#Proof Of God

1 messages · Page 8 of 1

ornate knoll
#

How can we have anything other than faith if we can never know something for certain. You can argue to say, ‘something is so probable that I we call it knowledge, but when you look at the big picture, don’t we realize we know barely anything and can only operate out of faith? Whether it’s weak faith or solid faith.

night remnant
#

I don't look at god in today's society as a 'need' but as an inevitability. I think it's the way our minds are structured @late glade we may be saying the same thing ultimately

limber meadow
#

So you are not technically in control of your beliefs.. You can say "I believe this banana is blue" But in your heart you believe differently. Can you get a free pass to heaven by saying 'God, I believe in you' even if deep inside you don't believe it

late glade
#

It fills the gap in our knowledge of phenomena we cannot explain such as what we call the Big Bang

heavy abyss
worn dawn
limber meadow
#

I am just curious because the 'choose to believe in god to be saved' thing is confusing. Since I can't actually choose what to believe, I can choose what I pretend to believe but ultimately belief isn't something I feel you have control over

#

You examine what is most likely and your beliefs form around that

heavy abyss
# limber meadow I am just curious because the 'choose to believe in god to be saved' thing is co...

Interesting point to make. You have complete control over your beliefs . God gave us free will. Pete here is living proof of it. And your second statement is incorrect. You form beliefs and conform the world to match that belief . And this is where I have to drop my strong fight because people will point out that I have conformed my world to my belief. I was not conforming the world because God had specifically designed it so that humankind would see him in the world, in creation. “Choose to believe in God” (Capital G) to be saved” is confusing? It’s quite straightforward . I believe in God. I believe that his word is true and that I’m going to Heaven. Done

ornate knoll
heavy abyss
#

Faith is a step to repentance. You first must believe you are wrong before asking God how to do right

limber meadow
#

I can't force myself to believe something. I don't believe I can jump 30 feet in the air and if I had complete control over my beliefs I would be able to make myself believe that

#

I would have to be delusional at that point tbh

ornate knoll
#

Proof is nothing but a strong tested and well analyzed faith.

heavy abyss
night remnant
#

I looked through my heart and into this system of belief.
Came across this

#

I think I'm happy where I am

ornate knoll
#

Dreaming the future and freedom of expression are both necessary for getting closer to the truth or to god/God. Whether opinions differ, we need to respect each others opinions and beliefs while at the same time giving reasonable explanations why we believe things.

late glade
#

This is why I said earlier this is a divisive question...insults thrown across each side now haha

limber meadow
#

Most places avoid discussing politics or religion... but we should be free to discuss these things, and be able to do is respectfully

heavy abyss
late glade
#

for sure

icy gale
ornate knoll
# night remnant I looked through my heart and into this system of belief. Came across this

We don’t need catholicism to be closer to god. I 100% agree that I would not associate myself with an organization which creates a space for these atrocities Pete. I don’t go to catholic church. But I do recognize many of the prophets and philosophers of the past as role models. And Jesus was one of them. But I don’t need to subscribe to disagreeable religions that don’t correlate with my values. I can follow my purpose in my heart with help from the wisdoms of past and present.

fierce cargo
# night remnant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

This is an issue with poor church leadership. Churches oftenttimes are wanting to fill a position so quickly that they don't bother to assure the individual they hire will be a true shepherd of God's flock. Furthermore, we have a serious issue of rooting out the bad in our own assembly, and correctly purging from within, especially when it pertains to leaders. This is especially an issue with the Catholic Church, where church leaders are almost (absolutely incorrectly so) placed of equal importance with God. Like, church members are encouraged to confess their sins to the priests instead of directly to God, which believers are enabled to do now, since Jesus Christ opened the door to allowing literally anyone to do so.

Also, side note, I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church, not just for that, but for how they overlook Jesus Christ and supplant him with human beings that should point to Christ, not be worshipped as Christ.

heavy abyss
ornate knoll
# fierce cargo This is an issue with poor church leadership. Churches oftenttimes are wanting t...

