God is real?

[SVRP]

LOL. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Evolution is observable (it has been), repeatable (duh), and refutable (it has been tested and proven). He's wrong on all counts, and obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Just because he does biomedical research doesn't mean he knows jack squat about evolution.
Your quotes mean nothing. They are not arguments, and they are flat out wrong. They are ignorant beliefs, nothing more.

It may be funny but they are from evolutionists. And an arrogant reply does not prove your point. Show where evolution was observable, repeatable, and irrefutable. Please be precise (no vague reference to a website).

Pay attention.
"From I2 & C1: God did not create time."
It is clearly labelled where the conclusion comes from: Inference 2 and Conclusion 1. Which are:
"I2 - From D3 & D1: Time & causality were created by God."
And
"C1 - From I1 & D1: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe."

The conclusion that God didn't create time comes from the fact that God required time to create time. It is inconsistent, thus the only conclusion is that it is false. Therefore, God did not create time.

Faulty conclusion, because I2 says Time & causality were created by God. There is no argument in your reasoning that says time always existed. You have made an illogical jump in rational thought when you went contrary to the I2 premise which says God created time. Your argument is faulty, the conclusion is illogical, and the reasoning is garbage.

 

[water]

“ Here's a little something on holism. And here. ”
In that case, I'm neither. I think both ideas have merit.

Well, what are you then? Molecularist? Something else? Are you completely independent from any theory of meaning?

There is disagreement as to whether social science and the like is really science...

Is philosophy science?

*Phrenology.

Yeah, I figured it is spelled with a ph.

“ This is a description of the present state, and you are trying to make connections between the individual phenomena taking part in the frame of religion. You are viewing the matter from the synchronical perspective. ”

You seem to forget most people aren't linguists. Plain english please.

The synchronical/diachronical is a fundamental distinction.

In synchronical linguistics, they would say that the noun "laser" comes from the verb "to lase", since the pattern for doers in English is: "a noun denoting the doer of an action, with the ending -er is derived from the according verb, like "reader" from "to read" ".
It is a total disregard for actual language development -- as in the above case, it is known that "laser" came first. (Though sometimes, those synchronists bow down if the historical evidence is too strong.)

But, synchronism doesn't care about historical developments and insists on its freeze frame theories; even though there is actual historical data opposing their claims.

The synchronical/diachronical distinction is used elsewhere too, whenever dealing with phenomena developing through long periods of time, esp. in social sciences and economics.


Okay, plain English: You are looking at the phenomenon of religion from a "right now" perspective, you made a "freeze frame" of the now. You disregard how this "right now" came to be from a previous "right now", and that previous "right now" from an even earlier "right now" and so on. Okay.
(In this regard, synchronism is much like creationism.)

But this is not the only way to look at things. We can also observe their development throughout time, and this may give us an explanation of why and how things are today the way they are. The proper assigning of cause and effect relations is possible only diachronically.
To you, the developmental aspect is irrelevant though.

You don't care if there is historical data opposing your findings, or if the historical data implies that you have been over-generalizing.

You want your system, and you want it now. Okay.

Yes, I am a bit angry with you. Hm.

What's your point? This doesn't seem to affect anything.

I was just trying to illustrate different forms of social control, and how they all principally work the same, but in your post I am answering to right now you have shown that you have a similar understanding of it as I, so my previous remark is redundant, but I couldn't have known that when writing my previous post. Uh.

There are many who believe in God but do not subscribe to any particular religion, for one.

But what is their belief system about God? As far as I know, most of them have an ecclectic belief, brought together from a thousand sources -- whatever they liked best, whatever spoke to them most.

They have their individual religions -- but it is in the nature of humans to socialize and seek the like-minded: so, after some time, these individuals with their ecclectic beliefs may come together, those who feel alike, and form a new, unified religion, and it will be yet another religion.
The only difference is that right now, they are individuals, not yet connected into fix groups.

Also, the fact that the definition posited is independant from religion is a good thing, it applies to any religion.

It may apply, but religionists from those religions will tell you that such a definition of God is a *forced reduction*.

It is the fundamental definition underlying all religions. Adding attributes posited in any religion would be extraneous as other religions wouldn't necessarily agree, and they're not really part of the definition.

Apparently, if those religionists think that "God is the creator of the Universe" is a forced reduction, it must be that those attributes they also see necessary do play an important part.

A car is a car, no matter what atribute it has -- a big car, a small car, a chauffeur driven car, ... -- it is still a car.

How about love? Is it the same thing no matter what attribute you give it? Brotherly love, romantic love, motherly love, love for an animal, love of apples, ...? No.

What these loves have in common is "a strong positive emotional inclination" -- but that definition does not suffice to define "brotherly love", neither does it sufficiently define "romantic love". The attribute makes a great difference.

And similar with God: the attributes given to him make a great difference, so these attributes cannot be regarded as extraneous.

In discussing God independantly from religion, one can come to some truth which is independant of any religion.

And I, in the spirit of holism, say that this is impossible. What you are after is the Holy Grail, the Universal Grammar, the basic pattern of the mind -- it is ineffable.
But, I think your pursuit is noble nonetheless.

“ Justifying ethical values is impossible to do with logic. ”
How do you come to that conclusion. I disagree.

Tell me, how do you logically justify that one should not go and kill other people just like that? How do you logically justify my preference of cherries over apples?

You seem to be attempting to put down philosophy.

No, not in the least.

We're not debating "the god of philosophy" we're debating the existence of God, which is an act of philosophy which concerns religion.

I see your point. But I'm afraid that philosophy sometimes makes abstractions and generalizations that are inacceptable in individual cases.

God is unnecessary. God is no better in any way as an explanatory concept. In fact it's worse, because it's not consistent.

It is not consistent because it was/is inductively derived from actual Gods of religions.

No, faith is not a virtue. Faith is accepting things without question, without a logical or reasonable basis.

Do you ever make any assumptions? Like when you tie your shoe-laces -- do you assume that the knot will hold tight? Or are just plain sure about it? What if the knot gets loose -- what is your thinking?

 

[Godless]

Oh!! so many of you can claim what god thinks, what god is or is not, basically you just don't know.

From loosing faith in faith:

Dear Theologian,
I have a few questions, and I thought you would be the right person to ask. It gets tough sometimes, sitting up here in heaven with no one to talk to. I mean really talk to. I can always converse with the angels, of course, but since they don't have free will, and since I created every thought in their submissive minds, they are not very stimulating conversationalists.

Of course, I can talk with my son Jesus and with the "third person" of our holy trinity, the Holy Spirit, but since we are all the same, there is nothing we can learn from each other. There are no well-placed repartees in the Godhead. We all know what the others know. We can't exactly play chess. Jesus sometimes calls me "Father," and that feels good, but since he and I are the same age and have the same powers, it doesn't mean much.

You are educated. You have examined philosophy and world religions, and you have a degree which makes you qualified to carry on a discussion with someone at my level--not that I can't talk with anyone, even with the uneducated believers who fill the churches and flatter me with endless petitions, but you know how it is. Sometimes we all crave interaction with a respected colleague. You have read the scholars. You have written papers and published books about me, and you know me better than anyone else.

It might surprise you to think that I have some questions. No, not rhetorical questions aimed at teaching spiritual lessons, but some real, honest-to-God inquiries. This should not shock you because, after all, I created you in my image. Your inquisitiveness is an inheritance from me. You would say that love, for example, is a reflection of my nature within yourself, wouldn't you? Since questioning is healthy, it also comes from me.

Somebody once said that we should prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. My first question is this:

Where did I come from?
I find myself sitting up here in heaven, and I look around and notice that there is nothing else besides myself and the objects that I have created. I don't see any other creatures competing with me, nor do I notice anything above myself that might have created me, unless it is playing hide-and-seek. In any event, as far as I know (and I supposedly know everything), there is nothing else but me in-three-persons and my creations. I have always existed, you say. I did not create myself, because if I did, then I would be greater than myself.

