View Poll Results: If you had 1% of all knowlegde do you think that it's possible that in the other 99% god exists?
Absolutley(christian) 5 50.00%
I guess(ignostic) 5 50.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

I think not
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Maybe Lucas is right and we should form a cult around him.

They beat you to it (external - login to view)
 
Ocean Breeze
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeMaybe "we" could start with defining "God". What is "God"...???
Seems there are as many interpretations of this word as there are people.
Is "God" the SOURCE ........of all things??? Is "God" dynamic and constantly changing??? Is the "God" entity a part of and apart from all things???
Toro: agree completely : "Religion" is a man made institution. Perhaps god is life, and all life is an extention of what we can only call "god" just for the lack of a better term. In that case god may exist at the molecular level, very very small. After all what is the force that makes the elements organize themselves into certain compounds, and under the right conditions can grow into more complex things as time goes on?????
If that's the case the universe may not be gods at all but as life starting from the molecular level, we're just a way for god to reach out and explore what's out there.

Quote has been trimmed
not too shabby. like your thinking. exploring the abstract...
 
Toro
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

...what basis do you have for this belief?

I take issue with this comment from the article.

Quote:

The fact is that the human mind cannot conceive of a spiritual existence. We cannot grasp the thought of life apart from matter. Whatever lives, must have material form. All nature denies that there can be spirit where there is no substance. If reason and experience count for anything, we are forced to the conclusion that those who say that God has neither "body, parts nor passions," simply give expression to what they do not know. God is either something or nothing. If he is something, he must have a body--he must be material. If God thinks, he must have a brain. If he feels, he must have nerves. There is, there can be, no thought apart from brain; and there can be no sensation, no feeling, where there are no nerves. Again, a brain and a nervous system cannot be conceived of apart from a stomach. Whatever lives must eat. No exception to this rule can be imagined. We can reason only from what we know. But how can a being having a body and a brain, a nervous system and digestive organs, be conceived of as a God? How can a being that bears the form of man, or of any other Creature, be infinite in power and in knowledge?

Repeat

Quote:

The fact is that the human mind cannot conceive of a spiritual existence.

The premise for this argument are the limits of the human mind. Because the human mind cannot comprehend it, it must not exist. Otherwise, one must assume that the limit of the human mind is omniscience. I doubt that.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Nothing I have experienced in my life can be attributed to anything divine...no feeling or sensation would I interpret as being a communication from God...everything I've felt, seen or done has had valid physiological, or psychological relevance that precludes divine intervention...

You're internalizing the argument. The fact that you have not had a religious experience leads you to conclude there is no God. That's fine. I can't argue with your personal experience. We all need a basis for our beliefs. But recognize that others have had a feeling or sensation of the existence of God or a spiritual being. The experience others have had but you lack is the basis for many people's belief.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

So...prove that your God does exist, and I'll shut up about it...

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. You either believe it or you don't.

And no one's asking you to shut up. Its your prerogative to ask such questions.
 
Vanni Fucci
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. You either believe it or you don't.

So, from your statement above, it would appear that God only exists if you believe in him.

Seems the almighty is more dependent on you than you are on him...

...or her, as it were...
 
Vanni Fucci
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

I take issue with this comment from the article.
Quote: The fact is that the human mind cannot conceive of a spiritual existence. We cannot grasp the thought of life apart from matter. Whatever lives, must have material form. All nature denies that there can be spirit where there is no substance. If reason and experience count for anything, we are forced to the conclusion that those who say that God has neither "body, parts nor passions," simply give expression to what they do not know. God is either something or nothing. If he is something, he must have a body--he must be material. If God thinks, he must have a brain. If he feels, he must have nerves. There is, there can be, no thought apart from brain; and there can be no sensation, no feeling, where there are no nerves. Again, a brain and a nervous system cannot be conceived of apart from a stomach. Whatever lives must eat. No exception to this rule can be imagined. We can reason only from what we know. But how can a being having a body and a brain, a nervous system and digestive organs, be conceived of as a God? How can a being that bears the form of man, or of any other Creature, be infinite in power and in knowledge?Repeat
Quote: The fact is that the human mind cannot conceive of a...

Quote has been trimmed
Actually, it took me a few reads to dig what he was saying...

What he's saying is that we, as humans, have no frame of reference for a divine being, and so must resort to the fantastic...
 
Jo Canadian
#36
Quote:

The fact that you have not had a religious experience leads you to conclude there is no God.

I'm wondering what constitutes a religious expierience? Every religion has it's symbolism that they relate to religious experiences, but that would only lead to the conclusion that there are more "gods" then if each culture has its own homegrown version of their religious expierience. I've even experienced a few strange things that would be considered supernateral, but there was no religious context with it... no I wasn't on anything at the time either.

This all just reminds me of a cartoon I saw where this priest dies and when entering the classic heaven there he finds Ptah the egyptian god looking none too happy, and the priest saying "****"
 
Toro
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

So, from your statement above, it would appear that God only exists if you believe in him.

