GOD!!! The finite topic for an infinite being

[Spiney]

No no, we have just as much of a true point.

Why discuss what is written when we can discuss the foundations and backgrounds to those works?

[Jpot]

I don't think that Agnostics should really post in this thread... not to be mean or anything...

Wait, what? First of all, I'm an agnostic atheist. That means I lack a belief in a god, but don't believe that one can necessarily prove definitively that he doesn't exist. Secondly, we have just as much of a voice in this thread as anyone else -_-

[ZeRoc]

As I said I'm not trying to be mean... I'm just not 100% on how to discuss God with someone who doesn't have a firm belief... it's just hard to pull references from the Bible without them agreeing to it...

and I'm not denying you a voice in this thread...

I should stop posting in this thread before I cause a flame war or something...

[Jpot]

As I said I'm not trying to be mean... I'm just not 100% on how to discuss God with someone who doesn't have a firm belief... it's just hard to pull references from the Bible without them agreeing to it...

and I'm not denying you a voice in this thread...

I should stop posting in this thread before I cause a flame war or something...

I probably shouldn't mark my return here with a flame war. . Also, I kind of take satisfaction from the fact that that makes you uncomfortable. Not in a mean way. That's the thing, you can't say God exists cause this book said so, and you know the book is right cause the book says it's right.

[zzfallens]

I too, technically, am an Agnostic Atheist.

Yaaaay. Agnostic atheists unite.

I don't think that Agnostics should really post in this thread... not to be mean or anything...

Agnostic Atheists, he said. Not agnostics. That would make sense. The spectrum goes as follows:


Gnostic Theists: Claim that they 'know' god(s) exist(s).

Agnostic Theists: Think that god(s) exist(s), but don't know 100%

Agnostics: Think that it is just as probable that he does exist as it is improbable that he doesn't. 50/50

Agnostic Atheists: Think that god(s) doesn't (don't) exist, but they do not know 100%

Gnostic Atheists: Claim that they 'know' god(s) don't exist(s).

I don't know who would ever claim they 'know' god does not exist, as if it has been personally revealed to them.
However, in the words of Bertrand Russel, you cannot fully prove that god does not exist, but you also cannot prove that an invisible floating teapot between earth and mars does not fully exist either.

[Spiney]

it's just hard to pull references from the Bible without them agreeing to it...

We're not talking about that. It's more so the history of how that was brought about.

As in, most modern religions are just re-writes of ancient ones. Namely ancient Egypt. Jesus = Horus the Sun God

Also, 12 Apostles = 12 Zodiac Signs.

[zzfallens]

it's just hard to pull references from the Bible without them agreeing to it...

We're not talking about that. It's more so the history of how that was brought about.

As in, most modern religions are just re-writes of ancient ones. Namely ancient Egypt. Jesus = Horus the Sun God

Also, 12 Apostles = 12 Zodiac Signs.

The 'Zeitgeist' internet film has a lot of [&@%!] and made up lies in it to support the director's ideas. With that aside, the idea that the myth behind Jesus was a representation of astrology is not a new idea. Thomas Paine had said that Christianity is based of astrological myths, with Jesus as the sun or center figure. Not making a connection between sun/son, but comparing traits between the two. What I think, is that the church built around the cult of Jesus made up many of the things he did to mirror astrology to convert more pagans, just like what they did with Yule. Horus and Jesus have nothing in common. Actually look up the myths of Horus. Totally different.

[ZeRoc]

I too, technically, am an Agnostic Atheist.
Agnostic Atheists, he said. Not agnostics. That would make sense. The spectrum goes as follows:
Gnostic Theists: Claim that they 'know' god(s) exist(s).
Agnostic Theists: Think that god(s) exist(s), but don't know 100%
Agnostics: Think that it is just as probable that he does exist as it is improbable that he doesn't. 50/50
Agnostic Atheists: Think that god(s) doesn't (don't) exist, but they do not know 100%
Gnostic Atheists: Claim that they 'know' god(s) don't exist(s).

I had no idea that there were so many different types, thank you for enlightening me. (this is not sarcastic)

My view, with the subject of comparing myths to the Bible is mixed, I've seen some similarities and a whole lot more differences. I have read when I studied Egyptian mythology how one could compare Horus to Jesus, and I think it was Isis(?) to Mary. I didn't really think on it to much, so I'm not sure. I am not opposed to others beliefs, simply because I believe in tolerance, and find it interesting learning others beliefs.

I'm LDS, so when others talk about the Bible I have to fight bringing doctrine from my religion into it...