So where did I come from?

I know how you approach that question regarding your own existence. You notice that nature, especially the human mind, displays evidence of intricate design. You have never observed such design apart from a designer. You argue that human beings must have had a creator, and you will find no disagreement from me.

Then, what about me? Like you, I observe that my mind is complex and intricate. It is much more complex than your mind, otherwise I couldn't have created your mind. My personality displays evidence of organization and purpose. Sometimes I surprise myself at how wise I am. If you think your existence is evidence of a designer, then what do you think about my existence? Am I not wonderful? Do I not function in an orderly manner? My mind is not a random jumble of disconnected thoughts; it displays what you would call evidence of design. If you need a designer, then why don't I?

You might think such a question is blasphemy, but to me there is no such crime. I can ask any question I want, and I think this is a fair one. If you say that everything needs a designer and then say that not everything (Me) needs a designer, aren't you contradicting yourself? By excluding me from the argument, aren't you bringing your conclusion into your argument? Isn't that circular reasoning? I am not saying I disagree with your conclusion; how could I? I'm just wondering why it is proper for you to infer a designer while it is not proper for me.

If you are saying that I don't need to ask where I came from because I am perfect and omniscient while humans are fallible, then you don't need the design argument at all, do you? You have already assumed that I exist. You can make such an assumption, of course, and I would not deny you the freedom. Such a priori and circular reasoning might be helpful or comforting to you, but it does me little good. It doesn't help me figure out where I came from.

You say that I am eternally existent, and I suppose I would have no objection if I knew what it meant. It is hard for me to conceive of eternal existence. I just can't remember back that far. It would take me an eternity to remember back to eternity, leaving me no time to do anything else, so it is impossible for me to confirm if I existed forever. And even if it is true, why is eternal greater than temporal? Is a long sermon greater than a short sermon? What does "greater" mean? Are fat people greater than thin people, or old greater than young?

You think it is important that I have always existed. I'll take your word for it, for now. My question is not with the duration of my existence, but with the origin of my existence. I don't see how being eternal solves the problem. I still want to know where I came from.

I can only imagine one possible answer, and I would appreciate your reaction. I know that I exist. I know that I could not have created myself. I also know that there is no higher God who could have created me. Since I can't look above myself, then perhaps I should look below myself for a creator. Perhaps--this is speculative, so bear with me--perhaps you created me.

Don't be shocked. I mean to flatter you. Since I contain evidence of design, and since I see no other place where such design could originate, I am forced to look for a designer, or designers, in nature itself. You are a part of nature. You are intelligent--that is what your readers say. Why should I not find the answer to my question in you? Help me out on this.

Of course, if you made me, then I could not have made you, I think. The reason that I think I made you is because you made me to think I made you. You have often said that a Creator can put thoughts in your mind. Isn't it possible that you have put thoughts in my mind, and now here we are, both of us, wondering where we each came from?

Some of you have said that the answer to this whole question is just a mystery that only God understands. Well, thanks a lot. The buck stops here. On the one hand you use logic to try to prove my existence, but on the other hand, when logic hits a dead end, you abandon it and invoke "faith" and "mystery." Those words might be useful to you as place-holders for facts or truth, but they don't translate to anything meaningful as far as I am concerned. You can pretend that "mystery" signifies something terribly important, but to me it simply means you don't know.

Some of you assert that I did not "come" from anywhere. I just exist. However, I have also heard you say that nothing comes from nothing. You can't have it both ways. I either exist or I don't. What was it that caused me to exist, as opposed to not existing at all? If I don't need a cause, then why do you? Since I am not happy to say that this is a mystery, I must accept the only explanation that makes sense. You created me.

Is that such a terrible idea? I know that you think many other gods were created by humans: Zeus, Thor, Mercury, Elvis. You recognize that such deities originate in human desire, need, or fear. If the blessed beliefs of those billions of individuals can be dismissed as products of culture, then why can't yours? The Persians created Mithra, the Jews created Yahweh, and you created me. If I am wrong about this, please straighten me out.

My second question is this:

What's it all about?
Maybe I made myself, maybe some other god made me, maybe you made me--let's put that aside for now. I'm here now. Why am I here? Many of you look up to me for purpose in life, and I have often stated that your purpose in life is to please me. (Read Revelation 4:11) If your purpose is to please me, what is my purpose? To please myself? Is that all there is to life?

If I exist for my own pleasure, then this is selfish. It makes it look as if I created you merely to have some living toys to play with. Isn't there some principle that I can look up to? Something to admire, adore, and worship? Am I consigned for eternity to sit here and amuse myself with the worship of others? Or to worship myself? What's the point?

I have read your writings on the meaning of life, and don't misunderstand me, they make sense in the theological context of human religious goals, even if they don't have much practicality in the real world. Many of you feel that your purpose in life is to achieve perfection. Since you humans fall way short of perfection, by your own admission (and I agree), then self improvement provides you with a quest. It gives you something to do. Someday you hope to be as perfect as you think I am. But since I am already perfect, by definition, then I don't need such a purpose. I'm just sort of hanging out, I guess.

Yet I still wonder why I'm here. It feels good to exist. It feels great to be perfect. But it gives me nothing to do. I created the universe with all kinds of natural laws that govern everything from quarks to galactic clusters, and it runs okay on its own. I had to make these laws, otherwise I would be involved with a lot of repetitive busy work, such as pulling light rays through space, yanking falling objects down to the earth, sticking atoms together to build molecules, and a trillion other boring tasks more worthy of a slave than a master. You have discovered most of those laws, and might be on the verge of putting the whole picture together, and once you have done that you will know what I know: that there is nothing in the universe for me to do. It's boring up here.

I could create more universes and more laws, but what's the point? I've already done universes. Creation is like sneezing or writing short stories; it just comes out of me. I could go on an orgy of creation. Create, create, create. After a while a person can get sick of the same thing, like when you eat a whole box of chocolates and discover that the last piece doesn't taste as good as the first. Once you have had ten children, do you need twenty? (I'm asking you, not the pope.) If more is better, then I am obligated to continue until I have fathered an infinite number of children, and an endless number of universes. If I must compel myself, then I am a slave.

Many of you assert that it is inappropriate to seek purpose within yourself, that it must come from outside. I feel the same way. I can't merely assign purpose to myself. If I did, then I would have to look for my reasons. I would have to come up with an account of why I chose one purpose over another, and if such reasons came from within myself I would be caught in a loop of self-justified rationalizations. Since I have no Higher Power of my own, then I have no purpose. Nothing to live for. It is all meaningless.

Sure, I can bestow meaning on you--pleasing me, achieving perfection, whatever--and perhaps that is all that concerns you; but doesn't it bother you, just a little, that the source of meaning for your life has no source of its own? And if this is true, then isn't it also true that ultimately you have no meaning for yourself either? If it makes you happy to demand an external reference point on which to hang your meaningfulness, why would you deny the same to me? I also want to be happy, and I want to find that happiness in something other than myself. Is that a sin?

On the other hand, if you think I have the right and the freedom to find happiness in myself and in the things I created, then why should you not have the same right? You, whom I created in my image?

I know that some of you have proposed a solution to this problem. You call it "love." You think I am lonely up here, and that I created humans to satisfy my longing for a relationship with something that is not myself. Of course, this will never work because it is impossible for me to create something that is not part of myself, but let's say that I try anyway. Let's say that I create this mechanism called "free will," which imparts to humans a choice. If I give you the freedom (though this is stretching the word because there is nothing outside of my power) not to love me, then if some of you, a few of you, even one of you chooses to love me, I have gained something I might not have had. I have gained a relationship with someone who could have chosen otherwise. This is called love, you say.