Seems the almighty is more dependent on you than you are on him...

...or her, as it were...

No. What I'm saying is that, at present, mankind can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. The fact that man cannot prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. To give a scientific analogy, 200 years ago, mankind could not prove that electrons existed. Yet that did not mean electrons did not exist. I recognize that the existence of God is seemingly irrational to those who otherwise did not witness great religious events, i.e. the Ressurection. But I also recognize the limits of the human mind.

edited one word
 
Vanni Fucci
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

No. What I'm saying is that, at present, mankind can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

One can hardly fault us for that, as God has not done such a bang up job of proving his own existence...

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

I recognize that the existence of God is seemingly irrational to those who otherwise did not witness great religious events, i.e. the Ressurection.

...and you've been privy to some of these religious events then?

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? (external - login to view)
 
Vanni Fucci
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

This all just reminds me of a cartoon I saw where this priest dies and when entering the classic heaven there he finds Ptah the egyptian god looking none too happy, and the priest saying "****"

That reminds me of Rowan Atkinson's standup where he's playing the devil...

www.geocities.com/TimesSquare.../atkinson.html (external - login to view)

Anyway, did you know that the High Priest of Amun was Imhotep (external - login to view) and that he was deified as the "son of Ptah"...

A remarkable man was Imhotep, and deserving of deification, in my opinion...
 
Reverend Blair
#40
Quote:

No. What I'm saying is that, at present, mankind can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

By the rules of science, it is up to those who believe in a god to prove the existence that god. It is not up to the rest of us to disprove that existence.
 
Toro
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

...and you've been privy to some of these religious events then?

Haha, no. What I should have said was

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

I recognize that the existence of God is seemingly irrational to those skeptical who otherwise did not witness great religious events, i.e. the Ressurection.

i.e. those of you who need more than faith.
 
jimmoyer
#42
Does stupidity know what it sees ?

Does a pet or animal know really who we are ?

Will the robot race we create remember who we were ?

Has there ever been a creator who has fully known the consequences of its creation, its future possibilities ?
 
Toro
#43
Vanni, as I read your links with the cogent arguments I am reminded of the fairly prominent British philosopher who who was an ardent atheist and spent his academic career refuting the existence of God but recanted a year or two ago saying that the existence of God was possible. He may have died but I can't remember. Anybody remember his name?
 
Vanni Fucci
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Does stupidity know what it sees ?

Does a pet or animal know really who we are ?

Will the robot race we create remember who we were ?

Has there ever been a creator who has fully known the consequences of its creation, its future possibilities ?

So you are saying that you are either the pet of a deity, or its slave...

Thank you, but I will not submit to either notion...
 
Jo Canadian
#45
Quote:

A remarkable man was Imhotep, and deserving of deification, in my opinion...

Besides being a priest, the only thing of significance I know of a man named Imhotep is that he was the first in history to create a free standing pillar. Before that all pillars in architecture were attatched to walls. Well I guess I wasn't sleeping through my art history classes.
 
jimmoyer
#46
Vanni !!

Sheeesh.

You blithely breeze past the different nature of each of those questions.
 
Dexter Sinister
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

... I believe this is known as Pascal's Dilemna.

Pascal's Wager, actually, and it can be criticized on many grounds. First, there's the "many Gods" argument: which God are you going to choose to believe in? Thor? Jupiter? Yaweh? There are thousands, and if you pick the wrong one you're in just as much trouble as a non-believer, assuming some God exists. Second, how dumb do we suppose this God we've chosen to believe in is? You think he's not going to know how you really feel? I doubt that belief is really an act of will; you can't simply decide one day to start believing, any God worthy of the name will know perfectly well that you're just cynically trying to get a free ticket to Heaven. Third, it's not true that if you believe in God and there isn't one you've lost nothing. You'll have wasted a good part of your life performing the rituals and devotions associated with belief, discussing your deity with other believers, praying to it, imagining you've got answers from it, you'll probably have donated money to the organization that promotes it, and you'll have bored the crap out of the people you witness to about this non-existent deity.

Try this one instead: It's better to assume there is no God, and do your best to leave the world a better place than you found it. If there's no God, you've lost nothing and done a lot of good. If there is a God, you've got a good case for being judged on your merits and getting into Heaven anyway, subject to certain assumptions about God's benevolence. And if God's not benevolent, it probably doesn't much matter what you do or believe, you'll certainly have done something wrong in your life and He'll get you for it.
 
Vanni Fucci
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Quote:

A remarkable man was Imhotep, and deserving of deification, in my opinion...

Besides being a priest, the only thing of significance I know of a man named Imhotep is that he was the first in history to create a free standing pillar. Before that all pillars in architecture were attatched to walls. Well I guess I wasn't sleeping through my art history classes.

He designed the pyramid of Saqqara, which is believed to be the first pyramid ever...
 
Vanni Fucci
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Vanni !!

Sheeesh.

You blithely breeze past the different nature of each of those questions.