[Wolfie]

I'm more interested in how they have any significance when you can't even prove either hell nor heaven, let alone god himself.

It's like, empty words.

its called faith, i belive its real

why? why do you belive the words of scinetist? have you seen this\porve what they say is right?
can you prove the big bang happen? how are they not empty words?

I agree you guys should bbe aloowed to post, as long as its not in a flame kind of way

[Spiney]

Oh god everyone falls back on the Big Bang. Do a little research and you'll see how much evidence it has.

[Jpot]

I'm more interested in how they have any significance when you can't even prove either hell nor heaven, let alone god himself.

It's like, empty words.

its called faith, i belive its real

why? why do you belive the words of scinetist? have you seen this\porve what they say is right?
can you prove the big bang happen? how are they not empty words?

I agree you guys should bbe aloowed to post, as long as its not in a flame kind of way

My brain, it hurts. Your mangled english is mangling my brain. And, yes, that's the whole point of science, is that everything is backed up by evidence and reason. I don't blindly believe the words of people who call themselves "scientists". Of course faith is real, lots of people have it. Faith is, by definition, a belief not based on proof. Therein lies the problem.

[exoclipse]

I'm more interested in how they have any significance when you can't even prove either hell nor heaven, let alone god himself.

It's like, empty words.

its called faith, i belive its real

why? why do you belive the words of scinetist? have you seen this\porve what they say is right?
can you prove the big bang happen? how are they not empty words?

I agree you guys should bbe aloowed to post, as long as its not in a flame kind of way

Wolfie, I don't trust scientists. I don't have faith in scientists. I don't 'believe' what they say. I look at their work, admittedly only at a cursory level, and then I check to see if it's been peer reviewed. If it has, I look for repeatability. If their results are easily repeatable by other scientists, it's highly likely that their work points to the truth.

Please note that the Big Bang theory has an overwhelming body of evidence. So does the theory of evolution, which, I may add, we understand better than we do gravity. What causes gravity?

I trust the scientific method. I trust it because it is logical, it makes no assumptions, it makes no leaps of faith, and it provides a very solid framework to understand the world around us. Religion does not offer that.

Note that I am not saying that religion and science cannot coexist; many scientists, and many of my professors, are both devout Christians and very smart scientists. I disagree with them occasionally, but I can see how and why one would take up religion. I chose not to, and so long as those who chose to don't infringe upon that, I rather like that others chose to believe. It enriches my experience, it opens my mind to new ways of thought, and it challenges me to look at religious texts in very strange ways (the story of Adam and Eve being an analogy for the ascent of man being one of the strangest I've encountered).

And I may be new here, but I don't see why agnostics and atheists should be forbidden from posting in this thread, so long as there is mutual respect between the parties, and an absolute lack of debating the existence or nonexistence of a higher power. It is possible.

[ZeRoc]

"Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind."- Albert Einstein

Sums things up pretty well in the debate about Science and Religion.

[Wolfie]

You guys misunderstand me; I'm not saying the big bang did not happen,
I'm saying you guys trust what others say as proof (maybe not on all things but on at least a great deal)

Wolfie, I don't trust scientists. I don't have faith in scientists. I don't 'believe' what they say. I look at their work, admittedly only at a cursory level, and then I check to see if it's been peer reviewed.

So you see if more then one persons agrees?

So luke and john agree
see the simmlarty?

If it has, I look for repeatability.

Again what we do with the bible

If their results are easily repeatable by other scientists, it's highly likely that their work points to the truth.

And so you follow someone with out knowing how they found the unverse is still exspanding and how they found that the big bang happend (enter time here) ago


How do you know unless you see for your self? is not belivng that if a few scientists agree it must be right faith in them?


Sure in some you probely tested to see, but so have I with my belifes

but we both use some faith

I trust the scientific method. I trust it because it is logical, it makes no assumptions,

it dose not, but it dose not say God can not exist either

it makes no leaps of faith, and it provides a very solid framework to understand the world around us.

Yes it dose
, it asummes those before us are right
it use theroys, sure its to test them, but theroys are still a leap of faith

Religion does not offer that.

How do you figure?
The bible has a lot of things right about scicne in it, mainly what parts of the earth apeard first and what not
and remember if scicne can not disprove something that it should be open to it

[ZeRoc]

To quote a scripture from my book. "Faith is believing in that which is not seen." basically saying that it's not faith if you know it to be 100% true. Dispute this little scripture from the Book of Mormon if you want.