This is a great idea, on paper. In real life, however, it turns out that millions, billions of people have chosen not to love me, and that I have to do something with these infidels. I can't just un-create them. If I simply destroy all the unbelievers, I may as well have created only believers in the first place. Since I am omniscient, I would know in advance which of my creations would have a tendency to choose me, and this would produce no conflict with free will since those who would not have chosen me would have been eliminated simply by not having been created in the first place. (I could call it Supernatural Selection.) This seems much more compassionate than hell.

You can't have a love relationship with someone who is not your equal. If you humans don't have a guaranteed eternal soul, like myself, then you are worthless as companions. If I can't respect your right to exist independently, and your right to choose something other than me, then I couldn't love those of you who do choose me. I would have to find a place for all those billions of eternal souls who reject me, whatever their reasons might be. Let's call it "hell," a place that is not-God, not-me. I would have to create this inferno, otherwise neither I nor the unbelievers could escape each other. Let's ignore the technicalities of how I could manage to create hell, and then separate it from myself, apart from whom nothing else exists. (It's not as though I could create something and then simply throw it away--there is no cosmic trash heap.) The point is that since I am supposedly perfect, this place of exile must be something that is the opposite. It must be ultimate evil, pain, darkness, and torment.

If I created hell, then I don't like myself.

If I did create a hell, then it certainly would not be smart to advertise that fact. How would I know if people were claiming to love me for my own sake, or simply to avoid punishment? How can I expect someone to love me who is afraid of me in the first place? The threat of eternal torment might scare some people into obedience, but it does nothing to inspire love. If you treated me with threats and intimidations, I would have to reconsider my admiration for your character.

How would you feel if you had brought some children into the world knowing that they were going to be tormented eternally in a place you built for them? Could you live with yourself? Wouldn't it have been better not to have brought them into the world in the first place?

I know that some of you feel that hell is just a metaphor. Do you feel the same way about heaven?

Anyway, this whole love argument is wrong. Since I am perfect, I don't lack anything. I can't be lonely. I don't need to be loved. I don't even want to be loved because to want is to lack. To submit to the potential of giving and receiving love is to admit that I can be hurt by those who choose not to love me. If you can hurt me, I am not perfect. If I can't be hurt, I can't love. If I ignore or erase those who do not love me, sending them off to hell or oblivion, then my love is not sincere. If all I am doing is throwing the dice of "free will" and simply reaping the harvest of those who choose to love me, then I am a selfish monster. If you played such games with people's lives, I would call you insensitive, conceited, insecure, selfish and manipulative.

I know you have tried to get me off the hook. You explain that Yours Truly is not responsible for the sufferings of unbelievers because rejection of God is their choice, not mine. They had a corrupt human nature, you explain. Well, who gave them their human nature? If certain humans decide to do wrong, where do they get the impulse? If you think it came from Satan, who created Satan? And why would some humans be susceptible to Satan in the first place? Who created that susceptibility? If Satan was created perfect, and then fell, where did the flaw of perdition come from? If I am perfect, then how in God's name did I end up creating something that would not choose perfection? Someone once said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

Here is the title for your next theological tome: Was Eve Perfect? If she was, she would not have taken the fruit. If she wasn't, I created imperfection.

Maybe you think all of this gives me a purpose--putting Humpty Dumpty back together--but it actually gives me a headache. (If you won't permit me a simple headache, then how can you allow me the pain of lost love?) I could not live with myself if I thought my actions were causing harm to others. Well, I shouldn't say that. Since I think you created me, I suppose I should let you tell me what I could live with. If you think it is consistent with my character to tolerate love and vengeance concurrently, then I have no choice. If you are my creator, then I could spout tenderness out of one side of my mouth and brutality out of the other. I could dance with my lover on the bones of my errant children, and pretend to enjoy it. I would be very human indeed.

I have a thousand more questions, but I hope you will allow me one more:

How do I decide what is right and wrong?
I don't know how I got here, but I'm here. Let's just say that my purpose is to make good people out of my creations. Let's say that I am to help you learn how to be perfect like me, and that the best way is for you to act just like me, or like I want you to act. You goal is to become little mirrors of myself. Won't that be splendid? I'll give you rules or principles, and you try to follow them. This may or may not be meaningful, but it will keep us both busy. I suppose that from your point of view this would be terribly meaningful, since you think I have the power to reward and punish.

I know that some of you Protestant theologians think that I give rewards not for good deeds, but simply for believing in my son Jesus who paid the punishment for your bad deeds. Well, Jesus spent only about thirty-six hours of an eternal life sentence in hell and is now back up here in ultimate coziness with me. Talk about a wrist-slap! He was not paroled for good behavior--he was simply released. (He had connections.) If my righteous judgment demanded absolute satisfaction, then Jesus should have paid the price in full, don't you think?

Beyond that, it is entirely incomprehensible to me why you think I would accept the blood of one individual for the crime of another. Is that fair? Is that justice? If you commit a felony, does the law allow your brother to serve the jail sentence for you? If someone burglarized your home, would you think justice was served if a friend bought you new furniture? Do you really think that I am such a bloodthirsty dictator that I will be content with the death of anyone for the crime of another? And are you so disrespectful of justice that you would happily accept a stand-in for your crimes? What about personal responsibility? It is tough to open my arms to welcome believers into heaven who have avoided the rap for their own actions. Something is way out of kilter here.

But let's ignore these objections. Let's assume that Jesus and I worked it all out and that evil will be punished and good rewarded. How do I know the difference? You are insisting that I not consult any rule book. You are asking me to be the Final Authority. I must simply decide, and you must trust my decision. Am I free to decide whatever I want?

Suppose I decide that I would like you to honor me with a day of my own. I like the number seven, I don't know why, maybe because it is the first useless number. (You never sing any hymns to me in 7/4 time.) Let's divide the calendar into groups of seven days and call them weeks. For harmony, I'll divide each lunar phase into roughly seven days. The last day of the week--or maybe the first day, I don't care--I'll set aside for myself. Let's call it the Sabbath. This all feels good, so I suppose it is the right thing to do. I'll make a law ordering you to observe the Sabbath, and if you do it then I will pronounce you good people. In fact, I'll make it one of my Big Ten Commandments, and I'll order your execution if you disobey. This all makes perfect sense, I don't know why.

Help me out here. How am I supposed to choose what is moral? Since I can't consult any authority, the thing to do, it appears, is to pick randomly. Actions will become right or wrong simply because I declare them to be so. If I whimsically say that you should not make any graven or molten images of "anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth," then that is that. If I decide that murder is right and compassion is wrong, you will have to accept it.

Is that all there is to it? I just decide, willy-nilly, what is right and what is wrong? Or worse, I decide based on whatever makes me feel good? I have read in some of your literature that you denounce such self-centered attitudes.

Some of you say that since I am perfect, I can't make any mistakes. Whatever I choose to be right or wrong will be in accordance with my nature, and since I am perfect, then my choices will be perfect. In any event, my choices will certainly be better than your choices, you feel. But what does "perfect" mean? If my nature is "perfect" (whatever it means), then I am living up to a standard. If I am living up to a standard, then I am not God. If perfection means something all by itself, apart from me, then I am constrained to follow its path. If, on the other hand, perfection is defined simply as conformity to my nature, then it doesn't mean anything. My nature can be what it wants, and perfection will be defined accordingly. Do you see the problem here? If "perfection" equals "God," then it is just a synonym for myself, and we can do away with the word. We could do away with either word, take your pick.

If I am perfect, then there are certain things that I cannot do. If I am not free to feel envy, lust, or malice, for example, then I am not omnipotent. I cannot be more powerful than you if you can feel and do things that I cannot.

Additionally, if you feel that God is perfect, by nature, what does "nature" mean? The word is used to describe the way things are or act in nature, and since you think I am above nature, you must mean something else, something like "character," or "attributes." To have a nature or character means to be one way and not another. It means that there are limits. Why am I one way and not another? How did it get decided that my nature would be what it is? If my "nature" is clearly defined, then I am limited. I am not God. If my nature has no limits, as some of you suggest, then I have no nature at all, and to say that God has such-and-such a nature is meaningless. In fact, if I have no limits, then I have no identity; and if I have no identity, then I do not exist.

