Religion And God

[lightgigantic]

1) Photoelectric effect, Millikan oil drop experiment, Electron microscopes, etc.

2) I do not understand this.

the point is that electrons and people's minds are phenomena that are perceivable only by their symptoms. You cannot actually "see" an electron or a persons mind, and when the question of perceiving these phenomena is raised it becomes a question of "perceivable to whom?"

It is not like everyone on the street or even everyone in the field of science has completed the necessary requirements to directly perceive the symptoms that denote the reality of an electron.

In other words if you want to say "I don't see it" your statement only becomes credible if you are capable in that field of knowledge.

 

[superluminal]

What do birds do when they make a nest? Actually you are begging the question because you start on the principle that matter created life, which is an intrinsically atheistic proposal. Design is intrinsic to sentient thought - not necessarily human

I did no such thing. Only theists invoke the "matter created life" dogma to oppose non-theists.

Because the universe is not god .... If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari? Why can't christmas presents self manifest under christmas trees ?- as you can see if we apply the general principles that you are advocating to other situations we end up with a funny picture of reality

Which is why I don't rediculously set up strawmen as you do, in an attempt to support your position. Again, no atheist uses the word "created" to describe the origins of the universe. Strawmen unite!

Your error is to assume that god is a mundane creature just like ourselves - if you begin with the assumption that no one can be of greater intelligence and capacity than myself you limit yourself from the onset.

I'm sorry. This makes no sense at all. What exactly are you trying to argue here? I make NO assumptions regarding god(s). And what does any of this have to do with my statement of the fallacy of the "first cause" argument? You have done nothing here but ramble pointlessly.

 

[superluminal]

the point is that electrons and people's minds are phenomena that are perceivable only by their symptoms. You cannot actually "see" an electron or a persons mind, and when the question of perceiving these phenomena is raised it becomes a question of "perceivable to whom?"

It is not like everyone on the street or even everyone in the field of science has completed the necessary requirements to directly perceive the symptoms that denote the reality of an electron.

In other words if you want to say "I don't see it" your statement only becomes credible if you are capable in that field of knowledge.

So you are saying that only people trained in godness can percieve god based on gods "symptoms" as you put it? Just like only trained scientists can percieve electrons based on their symptoms? All right. Here's the difference.

Electrons, as we define them, have repeatable, testable, observable characteristics. They really do (whatever their "true" nature is) affect the objective world. Anyone with the right training and equipment, such as a CRT based TV and a convienient remote control, can percieve the regular effects of electrons on phosphors, in the form of "I Love Lucy" reruns.

I am at a loss however to see any repeatable, testable, observable characteristics of "god". Can you be specific in responding with some instances of verifiable characteristics of "god" that conclusively demonstrate god?

 

[c7ityi_]

Because the universe is not god ....

God is omnipresent. Doesn't it mean that he is everything?

If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari?

The universe, humans and a ferrari are all the same thing: matter. In this sense, "ferraris" created themselves.

Created beings can't really create anything, they can only transform the created things (matter) to something different.

 

[Cris]

c7,

God is omnipresent. Doesn't it mean that he is everything?

If so then we can simply call everything what it is and eliminate the redundant god label.

The universe, humans and a ferrari are all the same thing: matter. In this sense, "ferraris" created themselves.

While they are formed from the same type of building blocks they are not the same building blocks. And I see nothing that leads to a conclusion that anything created itself.

Created beings can't really create anything, they can only transform the created things (matter) to something different.

Don't know of anything that was created, but the concept of transformation has solid foundations in physics.

 

[c7ityi_]

If so then we can simply call everything what it is and eliminate the redundant god label.

It's not redundant when talking about religions and such things. If we know what God is we can make sense of ancient myths. Our higher self is called God in ancient myths. But there are infinite gods, because God is everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[lightgigantic]

God is omnipresent. Doesn't it mean that he is everything?.

