why would he wait 13 billion years to do it, and why would the he send us his son so that we can pray to him in the last 1/6,000,000th part of history?"
I fail to see what this has to do with what I said. You seem to think that the reason the loch ness monster isn't or couldn't be labeled as a "god" is because there is the possibility of going out searching for such creature. And even if we don't find it, we can always rationalize that it doesn't exist in loch ness anymore. So how is that different from saying that Indra, for example, was on earth but now we don't find him because he isn't here anymore? My original point stands. We often arbitrarily label certain beings as gods and others not when those others are at least as qualified. I also mentioned Xenu. In Scientology, Xenu is an evil galactic ruler. They never refer to him with deity status of any kind. Why not? He is in the same boat of evidence and falsifiability as Indra. If there happen to be space-aliens with the ability to control the weather, our believing in their existence doesn't make us theists unless we magically attach the "god" label to them. How interesting.
Because, for the n-th time, the Loch Ness monster does not have the power to change any experimental system we can devise at the moment beyond our control.
In other words - the Loch Ness monster can be searched for with scientific methods and it can never "test your faith" by intentionally making your experiment fail or succeed without you being able to detect the intervention.
It (the Loch Ness monster) is not a practically falsifiable hypothesis, in which it is similar to God. However, it is theoretically falsifiable on, which God isn't, and it's also a provable one (if an individual is ever caught, that's a proof), which God isn't either
In other words - the Loch Ness monster can be searched for with scientific methods and it can never "test your faith" by intentionally making your experiment fail or succeed without you being able to detect the intervention.
It (the Loch Ness monster) is not a practically falsifiable hypothesis, in which it is similar to God. However, it is theoretically falsifiable on, which God isn't, and it's also a provable one (if an individual is ever caught, that's a proof), which God isn't either