[Wolfie]

To quote a scripture from my book. "Faith is believing in that which is not seen." basically saying that it's not faith if you know it to be 100% true. Dispute this little scripture from the Book of Mormon if you want.

but we dont know E= mc2 is ture, thats whay its a theroy, yet many of us scinetist included use it

Which is my point, they to use faith

faith that if one or two sicnetist say that the big bang happen (so long ago)

you can not see it yet you belive, I'm not saying they are wrong I'm just saying they to use faith

[exoclipse]

So luke and john agree
see the simmlarty?

Yes, but no. We have literally no other sources than the four Testaments. Nothing. Four people does not make a scientific consensus.

If their results are easily repeatable by other scientists, it's highly likely that their work points to the truth.

And so you follow someone with out knowing how they found the unverse is still exspanding and how they found that the big bang happend (enter time here) ago[/quote]
No, because I've seen the results of their research, and I mostly understand how they came to that conclusion. I don't understand a lot of the maths behind it, but I will soon enough, and that will be an awesome day.

How do you know unless you see for your self? is not belivng that if a few scientists agree it must be right faith in them?

Nope. Because any scientist can be overruled by any new data that comes in. An example: We all thought Einstein was amazing with his Theory of Relativity, until we started making discoveries that led to the discovery of quantum mechanics, which disproves many of Einstein's conclusions, which were peer reviewed and extensively tested to the point of ridiculousness. His theory is not fully overruled, but we are in the process of figuring things out. Looking for new particles predicted by quantum mechanics that would specifically reconcile the two theories.

Sure in some you probely tested to see, but so have I with my belifes

I have no problems with you believing. Just don't think your beliefs are scientific or rational, because you did not run them through a lab exhaustively, putting years of mathematical and scientific education behind it, and then have them affirmed by the scientific community.

but we both use some faith

Nope.jpeg.

it dose not, but it dose not say God can not exist either

I dunno where you get this from, but if there were convincing scientific evidence of a higher power, that we peer reviewed and repeatable, then it would be science, and I would 'believe.' As there is not, and as the question of whether God exists cannot be made falsifiable, then I cannot. I have a strictly rational outlook.

Once again, I respect and even admire your outlook. But it is not my outlook, and it is not, in my opinion, an outlook that leads to the truth.

Yes it dose
, it asummes those before us are right
it use theroys, sure its to test them, but theroys are still a leap of faith

I want to specifically address this. We call scientific theories for one very good reason. Every theory there is can be disproven if new evidence emerges. It happens all the time. When we call something a theory, what we mean is - we have a ton of convincing evidence, all of it easily reproducable in any properly equipped laboratory, with a lot of other observations factoring in to it, that point to a specific conclusion, however, any new evidence to the contrary that is equally convincing must be taken into account. All it takes is a single piece that doesn't fit to destroy one theory and require a new one.

Theories don't ever become laws. A law is usually based in math, and can be proven using math.

The bible has a lot of things right about scicne in it, mainly what parts of the earth apeard first and what not
and remember if scicne can not disprove something that it should be open to it

The bible may have a few accurate things, but for the wrong reasons. It is correct occasionally by mere chance, or as you would put it, by divinity. To have a rational outlook, which is what I look to science for, everything MUST be tested rationally. Through experimentation, observation, and rigor, through peer review and exhaustively repeated tests, and through looking for evidence of all varieties, not just those that confirm my expected viewpoint.

I won't ever tell you you're wrong about God, because I don't know that. I don't know that I'm right. I'm not concerned about it. I'm concerned with doing what's right while I'm alive. Where I go after that is book keeping. It is not faith to say E=MC^2, if this equation has proven to be reliable in many widespread applications. 95% of the technology you are using right now is based on scientific theory, including quantum mechanics and other things that boil my brain. It's not faith for me to say, "Hey, my computer monitor works because of chemical reactions and electricity," despite not being able to directly detect it with my senses. I know this is true by means of education, math, and the knowledge that engineers can make millions of monitors based on that education and that math.

[chibimyuutsu]

Are we speaking of the Christian God or any Gods of other religions?


I'm a pantheist, so the Universe, which includes everything in it, is my God.

[exoclipse]

I've played around with pantheism in the past, and I do still get that spiritual tingle whenever I'm made aware just how awe inspiring the universe is. I'm not sure I can call that God, though, so I don't. This either makes me a closet pantheist or a strange atheist.

Chibi, you ever listen to Agalloch?

[zzfallens]

First of all, Wolfie, science cannot be compared to faith at all. Religion is a failed science, it was the first and the worst. Science is based on what is observed, look up the definition of scientific theory. What you are talking about are hypothesis, which aren't credited until they have much evidence to support them, in which case becomes a theory. Science does not have a bias, and is comprised of what can be observed and credited about the universe and how it works. I feel like I'm teaching a 5th grade science class here. The Abrahamic religions on the other hand (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, LDS technically) rely on an old desert mythology book that has been edited numerous times by various authors.