Well they were silly questions...
 
Vanni Fucci
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Try this one instead: It's better to assume there is no God, and do your best to leave the world a better place than you found it. If there's no God, you've lost nothing and done a lot of good. If there is a God, you've got a good case for being judged on your merits and getting into Heaven anyway, subject to certain assumptions about God's benevolence. And if God's not benevolent, it probably doesn't much matter what you do or believe, you'll certainly have done something wrong in your life and He'll get you for it.

Excellent response Dex...as always...
 
jimmoyer
#51
Gotta agree with you Dexter Sinister, Pascal's bet is a simplistic one, almost on the lines of a syllogism.

I'm interested in the concept of a creator, and so far any experience you or I have ever had of a creator of any type (artist, writer, scientist, ideologist, etc) had no idea where his creation would lead, what consequences such a creation would initiate.

The idea here, is that it is very possible to logically deduce that no creator of any kind can ever predict the future of its creation, or it consequences.

Dr Frankenstein, take note !!!

This idea of a creator as described above rids of us of the contradiction of free will and fate that our old notions of a creator imply.
 
jimmoyer
#52
And Vanni, the one question about the future robot race we are sure to create, will dimly remember who we were, but this new race will know we were the
creator(s).

Historical amnesia, and the incompleteness of understanding the feelings of the past will still haunt us even in this evolving information age.

Just another aside to battle the old notions of a creator that cause so much difficulty between those of faith and those without.
 
Vanni Fucci
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Just another aside to battle the old notions of a creator that cause so much difficulty between those of faith and those without.

...and which creator would this be?

The one that poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago?

...or the one that poofed the universe into existence and then turned on the evolutionary cruise control?
 
JDream
#54
3rd choice for me.
 
Ocean Breeze
#55
Quote:

...or the one that poofed the universe into existence and then turned on the evolutionary cruise control?




IF one REALLY has to choose....

(love your phrasing here , Vanni
 
Jo Canadian
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Quote:

A remarkable man was Imhotep, and deserving of deification, in my opinion...

Besides being a priest, the only thing of significance I know of a man named Imhotep is that he was the first in history to create a free standing pillar. Before that all pillars in architecture were attatched to walls. Well I guess I wasn't sleeping through my art history classes.

He designed the pyramid of Saqqara, which is believed to be the first pyramid ever...

Yup, I forgot about that one too. Greece wouldn't have been the same without his influence. Now their Pantheon of Gods were much more interesting than what we have going today. They partied, cajoled, and screwed anything that could move.
 
jimmoyer
#57
The pendulum swings of human thought is one reaction and over-reaction after another, and so it was a very novel idea to come up with a God that was above all of the petty human rivalries and its attendant comedy that so described the Greek crowd of Gods.
 
Vanni Fucci
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

The pendulum swings of human thought is one reaction and over-reaction after another, and so it was a very novel idea to come up with a God that was above all of the petty human rivalries and its attendant comedy that so described the Greek crowd of Gods.

But how is G_d/God/Allah/Etc. any different than the many that came before...why is your god more valid than the gods of the Greek, the Norsemen, the Egyptians or the Babylonians?

Many gods have come and gone throughout antiquity, some lasting far longer than those of Christianity...and yet most Christians believe that theirs is the true path...never considering the possibility that theirs is just an extrapolation of some ancient folklore that became mythologized over time...

Jim, you've stated that you too believe that religion is a man-made construct, so my question to you is this:

If the Old and New Testaments of the Bible were made up by religious concerns to promote God and Jesus, why should we not also believe that religion made up God and Jesus? The seed of deception is already there, so why stop short of creating gods to promote their religion? Given the fact that the scientific and archaeological evidence is strongly against much of what the bible claims as fact, this is a more likely scenario than what religion would propose...

It's faith that keeps people believing in something that is indefensible, as to the faithful, the prospect of breaking faith comes at the risk of perdition...

Absolute faith in anyone or anything begins as a transition from the voluntary to the involuntary, and culminates to the submission of choice...
 
Toro
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

... I believe this is known as Pascal's Dilemna.

Pascal's Wager, actually,

Yes. Thank you.
 
Slurpie
#60
This is my opinion and you don't have to agree.

Maybe you don't beleive in god because something you want happn(maybe prayed for) didn't happen or maybe something didn't go your way and you thought that you couln't trust god because you thought he deceived you. You're practically saying god do this! Do you think that it's his will for bad things to happen? Oh and whoever said that god was just a way of putting the blame on him- where did you get that idea? oh and jesus died for our sins doesn't mean that your forgiven so why not sin as much as you want!

ok if you don't think god exists then why are we alive? how were things created? oh and god did create the world in 6 days but who says that a day for us is a day for god.(one day could have been a million years!)

here's a site that has some proof www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm (external - login to view) (just copy and past)

anyway don't start judging me and thinking-o boy here comes some crazy person.

i'd like to hear a specific reason why someone doesn't beleive in god.
 
no new posts