Sure, and if I can add, it is not only bad leadership but also bad translation and bad concepts. It can be rationalized that the problem with child abuse is correlated with abstinence. If Jesus who was a deep deep thinking and incredibly strong willed and faithful person, and that he had his reasons for abstinence (whether it is true if he actually never had sexual intercourse or whether he stopped having). It would be foolish to ‘force’ leadership in the church to quickly attain the exploits of will that Jesus may have done.

late glade
#

This is why I believe the best model for politics (which includes how a church structures itself and governs its constituents) is one that has many checks and balances on power becoming centralized. The power structure should be diffuse both within a nation and within a church such as the Catholic church which represents a massive population worldwide. With any centralization of power, comes tyranny and all sorts of other atrocities such as the above example.

The point of religion should be to humble yourself before God, never to elevate yourself above others. Claiming that one can become of a status nearer to God (such as is the structure of the Catholic church at least in the pope) is taking away from the value of humility

fierce cargo
# ornate knoll Sure, and if I can add, it is not only bad leadership but also bad translation a...

The Bible requires church leaders (in this case, pastors or "priests") to be married. In 1 Timothy 3 verses 2, 4 and 5 for starters, it says " A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach... one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)"

sonic field
#

Which is exactly why I follow-up wirh: good to ask these type of questions if they make sense in your head.

But I always expect some base level of knowledge when someone starts to address a certain topic.

Questions can be stupid, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask them. I always want to encourage people to ask questions.. but maybe that was not clear enough

inner shale
#

The evil atheist

#

The title is just a hook

I’m using “proof” in the colloquial sense
People claim to have good reason to believe in a god and I have never heard what I believe to be a good reason
This forum is for people to discuss and give their reasons for their belief

#

Oh God 😂

heavy abyss
inner shale
#

Oh my god

#

This whole time

#

I didn’t realize

#

I’m admitting it

#

I gotta convert

heavy abyss
#

Yeah nice try baiting me.

inner shale
#

?😅

#

Just tryna add some humor no need for hostility

heavy abyss
#

This is a serious matter. You don’t take God lightly

inner shale
#

But god is massless no?
Doesn’t that mean he is light

#

He weighs nothing

#

You shouldn’t take god heavily

heavy abyss
#

Are you massless?

#

Serious question

ornate knoll
ornate knoll
# inner shale The title is just a hook I’m using “proof” in the colloquial sense People claim...

One of the main reasons for attaining that belief is so that your purpose, goals, etc may better align with most other forces of the universe. It seems to be the same reason scientists and others seek to understand the world around them and beyond. To me it’s simple to understand the general idea when put that way. Definitely not easy to attain it more and more where others havent like in the latest discoveries of science.

sonic field
#

Now I'm curious, what leap of logic do you have to make to go from: ''the bible exists'' to ''god exists''. Now suppose we assume the dead sea scrolls are real historical artifacts of an early bible., I will grant you that and not debate on this. Then that would still not logically follow for god to be true...

If some archeologist in 2000 years from now finds a book about a wizard that got scarred because someone tried to kill him as a baby, and now he is in school learning to become a powerful wizard, that doesn't make the story TRUE. Are you actually trying to claim that because something was written down a long time ago, it has to be true? And if you don't believe in that, than you are ''blinded by the devil''. What kind of rhetoric is that even?

There is no logical reasoning in your argument here. It goes like this: Some text exists. The text is old. Therefore it proves god.... How do you even go from, ''the text is old'' to ''it proves god''. This is only true for you because it confirms something that you already believe (confirmation bias), yet there is no logical reason to jump to this conclusion.

Furthermore, you can make this argument for pretty much any religion in the world. What about hinduism? It has texts that are much, much older than the dead sea scrolls. Does that make hinduism true aswell?

heavy abyss
# sonic field Now I'm curious, what leap of logic do you have to make to go from: ''the bible ...

I don’t think you are very educated in the argument you are making. The fact is that the Dead Sea Scrolls were openly discussed as true. Those documents were the writing of the gospels. If you cannot comprehend archeological evidence that lines up with the logistical timelines (thus disproves your poor analogy of Harry Potter) then you are blinded. As far as Hinduism, I don’t think we have definitive accounts on any religions except early Christianity and a pitiful argument about Buddhism. Also on your argument of proving God, humans have a dormant desire to have a relationship with God. The text is the Bible. That’s undisputed. The leap I make is there were witnesses to these acts that passed them down from family member to family member. Also, on a note of clarification , what is your version of creation?

heavy abyss
# sonic field Now I'm curious, what leap of logic do you have to make to go from: ''the bible ...