Who am I?

This brings me back to the conundrum: if I don't know who I am, then how can I decide what is right? Do I just poke around in myself until I come up with something?

There is one course I could pursue, and some of you have suggested this for yourselves. I could base my pronouncements on what is best for you humans. You people have physical bodies that bump around in a physical world. I could determine those actions that are healthy and beneficial for material beings in a material environment. I could make morality something material: something that is relative to human life, not to my whims. I could declare (by conclusion, not by edict) that harming human life is bad, and that helping or enhancing human life is good. This would be like providing an operation manual for something I designed and manufactured. It would require me to know all about human nature and the environment in which you humans live, and to communicate these ideas to you.

This makes a lot of sense, but it changes my task from one of determining morality to one of communicating morality. If morality is discovered in nature, then you don't need me, except maybe to prod you along. I saw to it that you have capable minds with the ability to reason and do science. There is nothing mysterious about studying how humans interact with nature and with each other, and you should be able to come up with your own set of rules. Some of you tried this millennia before Moses. Even if your rules contradict mine, I couldn't claim any higher authority than you. At least you would be able to give reasons for your rules, which I can only do by submitting to science myself.

If morality is defined by how human beings exist in nature, then you don't need me at all. I am off the hook! From what I have read, most of you have your feet on the ground with no help from me. I could hand down some stone tablets containing what I think is right and wrong, but it would still be up to you to see if they work in the real world. I think we all agree that grounded reason is better than the whim of an ungrounded deity.

This is a wonderful approach, but what bothers me is that while this may help you know what is moral in your environment, it doesn't help me much. I don't have an environment. I'm out here flapping in the breeze. I envy you.

Nor does the humanistic approach help those of you who want morality to be rooted in something absolute, outside of yourselves. It must be frightening for you who need an anchor to realize that there is no bottom to the ocean. Well, it's frightening for me also. I don't have an anchor of my own. That's why I'm asking for your help.

Thank you for reading my letter, and for letting me impose on your busy schedule. Please answer at your convenience. I have all the time in the world.

Godless.

 

[Dreamwalker]

In my opinion, that is a very good text.

 

[Alpha]

Well, what are you then? Molecularist? Something else? Are you completely independent from any theory of meaning?

Hell if I know. None of those labels really apply to me, as I said each idea has merit.

Is philosophy science?

Depends who you talk to.
One of the definitions of philosophy is:
"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

So in a sense, it is science, but uses logical methods rather than empirical ones. I believe truths found through empirical methods should build on ones found through logical methods. Others believe one should use empirical methods and philosophize about it later. Both ideas have merit.

In synchronical linguistics, they would say that the noun "laser" comes from the verb "to lase", since the pattern for doers in English is: "a noun denoting the doer of an action, with the ending -er is derived from the according verb, like "reader" from "to read" ".
It is a total disregard for actual language development -- as in the above case, it is known that "laser" came first. (Though sometimes, those synchronists bow down if the historical evidence is too strong.)

The word laser is an acronym.

Okay, plain English: You are looking at the phenomenon of religion from a "right now" perspective, you made a "freeze frame" of the now. You disregard how this "right now" came to be from a previous "right now", and that previous "right now" from an even earlier "right now" and so on. Okay.
(In this regard, synchronism is much like creationism.)

Right now is what matters. As I said, it's irrelevant how religion came to be. This is a debate about the truth or falsity of the existence of God. This is a truth independant of religion. Religions are subjective beliefs, and in a sense, are like opinions. The existence of God is not an opinion, it is an objective thing which can be verified or falsified.

You don't care if there is historical data opposing your findings, or if the historical data implies that you have been over-generalizing.

I see no opposition, and I haven't overgeneralized, I'm being very specific.

They have their individual religions -- but it is in the nature of humans to socialize and seek the like-minded: so, after some time, these individuals with their ecclectic beliefs may come together, those who feel alike, and form a new, unified religion, and it will be yet another religion.

Really now, how often does that happen? Most people simply accept their own beliefs as their own and let others have theirs. Many consider each persons beliefs about God to be a personal thing and wouldn't dream of making another organized religion. Even where there is agreement, there are other places where they disagree.

It may apply, but religionists from those religions will tell you that such a definition of God is a *forced reduction*.

Again, it is not a reduction because the definition does not specifically exclude any attributes given by any religion. I am simply dealing with only the necessary attributes, which are common to any religion, or non-religious beliefs in God.

And I, in the spirit of holism, say that this is impossible. What you are after is the Holy Grail, the Universal Grammar, the basic pattern of the mind -- it is ineffable.

Explain. Sorry, I've forgotten what holism is again. I see no reason it might be impossible.

Tell me, how do you logically justify that one should not go and kill other people just like that? How do you logically justify my preference of cherries over apples?

That's apples and oranges (apples and cherries? ). Two entirely different things. I can logically justify it because there is a difference between rights and freedoms. You have the freedom to kill others, but not the right. By natural law, everyone has the right to do what they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Other people have as much right to live as you do, and there's nothing that gives you the right to act on any freedom that infringes on the rights of another.

I see your point. But I'm afraid that philosophy sometimes makes abstractions and generalizations that are inacceptable in individual cases.

Are you implying there's something unacceptable about this situation?

It is not consistent because it was/is inductively derived from actual Gods of religions.

False. For this proof at least.

Do you ever make any assumptions? Like when you tie your shoe-laces -- do you assume that the knot will hold tight? Or are just plain sure about it? What if the knot gets loose -- what is your thinking?

Nope. I rarely if ever assume things. I have done so in the past of course, but have learned not to. I accept that it is likely my shoes will stay tied, and also that they may come undone.

Oh!! so many of you can claim what god thinks, what god is or is not, basically you just don't know.

Who's claiming to know what God thinks?

PS, nice text Godless. Did you write it yourself?

 

[water]

The word laser is an acronym.

Synchronists don't care about that. There is the verb "to lase", and there is the noun "laser". By patterns of modern English, the noun for the doer of an action with an -er ending is derived from the verb. Thus "laser" comes from "to lase." Period.

The existence of God is not an opinion, it is an objective thing which can be verified or falsified.

This is how you wish to make it.

Really now, how often does that happen? Most people simply accept their own beliefs as their own and let others have theirs. Many consider each persons beliefs about God to be a personal thing and wouldn't dream of making another organized religion. Even where there is agreement, there are other places where they disagree.

I cannot but oppose you historically: How did religions come into existence? Most likely by the process I described above. Yet, you wish to have this freeze frame, and this freeze frame does not allow many explanations for how things come into existence, and you have solved this dilemma by simply saying that all that matters is the now.

Like it or not, you think in the patterns of creationism, not evolutionism, even though you advocate evolution.

“ It may apply, but religionists from those religions will tell you that such a definition of God is a *forced reduction*. ”

Again, it is not a reduction because the definition does not specifically exclude any attributes given by any religion. I am simply dealing with only the necessary attributes, which are common to any religion, or non-religious beliefs in God.

Did you think about the examples with car and love I gave in the previous post?

“ And I, in the spirit of holism, say that this is impossible. What you are after is the Holy Grail, the Universal Grammar, the basic pattern of the mind -- it is ineffable. ”

Explain. Sorry, I've forgotten what holism is again. I see no reason it might be impossible.

In short: one of the premises of holism is that terms receive meaning from being inter-related with other terms that are part of the same theory, and that one must know a certain portion of the theory before one can actually understand the individual terms this theory operates with.

It is this inter-relatedness that concerns me: You took the definition "God, the Creator of the Universe" from one theory (say, Christianity; for the sake of the argument I will use the word "theory"), and placed it into another theory, that of your philosophy.