To ZeRoc about Einstein; he was not exactly religious as you would think. He was not a Christian. He was more of a Deist/Pantheist.

To everyone talking about pantheism: I too get a feeling when I see amazing things about the universe. It is what draws me to science. My view on pantheism is that it is just science personified, even though reality is already amazing as it is.

[ZeRoc]

guh... this is what I didn't want to happen.

Alright, since there is no point in arguing religion with people who only believe in science, because there is no way to shift there views or make them see it from our point of view, I am done with this thread.

Peace Out!

[chibimyuutsu]

I've played around with pantheism in the past, and I do still get that spiritual tingle whenever I'm made aware just how awe inspiring the universe is. I'm not sure I can call that God, though, so I don't. This either makes me a closet pantheist or a strange atheist.

Chibi, you ever listen to Agalloch?

I only use the word God because my brain hurts when I try to explain the Universe.


The Universe is beyond human comprehension....

I'm a naturalistic pantheist, or a "Paganpantheist"

@exoclipse, no, but I'll look into it.




@ PP:

There's no point in arguing with religious people about their religious beliefs, either.


It's part of my morals to enforce religious tolerance, so I don't "preach" my views to others. I simply give them my views, some facts, and let them choose for themselves. I make people think. And they don't like it.


I'm waiting to see how many people will flame me when I say Jesus Christ was not born in December.

Shepherds are not in the fields in December, folks.

Although, I believe he may have existed. Strong feeling he existed. But was not born of a deity. I believe people made Jesus something holy.

[zzfallens]

You can't believe in science just like you cannot believe in math. Whether you think it is true or not, it doesn't matter. It is reality.

And yeah if we only account for >3x10^-58% of the mass of the universe, how would we ever be able to undertand a fraction of it?

About jesus: there were many cults of prophets just like him with simmilar claims
Aroud his time in his region. He was the one that survived though.

[Wolfie]

Yes, but no. We have literally no other sources than the four Testaments. Nothing. Four people does not make a scientific consensus.

Okay then read all the others who helped write the bible, the people who where around then and how many people believed in Jesus in his time
As for other things, look at king Harold, he is mettioned and lots of things in the bible did happen and prove of it, of couse it don’t prove it was God made, but that’s where faith comes in

No, because I've seen the results of their research, and I mostly understand how they came to that conclusion. I don't understand a lot of the maths behind it, but I will soon enough, and that will be an awesome day.

You are one of the rare ones and even then you still have some blind faith in it
Cause if you work now till your death bead there will be at least one thing you will not know 100%

I have no problems with you believing. Just don't think your beliefs are scientific or rational,

Do you think you not believing in god is rational?

because you did not run them through a lab exhaustively, putting years of mathematical and scientific education behind it,

I have, the odds of everything every one said happened with out some one behind it are so low its almost imposable, so I make a theory that something must be behind it, but what?

and knowing that everything comes form something (by what science tells us) I can justify it by saying well a God would make and bend the rules
why with Science it comes what made the big bang? What made that? What made that

is it pulling to my answer? Maybe but nothing in science has shown me why I should believe this is all luck

and then have them affirmed by the scientific community.

Would you deny that by probability alone the idea of one thing being one in a million is more likely then the idea of every single one in a million odd happing

Nope.jpeg.

Yep faith is believe in the unseen you believe in the big bang you have not seen it

Nor can you show it to your self

faith

I dunno where you get this from, but if there were convincing scientific evidence of a higher power, that we peer reviewed and repeatable, then it would be science, and I would 'believe.' As there is not, and as the question of whether God exists cannot be made falsifiable, then I cannot. I have a strictly rational outlook.

I never said it proved it, I said it never says God can not exist

Once again, I respect and even admire your outlook. But it is not my outlook, and it is not, in my opinion, an outlook that leads to the truth.

No problem with this

I want to specifically address this. We call scientific theories for one very good reason. Every theory there is can be disproven if new evidence emerges. It happens all the time. When we call something a theory, what we mean is - we have a ton of convincing evidence, all of it easily reproducable in any properly equipped laboratory, with a lot of other observations factoring in to it, that point to a specific conclusion, however, any new evidence to the contrary that is equally convincing must be taken into account. All it takes is a single piece that doesn't fit to destroy one theory and require a new one.

Yes and you use them a lot, there for you use faith that theory’s are real

The bible may have a few accurate things, but for the wrong reasons.