Also, if something is written in undisputed nonfiction, there’s an even stronger argument. Another hole in whatever false reality you created is that Buddha never actually documents anything. And I know why. But don’t you think it’s a little sketch to take truth from the word on the street? The Bible is clear in the fact that specific actions happened. Buddha just disappeared into nature. People saw Jesus die. People saw him come back. Anyone who doesn’t believe in God denies their own existence. Also, ok look. If you are going to call crud on the Dead Sea Scrolls, I’ll have you discount any other religious document for your own argument. You are killing your own argument trying to dispute mine. The Bible exists. The Bible was written by God. Other religions do not have a slightly reasoned beginning to the world. God does.

late glade
heavy abyss
#

In addition, the Bible is clearly nonfiction. Harry Potter is obviously fiction. The Bible gives a fathomable, well reasoned, and comprehend able account to creation vs “ It exploded out of nothing”

#

We’ve already proved the Dead Sea Scrolls . You conceded your argument. What are you doing with your life? Find God

sonic field
# heavy abyss I don’t think you are very educated in the argument you are making. The fact is ...

I already told you, I grant you the DSS to be real. Still does not mean anything for proving religion, or specifically christianity.

Accepting any historical text to be true, you need to come with good arguments for who wrote it, where it was written, in what context was written, if there is any cause/effect relationships, compare competing narratives etc etc. Just because the timelines match up doesn't make it true.

I'm not debating on what is in the DSS, whether that is the bible or not. I grant you all of that. My point is that it still does not logically follow from there that god exists or even that christianity is ''right''.

The bible exists
I agree

The bible was written by god
I disagree

Other religions do not have a slightly reasoned beginning to the world
I agree

God does.
I disagree.

See, you call me blinded, yet you are so convinced of ''your'' religion being true, that you don't even hold your religion or religious texts to the same standard as you hold others.

heavy abyss
heavy abyss
sonic field
# heavy abyss Also, if something is written in undisputed nonfiction, there’s an even stronger...

I don't know where all of this ''Buddha'' comes from, but I surely didn't start that.

The Bible is clear in the fact that specific actions happened
Very true, and a lot of those things are regarded as pure fiction by everyone outside of a small group of orthodox christians...

People saw Jesus die.
I agree

People saw him come back
I disagree.

Anyone who doesn’t believe in God denies their own existence
I don't... See, this is the problem I am having. You are trying to put words into the mouths of anyone who disagrees with you. ''You don't believe what I am believing, therefore you deny your own existence'' NO, I can exist without your religion just fine, I don't need that ...

Again, i am not arguing that the DSS are wrong, or incorrect or don't exist. I am merely stating that even though they exist, that does not prove anything with regards to the (non-)existance of a god, or of your god specifically

sonic field
heavy abyss
#

I even read the story of Buddha and reasoned it from an unbiased perspective. I’ve been lost and thought there was no God. I look into these things. Your argument fails to address critical evidence that makes you incoherent

sonic field
#

Again, you talking about budha

#

what about buddha

#

budhism isnt even a religion as they don't believe in a god....

heavy abyss
#

Intresting . They do

sonic field
#

OK, now im just starting to think you are a troll lmao. You are not adressing my points, you are clearly making fun of yourself by claiming buddhists believe in a god... What comes next, you are going to deny evolution?

#

Sure, some buddhists do believe in a deity, but god is not an inherent part of buddhism

heavy abyss
# sonic field explain?

You said religion . Every believes in something. You cannot exist without God because a higher power has to exist. No other religion addresses that. Science proves that there is an entity above us

sonic field
#

Why are we even talking about buddhism in the first place...?

heavy abyss
sonic field
sonic field
#

you are making al lot of claims, but never do you actually explain the basis for these claims