But you did not, and can not, transpose the specific inter-relatedness the term "God, the Creator of the Universe" has with other terms that are part of the Christian theory, and through which it receives meaning. "God, the Creator of the Universe" receives its meaning from being inter-related with other terms of the Christian theory, like "eternal life", "Christ", "sin", "justice" etc.

In Islam, the term "God, Creator of the Universe" has inter-relations with other terms of Islam, and as such "God, the Creator of the Universe" receives a different meaning in the Islamic theory in comparison to the Christian theory.

The words "God, Creator of the Universe" are indeed the same, but the meaning of this term is different in regards to the theory of which they are part -- be it Christian, Islamic etc.

But without being embedded into a certain theory, a certain term is meaningless.

Thinking that we can shift terms around, from one theory into another without change of meaning, is an atomistic idealization.

I can logically justify it because there is a difference between rights and freedoms. You have the freedom to kill others, but not the right. By natural law, everyone has the right to do what they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Other people have as much right to live as you do, and there's nothing that gives you the right to act on any freedom that infringes on the rights of another.

And who decides and determines what natural law is?? It is not self-evident.

“ I see your point. But I'm afraid that philosophy sometimes makes abstractions and generalizations that are inacceptable in individual cases. ”

Are you implying there's something unacceptable about this situation?

Yes. It is rigid. It doesn't allow for development, neither does it explain it. (Which you have solved by focusing only on the right now.)

Nope. I rarely if ever assume things. I have done so in the past of course, but have learned not to. I accept that it is likely my shoes will stay tied, and also that they may come undone.

Okay, I'll rephrase. When you cometo this forum, to this thread: Do you have any expectations, wishes, hopes, desires, goals, directions?

 

[Alpha]

Synchronists don't care about that. There is the verb "to lase", and there is the noun "laser".

No there isn't. It is an acronym, therefore there isn't a verb "to lase". If synchronists hold this view, then they're wrong. Did you say I was a synchronist? I don't remember. And why? What was your point?

Like it or not, you think in the patterns of creationism, not evolutionism, even though you advocate evolution.

Huh?
It doesn't matter how religion came to be. We're not discussing religion, we're discussing a fundamental truth about which many religions posit claims about.

Did you think about the examples with car and love I gave in the previous post?

I dismissed them based on the grounds mentioned. Such attributes are not excluded, therefore there's no real reduction.

It is this inter-relatedness that concerns me: You took the definition "God, the Creator of the Universe" from one theory (say, Christianity; for the sake of the argument I will use the word "theory"), and placed it into another theory, that of your philosophy.

I didn't take it from any religion, I took it from the theory that the Universe was created, and thus has a creator. A theory which every religion subscribes to.

And who decides and determines what natural law is?? It is not self-evident.

Really? Look again. Everyone has the right to do what they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Morals have root in objective reality. If you break someone's trust, they have no reason to trust you anymore. This is an objective fact. Is it not self evident?
Read this for more if you're interested:
- http://jim.com/spooner.htm

Yes. It is rigid. It doesn't allow for development, neither does it explain it. (Which you have solved by focusing only on the right now.)

If you have a problem with the proof, demonstrate it. If not, everything else is irrelevant semantics. Your objections are unjustified.

Okay, I'll rephrase. When you cometo this forum, to this thread: Do you have any expectations, wishes, hopes, desires, goals, directions?

Of course, but those are not assumptions, nor do they necessarily rely on assumptions.

 

[water]

No there isn't. It is an acronym, therefore there isn't a verb "to lase". If synchronists hold this view, then they're wrong.

Of course they are wrong -- etymologically. But seeing just the present, completely disregarding the past, they aren't.
Synchronism tries to explain the present from the present itself. All nice and well, but it just so happens to happen that many of the generalizations they make are in strict opposition to historical findings.
A synchronist says that word X may be derived from word Y, and he makes a theory to explain this. However, historical data may say that Y came after X.* Language development does not happen by rules of logic, but by rules of necessity.

And similar with other developments in other fields. A synchronous theory may be very systematic and everything -- but we have to close an eye when actual data oposes.

Did you say I was a synchronist? I don't remember. And why? What was your point?

My point was that there may be another reason for why things in the present are the way they are; and that this reason is not evident from the present itself, neither does it mean that a present description and explanation really is the adequate one.

“ Did you think about the examples with car and love I gave in the previous post? ”
I dismissed them based on the grounds mentioned. Such attributes are not excluded, therefore there's no real reduction.

To make a comparison:

Christian God : God = 1: 1 ?
brotherly love : love = 1 :1 ?

I didn't take it from any religion, I took it from the theory that the Universe was created, and thus has a creator. A theory which every religion subscribes to.

And what is the source of that theory that the Universe was created? Is it not derived, compiled from actual religions in one way or another?

Or are you saying that first, there was this general theory that the Universe was created, and then each religion propped it up for its purposes?

And please don't tell me again that development and history don't matter to you, I already know that. But if you wish to work with a general theory of creation, then you have to give it some base. Otheriwse, you have a sophism.

Really? Look again. Everyone has the right to do what they want so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Who's to say? Someone can come and say "If I kill someone, this is just exercising my rights to do what I want. They are infringing on my rights if they defend themselves."

Morals have root in objective reality. If you break someone's trust, they have no reason to trust you anymore. This is an objective fact. Is it not self evident?

No. If you break someone's trust, they sure have no reason to trust you anymore. But that's not how human society works. We have the institute of forgiveness. We are downright demanded to forgive.

Read this for more if you're interested:
- http://jim.com/spooner.htm

I will.

If you have a problem with the proof, demonstrate it. If not, everything else is irrelevant semantics. Your objections are unjustified.

How can it be "irrelevant semantics"?! You are like someone who has a complete dictionary, with no room for any new words. If something is not in your dictionary, you will dismiss it. Okay.

“ Okay, I'll rephrase. When you cometo this forum, to this thread: Do you have any expectations, wishes, hopes, desires, goals, directions? ”
Of course, but those are not assumptions, nor do they necessarily rely on assumptions.

So you do have expectations, wishes, hopes, desires, goals, directions? What else are they but faith?!



*Oh, there is "to lase". The example is from a linguistics book. The type for the doer is to write >> writer. But not all nouns for the doer are derived this way. Historical data shows this direction (it's called backformation):
pedlar >> to peddle
beggar >> to beg
hawker >> to hawk
stoker >> to stoke
scaveneger >> to scavenge
swindler >> to swindle
editor >> to edit
burglar >> to burgle
sculptur >> to sculpt

Yet synchronists would say it is just the other way around.

 

[Alpha]

Synchronism tries to explain the present from the present itself.

Ah, I see the analogy you're making.

And similar with other developments in other fields. A synchronous theory may be very systematic and everything -- but we have to close an eye when actual data oposes.

If you think there's any "actual data" that conflicts with the proof, why haven't you offered it?

My point was that there may be another reason for why things in the present are the way they are; and that this reason is not evident from the present itself, neither does it mean that a present description and explanation really is the adequate one.

This has already been addressed repeatedly. If you have something specific that you think conflicts, state it clearly and explicitly, and not by making vague generalizations.

Or are you saying that first, there was this general theory that the Universe was created, and then each religion propped it up for its purposes?

Of course. People asked where they came from and why everything exists. People posited that it was created, and someone named that creator "God." Religions ensued.

And please don't tell me again that development and history don't matter to you, I already know that.

Then I won't tell you that. Instead I'll just clarify that I wasn't saying they don't matter to me, but that they don't matter, period, for the purposes of this discussion. The question is regarding an objective truth; the existence of a creator of the universe, aka God. Religious connotations to the word are irrelevant at this point.

Who's to say? Someone can come and say "If I kill someone, this is just exercising my rights to do what I want. They are infringing on my rights if they defend themselves."