It means everything is in him but he remains indepenent of everything, otherwise even a light bulb could be god

The universe, humans and a ferrari are all the same thing: matter. In this sense, "ferraris" created themselves. .

This is just like saying there is absolutely no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if thats the case why do people see special qualities in a woolen jumper that they don't see in a ball of wool?

 

[lightgigantic]

I did no such thing. Only theists invoke the "matter created life" dogma to oppose non-theists. .

If this isn't the matter created life dogma I don't know what is :

Originally Posted by superluminal
Ok LG. This argument of the universe being "designed" by a "sentient being" because we now, as a species, design "things" is not very convincing. Before humans designed "things" this argument could not even exist. .

You seem to be saying that whole process of design is only something new that came on the scene with life and before that there was just matter - so how ar e you not saying matter created life?

Which is why I don't rediculously set up strawmen as you do, in an attempt to support your position. Again, no atheist uses the word "created" to describe the origins of the universe. Strawmen unite! .

No , instead they say that the complex design structures that we see in the universe don't have a creator - which amounts to the same thing

I'm sorry. This makes no sense at all. What exactly are you trying to argue here? I make NO assumptions regarding god(s). And what does any of this have to do with my statement of the fallacy of the "first cause" argument? You have done nothing here but ramble pointlessly.

The point was that if you want to work the idea that god is the cause of all causes you have to apply the proper definition of god and not a definition of a mundane creature

 

[lightgigantic]

So you are saying that only people trained in godness can percieve god based on gods "symptoms" as you put it? Just like only trained scientists can percieve electrons based on their symptoms? All right. Here's the difference.

Electrons, as we define them, have repeatable, testable, observable characteristics. They really do (whatever their "true" nature is) affect the objective world. Anyone with the right training and equipment, such as a CRT based TV and a convienient remote control, can percieve the regular effects of electrons on phosphors, in the form of "I Love Lucy" reruns.

They may perceive the effects but they may not perceive the cause - try and explain what an electron is to someone watching "I love Lucy" they will only believe you on the strength of your credibility and not their direct perception

I am at a loss however to see any repeatable, testable, observable characteristics of "god". Can you be specific in responding with some instances of verifiable characteristics of "god" that conclusively demonstrate god?

The difference between knowing god and knowing something mundane is that god is a person - suppose you want to know the owner of the ferrari company - basically you can only know him if he desires to know you (its a mundane example - after all you could be a nosey journalist and escape the definition) - in other words the empirical process doesn't yield results when investigating a superior person simply because the person to be investigated is superior - so god can only be known by one whom he chooses to reveal himself to.
There are other symptoms which can be looked for to determine whether a person has actually perceived god, just as there are symptoms by which you can judge whether a person is qualified or unqualified in a field but this is the process of how to see god - act in such a way that he is interested to see you.

 

[c7ityi_]

It means everything is in him but he remains indepenent of everything, otherwise even a light bulb could be god

How could he remain independent of everything if he is in everything?

This is just like saying there is absolutely no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if thats the case why do people see special qualities in a woolen jumper that they don't see in a ball of wool?

There is apparent (illusional) difference, but not real difference.

 

[Godless]

If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari? Why can't christmas presents self manifest under christmas trees ?- as you can see if we apply the general principles that you are advocating to other situations we end up with a funny picture of reality

If a god can create it self, why not the universe? From were did god create itself? How did it aquire knowledge without experience? Define the word "god"

God is love
God is salvation
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God is omnipresent
God is unidentifiable
God is omnibenevolent
God is NON EXISTENT

It's all in your head, the voices grew silent, and yet you quible to bring back ignorance..

 

[Student of Yoga]

Do not even try and define God. Just live your life and forget about him-only those who have achieved viveka (discrimination between real and unreal) know the true meaning of God - and its not likely that any of you will get that in this lifetime. (Unless you've studied the scriptures and reflected on it.)