It is correct occasionally by mere chance, or as you would put it, by divinity. To have a rational outlook, which is what I look to science for, everything MUST be tested rationally. Through experimentation, observation, and rigor, through peer review and exhaustively repeated tests, and through looking for evidence of all varieties, not just those that confirm my expected viewpoint.

I have, I find it highly unlikely that there is no greater thing at work.

I won't ever tell you you're wrong about God, because I don't know that. I don't know that I'm right. I'm not concerned about it. I'm concerned with doing what's right while I'm alive. Where I go after that is book keeping. It is not faith to say E=MC^2, if this equation has proven to be reliable in many widespread applications. 95% of the technology you are using right now is based on scientific theory, including quantum mechanics and other things that boil my brain. It's not faith for me to say, "Hey, my computer monitor works because of chemical reactions and electricity," despite not being able to directly detect it with my senses. I know this is true by means of education, math, and the knowledge that engineers can make millions of monitors based on that education and that math.

I can say that God made this do that and do this, and him making the electronics ect blah blah blah.
and it works for an explanation
how do you know that’s why it works, anymore then me?
Of course with that we are more educated but there are some stuff that no one person can know all of that you just must assume or believe to be true
I am educated that God is real, also that Scicne dose not disprove him, while he gives awnsers to things scicne can not
I can deduce by sheer improbity its most likely something made us, and the knowledge that even 50 years ago people where saying (enter person in bible) was not real and there was no proof and now there is proof that the old theroys of how God was not real are being disproven

We share the same idea
and knowing that everything comes form something, I can conclude that there is one exception to the rule which is God and as such he created everything, ending any thing that I have a problem with

Nope.jpeg.

Yep faith is believe in the unseen you believe in the big bang you have not seen it

faith

I dunno where you get this from, but if there were convincing scientific evidence of a higher power, that we peer reviewed and repeatable, then it would be science, and I would 'believe.' As there is not, and as the question of whether God exists cannot be made falsifiable, then I cannot. I have a strictly rational outlook.

I never said there was….
I said it could not disprove it

I 100% belie in science, or at least most of it.

Once again, I respect and even admire your outlook. But it is not my outlook, and it is not, in my opinion, an outlook that leads to the truth.

No problem with this

I want to specifically address this. We call scientific theories for one very good reason. Every theory there is can be disproven if new evidence emerges. It happens all the time. When we call something a theory, what we mean is - we have a ton of convincing evidence, all of it easily reproducable in any properly equipped laboratory, with a lot of other observations factoring in to it, that point to a specific conclusion, however, any new evidence to the contrary that is equally convincing must be taken into account. All it takes is a single piece that doesn't fit to destroy one theory and require a new one.

Yes and you use them a lot, there for you use faith that theory’s are real

The bible may have a few accurate things, but for the wrong reasons.

It is correct occasionally by mere chance, or as you would put it, by divinity. To have a rational outlook, which is what I look to science for, everything MUST be tested rationally. Through experimentation, observation, and rigor, through peer review and exhaustively repeated tests, and through looking for evidence of all varieties, not just those that confirm my expected viewpoint.

I have, I find it highly unlikely that there is no greater thing at work.

I won't ever tell you you're wrong about God, because I don't know that. I don't know that I'm right. I'm not concerned about it. I'm concerned with doing what's right while I'm alive. Where I go after that is book keeping. It is not faith to say E=MC^2, if this equation has proven to be reliable in many widespread applications. 95% of the technology you are using right now is based on scientific theory, including quantum mechanics and other things that boil my brain. It's not faith for me to say, "Hey, my computer monitor works because of chemical reactions and electricity," despite not being able to directly detect it with my senses. I know this is true by means of education, math, and the knowledge that engineers can make millions of monitors based on that education and that math.

I can say that God made this do that and do this, and him making the electonics
and it works
how do you know that’s why it works, anymore then me?
I am educated that God is real
I can deduce by sheer improbity its most likely something made us, and the knowledge that even 50 years ago people where saying (enter person in bible) was not real and there was no proof and now there is.

We share the same idea’s test over and over, I have and I have found it to be the most likely case in something you can not prove nor disprove till death

[zzfallens]

Then if 'god made everything' is rational and probable, so is the thought that a toy car did, or a bowl of spaghetti, or a teapot, or a dragon. If you can claim god created everything without a shred of evidence, then I can say that there is an invisible box of crackers watching over us all. Both are entirely ridiculous.

Also, I like how you said "educated that god is real" meanwhile 90%+ of the academic elite are complete skeptics of religion.