You're not thinking too clearly it seems. Obviously one doesn't have the right to whatever they want. Did I not point out the difference between rights and freedoms? Perhaps that was another thread. One may have the freedom to do something, but one doesn't necessarily have the right to act on certain freedoms. Like your example, one may have the freedom to be able to kill someone, but that doesn't give them the right. That person has equal rights, therefore he has as much right to live. By attacking the person, they're having their rights infringed upon, and have the right to defend themself.

No. If you break someone's trust, they sure have no reason to trust you anymore. But that's not how human society works. We have the institute of forgiveness. We are downright demanded to forgive.

Are you implying that societal impositions are morally correct? Forgiveness is a gift. One does not have the right to be forgiven simply because one wants to be. You can't lie to me then demand my forgiveness. It is a gift I might give to you if I chose, but it is my choice. And even if forgiveness is given, that doesn't necessarily reestablish trust.

How can it be "irrelevant semantics"?! You are like someone who has a complete dictionary, with no room for any new words. If something is not in your dictionary, you will dismiss it. Okay.

Your arguments keep coming back to linguistics. I realise this is your area of expertise, but it doesn't help your arguments. Argue the reasoning itself, instead of getting hung up on semantics. I don't claim to have some complete dictionary which denies new words, that's you putting words in my mouth. If you have a valid argument, then make it. If you really think you can demonstrate that there's something wrong, then do so instead of implying you can and making various innuendos of the possibility. In other words, come to your bloody point already. This grows tiresome.

So you do have expectations, wishes, hopes, desires, goals, directions? What else are they but faith?!

How do you inject faith into there? Also, what is the importance of faith to your argument?

*Oh, there is "to lase".

Meh. Doesn't matter.

 

[water]

Definitions:
D1 - God: The creator of the Universe.
D2 - Time: Change(s) of state.
D3 - Universe: All of existence.
D4 - Causality: Law of cause and effect.
D5 - Creation: Change of state from nonexistence, to existence.

Inferences:
I1 - From D2 & D5: The creation of the Universe requires at least an instant of time.
I2 - From D3 & D1: Time & causality were created by God.
I3 - From D4 & D5: The creation of the Universe requires a cause.

Conclusions:
C1 - From I1 & D1: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe.
C2 - From I2 & C1: God did not create time.
C3 - From I3 & D1: God required the power to cause the Universe to exist.
C4 - From I2 & C3: God did not create causality.
C5 - From C2 & C4: God did not create the Universe.

.: From C5 & D1 - Therefore D1 is false.

Ad D5: Creation: "Change of state from nonexistence, to existence."

Questions: Is it possible that miracles still happen? Does God make them? Are they part of the Creation? Does God answer prayers?
If yes, then does this mean that the Creation is not completed yet?

If the Creation is not completed yet, then the time, needed to make it, is still ticking: it is all still in the making, and will be completed at the end of times, on Judgement Day.


Would someone give me some answers please, I would like to re-conceptualize the above proof, but I need some preliminary data.

 

[Alpha]

Is it possible that miracles still happen?

Define miracle.

Does God answer prayers?

Don't see the relevance.

If yes, then does this mean that the Creation is not completed yet?

The "creation" exists already, it's state of "completion" is irrelevant.

 

[water]

You're not thinking too clearly it seems. Obviously one doesn't have the right to whatever they want. Did I not point out the difference between rights and freedoms? Perhaps that was another thread. One may have the freedom to do something, but one doesn't necessarily have the right to act on certain freedoms. Like your example, one may have the freedom to be able to kill someone, but that doesn't give them the right. That person has equal rights, therefore he has as much right to live. By attacking the person, they're having their rights infringed upon, and have the right to defend themself.

Are you implying that societal impositions are morally correct? Forgiveness is a gift. One does not have the right to be forgiven simply because one wants to be. You can't lie to me then demand my forgiveness. It is a gift I might give to you if I chose, but it is my choice. And even if forgiveness is given, that doesn't necessarily reestablish trust.

This is stuff for another thread, so I won't address it any further. I am taking notice of what you have said though.

If you really think you can demonstrate that there's something wrong, then do so instead of implying you can and making various innuendos of the possibility.

This, a lesson to me. I am used to other people always knowing more than me, and jumping at correcting me. I actually thought someone would come with a counterargument of how God entered the philosophical debate for political and economical reasons. Not the case this time.

In other words, come to your bloody point already.

My bloody point is that religion, and God, is a matter of faith and faith is "accepting things without question, without a logical or reasonable basis."

Remember the case where the man survived the snake bite, and this could be interpreted as "Man guarded by good spirits"? Not exactly reasonable thinking, is it? But very real.

How is one to *reasonably* explain that humans often think and act in unreasonable, irrational and spontaneous ways?!
They do. And they act in these ways, and these ways, in time become relevant. Gain social value. Reason is a tool, used mostly only when it comes to details. The "big picture", the grandeur of the Universe remains elusive -- even today, and how much more elusive those of old had to feel it!

“ So you do have expectations, wishes, hopes, desires, goals, directions? What else are they but faith?! ”

How do you inject faith into there? Also, what is the importance of faith to your argument?

Faith was brought in by someone else, I think Neildo -- "As to faith, faith exists EVERYWHERE. Faith IS a virtue. ” "
To which you said:
"No, faith is not a virtue. Faith is accepting things without question, without a logical or reasonable basis."

My bloody point is that we all act on some measure of uncertainty, and this uncertainty can be conceptualized as hope, or faith, goals -- things that aren't here yet.

And that because of this primary uncertainty, unreasonability, spontaneousness and such, the definitions of the terms dealing with them ("faith", "God", "hope"...) are bound to be more or less inconsistent, circular or vague. Grasped only more or less intuitively (hence the holistic approach).


But while at it:

“ Is it possible that miracles still happen? ”
Define miracle.

That depends on the religion, but I take 'God's intervention' covers the meaning of "miracle".

“ Does God answer prayers? ”
Don't see the relevance.

Well, if God answers prayers, for example, then, this means that he is still *intervening* with the Universe, he isn't just passively sitting there, wherever he may be. And if he makes miracles, then this is also an indication of his intervening.

“ If yes, then does this mean that the Creation is not completed yet? ”
The "creation" exists already, it's state of "completion" is irrelevant.

Well, to me, the term "creation" is misleading, as it implies finiteness.
But if people are still being born, and still go on living, then the Plan hasn't been carried out completely yet, has it?

To make an analogy with writing a book: "Creation" is taking a blank book, and beginning to write. The blank book is there, the pages are counted ("the span of time"), some pages are already written, and as such it exists as a *potential* finite, not finished yet.
"Creation" is a potential finite, not finished yet, but to be finished.

We should not say "God created the Universe", but "God has *been creating* the Universe".


If God is still intervening, still making (which he is, if he makes miracles and answers prayers), then

D3 - Universe: All of existence, or what is yet to become existence.

Implications?

 

[Godless]

My bloody point is that religion, and God, is a matter of faith and faith is "accepting things without question, without a logical or reasonable basis."

That's exactly right!. and good point.

So in essense faith is senseless. Which is the atheistic argument against religious devotion, your faith is ilogical.

Because you "accept without question, without logic or reason" Hence "blind faith".

Godless.

 

[Alpha]

This is stuff for another thread, so I won't address it any further. I am taking notice of what you have said though.

*Nods*

This, a lesson to me. I am used to other people always knowing more than me, and jumping at correcting me. I actually thought someone would come with a counterargument of how God entered the philosophical debate for political and economical reasons. Not the case this time.

I don't think any such argument would be valid, since it would rely on irrelevant points. There may be counterarguments, but they would rely on entirely different premises.

My bloody point is that religion, and God, is a matter of faith and faith is "accepting things without question, without a logical or reasonable basis."

In that case, faith in something proven false is irrational.