heavy abyss
#

Dude. Get off the keyboard and let me respond

sonic field
#

sure

heavy abyss
#

You cannot exist without God because a higher power has to exist. There are no other clear creators. Science proves it. The human body is so incomprehensible because something made it so intricate and detailed that it cannot be random. Punnet square don’t make sense because you can’t apply logic to the human body. Someone had to have a perfect sense of how to make a body. Everything is exactly how it should be. Go throw a bunch of boxes in a recycling bin and make a square. Someone has to ACT. Science proves God exists because a single cell has everything it needs. It doesn’t have half a membrane, or a dysfunctional nucleus, it doesn’t have anything off about it, the Cytoplasm doesn’t choke anything out or slide out the cell. Your body is too complex to be random. I’m disabled, that means I shouldn’t be able to function. Something had to change and you can’t count your birth as random. How did planets stay in the orbit? How did gravity appear. You see, you dive into the most basic logistical concepts and people fail to understand how it came to be. Evolution says people were created from other life forms. How did those come to exists? How did their predecessors come to exist? You trace the most basic things back and you find indisputable evidence that something is above us. No other logical solution explains why things happen. No other solutions tell you why you are here. I know I probably left out some points so feel free to ask for clarification . I truly believe your heart has been hardened and I’m sad to feel it

sonic field
#

You cannot exist without God because a higher power has to exist.
Again a claim with no explanation. I want to know why you believe that god has to exist in order for me to exist...

There are no other clear creators.
But this is reasoning from a point of view that a creator has to exist in the first place, which I don't even agree with. Why is there a need for a creator? There is nothing that we observe within the universe that requires a creator for it to be able to exist.

Someone had to have a perfect sense of how to make a body.
For what, life to exist? That doesn't make sense.. The body is not perfect at all. Life is flawed in so many ways, which is precisely one of the arguments for the existence of evolution. Because evolution tells us life only has to be good enough, and it doesn't have to be perfect at all...

Science proves God exists because a single cell has everything it needs. It doesn’t have half a membrane, or a dysfunctional nucleus, it doesn’t have anything off about it, the Cytoplasm doesn’t choke anything out or slide out the cell.
But this whole argument still does not say anything about god, let alone ''prove'' god exists...

Your body is too complex to be random.
So we finally get to the point. So you are making the watchmaker argument here. ''Life looks complex, therefore it must be designed.'' Also, I don't think you meant to say random, because there is nothing random about naturalism, although this is a common misconcept. If you for a second assume there is not a god, but everything is governed by physical processes, that by definition is a universe that can inherently not be random, since it is governed by physical processes. Life formed because it is a faster way of reaching higher entropy compared to life not being there. Life creating from non-life is actually expected in that sense. But yeah, the watchmaker argument has been debated on for hundreds of years now and im not going to go into that now...

#

I’m disabled, that means I shouldn’t be able to function.
I'm sorry to hear that. Though it doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to function, why would you even say/think that..?

#

. Something had to change and you can’t count your birth as random.
No, nothing in this universe is inherently random, whether you believe a god exists or not. Either way, nothing is random...

heavy abyss
heavy abyss
sonic field
#

How did planets stay in the orbit?
Gravity..?

How did gravity appear. You see, you dive into the most basic logistical concepts and people fail to understand how it came to be.
This is actually the first point i think is actually sound. It touches on the idea that some things we observe in the universe we cannot readily explain. Now your solution is to go to the ''god of the gaps'' and say, ''well we don't know, therefore it must have been god''. Or at least something along those lines. I am just straight up going to be honest with you. We (science) don't know where gravity comes from. There are multiple theories, but none of them can be proven as of now.

Evolution says people were created from other life forms.
Well no, people were created from people. Evolution doesn't say anything about people being created from other life forms. What even do you mean with a life form. Sounds strangely familiar to ''kind of animal''. Evolution is a process whereby there are slight changes to populations over time. These changes can accumulate and give rise to new properties etc. No human came from a monkey, that is just a plain misrepresentation of the concept of evolution.

How did their predecessors come to exist?
You are not going to like it, but the answer is evolution...

You trace the most basic things back and you find indisputable evidence that something is above us.
Well see, this is where we actually are fundamentally disagreeing. I look back into the most basic things, and think ''huh that's interesting''. But never ever does a thought cross my mind that ''something had to create this''. Why do you even assume something must be created for it in order to exist. And following your own logic: If you go back and determine god must exist because it had to create everything, then who/what created god?

heavy abyss
#

You find yourself in a problem

sonic field
#

No other logical solution explains why things happen. No other solutions tell you why you are here.
Well actually there are plenty of solutions that explain how/why things happen and/or why we are here, you just don't happen to accept them, that's all..