 

[Cris]

Student,

Do not even try and define God. Just live your life and forget about him-only those who have achieved viveka (discrimination between real and unreal) know the true meaning of God - and its not likely that any of you will get that in this lifetime. (Unless you've studied the scriptures and reflected on it.)

LOL. Nonsense. Sounds like condescending arrogance. Umm, no I'm wrong, it is condescending arrogance.

 

[q0101]

I have a question for those of you that are religious. If a god or some kind of creator does exists, why would he / she / it want to be worshiped by primitive life forms like us? What make us so special? Would an omnipotent being really care about us?

 

[c7ityi_]

If a god or some kind of creator does exists, why would he / she / it want to be worshiped by primitive life forms like us? What make us so special?

God doesn't want or need anything because he already has all he wants, he is complete, he is what he is, he is not a male or female, he is not separated from oneness.

Everything is special, so nothing is special. Everyone but humans follow God. See animals. They follow all laws of nature/God.

Would an omnipotent being really care about us?

He cares because he's impersonal. Things aren't less important just because they are primitive. Humans aren't primitive, but God sees everything from a universal viewpoint. He doesn't favor anyone or anything. That's why some people die in natural disasters.

God doesn't interfere with our business. He lets us be free. We should try to be like God, and let other people have their free will and personal beliefs.

 

[lightgigantic]

How could he remain independent of everything if he is in everything?

even there is a mundane example that a factory plant owner is independent of the factory (he has the capacity - at least in knowledge - to set up another factory somewhere else) yet at the same time he is deeply familiar with the ins and outs of the factory. Its called simultaneous oneness and difference

There is apparent (illusional) difference, but not real difference.

If that's the case why do you submit to the "illusion" of buying a woolen jumper and not a ball of wool in the winter - you could save yourself $100

 

[superluminal]

The difference between knowing god and knowing something mundane is that god is a person - suppose you want to know the owner of the ferrari company - basically you can only know him if he desires to know you (its a mundane example - after all you could be a nosey journalist and escape the definition) - in other words the empirical process doesn't yield results when investigating a superior person simply because the person to be investigated is superior - so god can only be known by one whom he chooses to reveal himself to.

... - act in such a way that he is interested to see you.

This is almost incomprehensible to me. You are saying that the success or failure of an investigation into god is based on his whim as to whether or not he reveals himself to you. I, as an atheist, need god to reveal himself far more than other, less heathenist, people, wouldn't you say?

I sense an underlying thread in your approach. You seem to be basing your arguments on the idea that only those "trained" in a praticular field can benefit from the "proofs" or "perceptions" made in that field. This is a faulty position. It ignores the fact that once the detailed work is done in a field, the chain of logic and evidence can almost always be followed by educated and interested laymen, and either accepted or rejected on it's merits.

 

[superluminal]

LG,

What is the difference between "mundane" as you are using it, and "godness"?

 

[lightgigantic]

If a god can create it self, why not the universe? From were did god create itself?

If the universe can create itself why can't a ferrari?

How did it aquire knowledge without experience?

He has an eternal identity that is not overcome by ignorance (since ignorance is one of his seperated potencies)- "acquiring" knowledge is only an issue when you are in ignorance - in the day there is no need for acquiring a torch, only at night time

Define the word "god"

God is love
God is salvation
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God is omnipresent
God is unidentifiable
God is omnibenevolent
God is NON EXISTENT

It's all in your head, the voices grew silent, and yet you quible to bring back ignorance..

Actually if you want to define god you have to consult either scripture or qualified saintly persons otherwise you just run the risk of compiling speculative definitions like this

 

[lightgigantic]

I have a question for those of you that are religious. If a god or some kind of creator does exists, why would he / she / it want to be worshiped by primitive life forms like us? What make us so special? Would an omnipotent being really care about us?

Actually god doesn't require our worship or submissiveness - the material creation is an opportunity to express independence from god - with or without the worship of god the activities of the material and spiritual worlds go on unheeded