Remember the case where the man survived the snake bite, and this could be interpreted as "Man guarded by good spirits"? Not exactly reasonable thinking, is it? But very real.

Just because something is believed, that doesn't make it rational.

How is one to *reasonably* explain that humans often think and act in unreasonable, irrational and spontaneous ways?!

Free will, chaotic influences, etc.

My bloody point is that we all act on some measure of uncertainty, and this uncertainty can be conceptualized as hope, or faith, goals -- things that aren't here yet.

Faith is not necessary to act on uncertainties. I am uncertain what might happen next time I go outside, but I still do so with goals in mind. I hope to accomplish those goals, but faith just isn't in the picture (for me).

That depends on the religion, but I take 'God's intervention' covers the meaning of "miracle".

No particular religion is being discussed, remember? The fact that God doesn't exist would necessitate that there are no miracles by that definition.

Well, if God answers prayers, for example, then, this means that he is still *intervening* with the Universe, he isn't just passively sitting there, wherever he may be. And if he makes miracles, then this is also an indication of his intervening.

I suppose an answered prayer would be a miracle.

Well, to me, the term "creation" is misleading, as it implies finiteness.

Seems to necessitate finiteness to me: it had a beginning, therefore it is finite in duration.

But if people are still being born, and still go on living, then the Plan hasn't been carried out completely yet, has it?

Presuming the existence of a Plan for a moment, that changes nothing. I might point out though, that there is no indication or evidence of any Plan.

To make an analogy with writing a book: "Creation" is taking a blank book, and beginning to write. The blank book is there, the pages are counted ("the span of time"), some pages are already written, and as such it exists as a *potential* finite, not finished yet.
"Creation" is a potential finite, not finished yet, but to be finished.

When writing a book in that manner, the book, ink, writer and time already exist. The act of authoring the book takes place over time. We are talking about the creation of time though (and everything else along with it). The universe already exists. There is no indication it will ever be "done." The creation of the book is something which can take place over time. The creation of the Universe (and time along with it) is something that logically cannot.

We should not say "God created the Universe", but "God has *been creating* the Universe".
If God is still intervening, still making (which he is, if he makes miracles and answers prayers), then

D3 - Universe: All of existence, or what is yet to become existence.

Implications?

If that were so, there'd be no need for natural laws. Each event would be caused, not by natural law, but by God, and there'd be no natural laws. This is nonsense. Causality requires time, so God can't cause events unless time exists for him. This means time & causality must exist in a fundamental way predating the rest of the Universe. If time & causality existed, then so did the universe, even if in a different form, lacking that which we know.

Because you "accept without question, without logic or reason" Hence "blind faith".

Not just accepting without reason, but in the face of logic to the contrary.

 

[water]

Just because something is believed, that doesn't make it rational.

That hardly matters. What does matter is that something *is* believed.

“ How is one to *reasonably* explain that humans often think and act in unreasonable, irrational and spontaneous ways?! ”
Free will, chaotic influences, etc.

I hope you know how dangerous this feels to many people! If a king or a ruler would promote free will, chaotic influences and such -- where would societies end up! As such, religion is a very practical way to conceptualize both free will (conceptualized as everyone is give life by God and equal before God, for example) and chaotic influences (conceptualized as "it is so because the Scripture says so") on one hand, as well as social control (conceptualized as "there is only one truth").

Faith is not necessary to act on uncertainties. I am uncertain what might happen next time I go outside, but I still do so with goals in mind. I hope to accomplish those goals, but faith just isn't in the picture (for me).

For you. But not everyone feels this way.

No particular religion is being discussed, remember? The fact that God doesn't exist would necessitate that there are no miracles by that definition.

But religious people do believe that there are miracles. Hm.

Presuming the existence of a Plan for a moment, that changes nothing. I might point out though, that there is no indication or evidence of any Plan.

Again, some religious people do believe that there is a Plan.

When writing a book in that manner, the book, ink, writer and time already exist. The act of authoring the book takes place over time. We are talking about the creation of time though (and everything else along with it). The universe already exists. There is no indication it will ever be "done." The creation of the book is something which can take place over time. The creation of the Universe (and time along with it) is something that logically cannot.
/.../
If that were so, there'd be no need for natural laws. Each event would be caused, not by natural law, but by God, and there'd be no natural laws. This is nonsense. Causality requires time, so God can't cause events unless time exists for him. This means time & causality must exist in a fundamental way predating the rest of the Universe. If time & causality existed, then so did the universe, even if in a different form, lacking that which we know.

Do you know that theory that says that time, space and causality are only tools, produced by our mind to orientate itself in the environment?

“ Because you "accept without question, without logic or reason" Hence "blind faith". ”
Not just accepting without reason, but in the face of logic to the contrary.

My main argument, both for and against religion, is that the religious belief can be read literally, as well as metaphorically. And that it is often hard to determine whether a certain scipture is meant literally or metaphorically.

Taking those scriptorial definitions literally, they are often illogical, irrational, the worst one can imagine.
But taken metaphorically, they are often, at least to me, a lesson in humility and gratitude.

The question is just how one chooses to interpret a metaphor -- for there are many, many ways.

Measurements of brain activity during prayer or meditations have been made on Benedict nuns and Tibetan monks -- and they showed that the same brain areas are active, regardless whether Benedict nun or Tibetan monk. This puts a nice spin on the "which religion is the right one?" issue. Apparently, the brain doesn't really care -- it just needs a certain feeling of oneness, faith and such -- and it can be conceptualized either as Christianity, Buddhism, scientific zeal, hacker pride etc..

So I would say that what is traditionally called "god" is just a name for this fancy feel-good and awe-inspiring function of the brain. This was then conceptualized in regards to the whole social and survival context of a certain society. And then later on, as logical and practical thinking took firmer root, the logical discourse got all mixed up into the religious discourse, providing religion with a plethora of sophisms, and philosophy with a plethora of inconsistencies.

In the light of this, I propose to *strictly separate* the religious discourse from the logical/philosophical discourse. The two should not be mixed up.
They are mutually exclusive.

(Yes, I know, I've just condemned about 2000 years of culture.)

Meaning that your proof should for the purposes of the religious discourse look something like:

Definitions:
D1 - God: The creator of the Universe.
D2 - Time: Change(s) of state.
D3 - Universe: All of existence.
D4 - Causality: Law of cause and effect.
D5 - Creation: Change of state from nonexistence, to existence.

-- and that's it, nothing further.


And for the purposes of the logical/philosophical discourse:

Definitions:
D1 - God: The creator of the Universe.
D2 - Time: Change(s) of state.
D3 - Universe: All of existence.
D4 - Causality: Law of cause and effect.
D5 - Creation: Change of state from nonexistence, to existence.

Inferences:
I1 - From D2 & D5: The creation of the Universe requires at least an instant of time.
I2 - From D3 & D1: Time & causality were created by God.
I3 - From D4 & D5: The creation of the Universe requires a cause.

Conclusions:
C1 - From I1 & D1: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe.
C2 - From I2 & C1: God did not create time.
C3 - From I3 & D1: God required the power to cause the Universe to exist.
C4 - From I2 & C3: God did not create causality.
C5 - From C2 & C4: God did not create the Universe.

.: From C5 & D1 - Therefore D1 is false.

Whereby (at least) the terms in red need to be replaced with something else, as the terms in red do not belong into the logical discourse, since we have stated before that they are a matter of faith.
(And if they are a matter of faith, they *are allowed* inconsistency, metaphoricalness, irrationality, spontaneousness and such more.)


Anyhow, I think I'm done with this God is/God isn't thing for some time now.
Thank you.

 

[Alpha]

Just because something is believed, that doesn't make it rational.

That hardly matters. What does matter is that something *is* believed.

LOL, how do you figure? If someone is wrong, then they're irrational, and it doesn't matter what they believe in that case. You have it backwards.

I hope you know how dangerous this feels to many people! If a king or a ruler would promote free will, chaotic influences and such -- where would societies end up!

What are you talking about? You don't "promote chaotic influences" lol. It simply has some explanatory power.

As such, religion is a very practical way to conceptualize both free will (conceptualized as everyone is give life by God and equal before God, for example)

Not very practical at all, since it's entirely unusable. There's no explanation for how free will works just because you say "God gave it to us."

For you. But not everyone feels this way.

Of course. But it still shows faith is unnecessary, and there is still no indication that faith is a virtue.

But religious people do believe that there are miracles. Hm.

That's because religious people believe God exists, which is contradictory. But belief isn't relevant to objective truths.

Again, some religious people do believe that there is a Plan.

Need I repeat myself?

Do you know that theory that says that time, space and causality are only tools, produced by our mind to orientate itself in the environment?

Are you thinking of nihilism or something, perhaps?
Time, space & causality are necessary truths, therefore they are not produced by any subjective means. Our perceptions and interpretations of them are subjective, and therefore produced by our minds, but that doesn't alter the objective facts.

My main argument, both for and against religion, is that the religious belief can be read literally, as well as metaphorically. And that it is often hard to determine whether a certain scipture is meant literally or metaphorically.

One of those things that doesn't translate well sometimes.

But taken metaphorically, they are often, at least to me, a lesson in humility and gratitude.

Granted, the bible does attempt to teach some good moral values, but ethics are learned from experience, and the sense of ethics one gets from the bible and the stories it contains is a corrupt one.

So I would say that what is traditionally called "god" is just a name for this fancy feel-good and awe-inspiring function of the brain.

They are not the same. Praying and meditating can give a certain feeling, but the feeling is not God. God is a concept we have that usually plays an important role when this feeling is induced, but they are still not the same thing.

Meaning that your proof should for the purposes of the religious discourse look something like:

Apparently you haven't paid much attention to my posts, because I thought I made it clear this is not for the purposes of religious discourse. It is about an objective truth that religions happen to rely upon. The implications of said truth can be discussed after it has been determined, but you are still trying to argue the veracity of the truth indicated by my proof.

Whereby (at least) the terms in red need to be replaced with something else, as the terms in red do not belong into the logical discourse, since we have stated before that they are a matter of faith.

No, the terms are correct, and they are not a matter of faith. That's the point. They are about objective truths, not subjective ones, or beliefs.

(And if they are a matter of faith, they *are allowed* inconsistency, metaphoricalness, irrationality, spontaneousness and such more.)

But they are not.

Anyhow, I think I'm done with this God is/God isn't thing for some time now.
Thank you.

Alright, though I'd prefer to get a concession before you quit.
Not sure what the thanks is for.

 

[water]

*hisses*

You: ““Just because something is believed, that doesn't make it rational. ”

Me: That hardly matters. What does matter is that something *is* believed. ”

You: LOL, how do you figure? If someone is wrong, then they're irrational, and it doesn't matter what they believe in that case. You have it backwards.

Arrrgh! So what does it matter if they are irrational?! There is no rule saying that one MUST be rational, nor that one MUST be irrational.
Not that I am advocating irrationality -- couldn't be further than that! But people do act irrational, it is an observable phenomenon -- that's my point. And you cannot make anyone to be rational. You cannot demand from people to be rational -- as absurd as this may sound to you.

Example: I was teaching a girl the basics of English -- verb forms and such. And for the life of mine, I couldn't beat it into her head (with extreme niceness, mind you) that it would do her good if she would watch some TV shows in English and listen to some music in English. No. No, no, bloody no. (Even though, as we were watching a talk show together, and pointed out some words, it just opened up for her, and she managed not to speak as if she had a mouth full of bread. And she agreed that being exposed to English is doing her good.)
Because she has some irrational fear of foreign languages. It has cost her a lot of bad grades and a lot of money. But no positive approach, no good and sound reason, no evidence persuaded her (so far).

We are able to think rationally, and I think this is the basis of human thought. But this is *not all* there is. Also, rational thought sometimes (often, actually) faces grave obstacles -- due to the lack of information.

But eventually, EMOTIONS have the upper hand in the way people act. Some are better at mastering their emotions, some less. And those, who are less good at mastering their emotions, tend to fall for irrationality.

Not very practical at all, since it's entirely unusable. There's no explanation for how free will works just because you say "God gave it to us."

Of course it does not explain how free will works! But it does tell people that they must act "as they see fit", "ask for answers and wisdom in prayer" -- and what else is this but advocating free will? Just the names are a bit different.

Of course. But it still shows faith is unnecessary, and there is still no indication that faith is a virtue.

You, who have a great mind, time, resources -- you can afford to not count on your faith to survive. Someone who is living in poor conditions, has a poor education and is facing many adversities, can choose only between some sort of faith, or some sort of nihilism.
You and I can bask in our comfort -- but not everyone has that, not even remotely.

Are you thinking of nihilism or something, perhaps?
Time, space & causality are necessary truths, therefore they are not produced by any subjective means. Our perceptions and interpretations of them are subjective, and therefore produced by our minds, but that doesn't alter the objective facts.

I need to find you a Kant expert on this one.

Granted, the bible does attempt to teach some good moral values, but ethics are learned from experience, and the sense of ethics one gets from the bible and the stories it contains is a corrupt one.

How is it corrupt?
I know a few Christians who are very good and noble people. And they refer to the Bible all the time.
If anything can be corrupt, then it is what one does with those Biblical stories, how one interprets them. I shudder at Matthew 12:30, but I have also been presented a very noble argument about it once. It is confusing.

They are not the same. Praying and meditating can give a certain feeling, but the feeling is not God.

Of course it's not God.
Being in love, the throbbing heart, the butterflies in the tummy -- it all gives you a certain feeling -- but is that feeling love? Love is an *interpretation*, an *abstraction* made from these "signs".
Similar with God: our brain has this fancy function to feel "oneness" and such -- and we then *interpret* and *abstract* this as "God".

Apparently you haven't paid much attention to my posts, because I thought I made it clear this is not for the purposes of religious discourse. It is about an objective truth that religions happen to rely upon. The implications of said truth can be discussed after it has been determined, but you are still trying to argue the veracity of the truth indicated by my proof.

No, the terms are correct, and they are not a matter of faith. That's the point. They are about objective truths, not subjective ones, or beliefs.

Are you saying that "God", "eternal life" and such are objective truths?!

“Anyhow, I think I'm done with this God is/God isn't thing for some time now.
Thank you. ”

Alright, though I'd prefer to get a concession before you quit.

What a concession?

Not sure what the thanks is for.

The conversation. It's been tedious sometimes, but very pleasant on the whole.

 

[MarcAC]

Witness the snowflake.

~Raithere

Then again, look at DNA. A snowflake contains an aesthetically beautiful pattern (ABC...ABC...ABC...). DNA has information encoded within it (MAKE A DOG). It is quite a stretch to assume that the term "MAKE A DOG" was randomly generated as opposed to "ABC.. ABC...". What/Who(?) is the programmer (source of the information)? God maybe?

 

[DeeCee]

It is quite a stretch to assume that the term "MAKE A DOG" was randomly generated

That's because it wasn't.
It's called evolution, look it up on google if you want.
Dee Cee

 

[MarcAC]

So in essense faith is senseless. Which is the atheistic argument against religious devotion, your faith is ilogical.

Faith may defy logic, but faith is necessary for all (atheists included).

Because you "accept without question, without logic or reason" Hence "blind faith".

Godless.

Some things just have to be accepted without a logical basis. You can't sit down and reason and then declare; "I've got it! I exist!". You either accept that on faith (through necessity) or you just leave the question of whether you exist open. Faith drives human advancement. Without it we'd be stagnant.

Maybe not all faith is rooted in reason, but all reason is inevitably rooted in faith. Thus faith has it's place in everyone's existence, providing you believe you exist.