I truly believe your heart has been hardened and I’m sad to feel it
And I truly believe that you have been misguided on the topic of science, and I am sad to see that .. 😦

heavy abyss
#

I see where your problem with the existence of God is

sonic field
heavy abyss
#

Most people immediately ask “well how did God come to exist?” And this is where this argument ends.

sonic field
heavy abyss
#

I’m typing

sonic field
#

Sure, i was just responding to messages you typed a while ago

heavy abyss
#

This is where this argument ends. What is above God? How was God created?

#

The issue here is that God wasn’t created. He just was

dire dagger
#

It's cool to see you guys debating so much about whether I exist.

sonic field
#

OK, so here is what I don't understand about theists or religion in general. How can it be so hard for you to accept that the universe can just exist without the need for a creator, but then when the same logic/argument is applied to the deity itself, you all seem to accept that it is there without a creator? Like, why would you accept the one but not the other? It really does not make sense to me...

The universe could have existed for eternity for all we know, there is no way to actually measure something like that

sonic field
dire dagger
#

yes, now kneel...

heavy abyss
#

This proves my entire argument. There is nothing above God. Humans cannot comprehend anything outside of the current powers. So naturally we attribute it to something higher. You cannot accept God because you don’t think anything that high. Our brains were created inferior to Supreme Power (or omnipotence) so naturally anything that is given all powers is immediately incomprehensible to a human. Something designed this world perfectly and made us intelligent. However , it is entirely impossible to create something stronger than ourself. Therefore, you cannot actually understand God to his full capacity. People have tried. They can’t. God has to exist because something had to create this. But that doesn’t mean something had to be above it. The humanistic theory doesn’t make sense because of this. In sum , you cannot comprehend God. I’m sorry no one here understands this but we are not made to understand . We are made to trust.

#

@dire dagger check DMs

dire dagger
#

I'm right here and a bit high, yes.

#

proof

sonic field
#

This proves my entire argument.
It proves nothing other than you have confirmation bias (just like all other humans on earth)

Humans cannot comprehend anything outside of the current powers.
So if we cannot comprehend it, how is it that you seem to think like you do comprehend? Isnt that a direct contradiction?

You cannot accept God because you don’t think anything that high.
No i don't accept god because religion is a flawed institute and it is not required for anything...

Something designed this world perfectly and made us intelligent
Bold claims to make. I don't think this world is perfect and i believe we are far from intelligent. Sure compared to a lot of other organisms we could say humans are intelligent, but we do so much shit that is against our own interest, that I wholeheartedly believe that we are not nearly as intelligent as an organism could be. We just have no point of reference.

Anyway, i see this isn't going anywhere. I am sad to see you are this indoctrinated and are not open for an actual discussion. You are sadly only here to show your point of view, but not to actually try to understand the POV of someone else. I would hope that you would learn some more about the world and the universe in your future if you would like. It is obvious to me you have little to no understanding of the natural world around us. This is fine, i have little to no understanding of your religion, so that's only fair. All i hope for is that at some point in your life, you will know what I know and you will understand my pov. You don't have to agree with me ever, but I would love that you would at least understand... 🙂

dire dagger
#

love that you're putting so much effort into discussing about me.

heavy abyss
sonic field
#

lmao so you are a troll

#

why did i waste my time on this

heavy abyss
#

I don’t find this a waste of time

sonic field
#

you just admitted to not even wanting to understand the other side of the discussion and you are saying you don't feel its a waste of time in pretty much the same breath of air

heavy abyss
#

Ok and?

sonic field
#

how is that not wasting time lmao

#

anyway, one final question then im off

#

how much formal education do you have, in particular things like chemistry, physics etc?

heavy abyss
heavy abyss
sonic field
# heavy abyss EES H

i dont understand what that means, mind you, im not from NA, nor am i native english speaker

heavy abyss
#

@dire dagger any guesses?

sonic field
#

but i assume it means something like ''nothing''

#

which would make sense

heavy abyss
#

Earth Environmental Science Honors. Also World Religion

#

Both are not concerns to the world

dire dagger
heavy abyss
#

😂

sonic field
#

ok ty for answering. I hope some day you will become more curious about the world and how everything works, until then, good luck with your worldview, hope it serves you well

heavy abyss
#

Oh and one more thing

dire dagger
#

ez, worldview looking up at me mhm

heavy abyss
dire dagger
late glade
#

I think to have a meaningful discussion with someone who believes something different than you, you have to at the outset disarm yourself of your own preconceived 'truths'. You have to lay down your cards on the table face up and be fully willing to pick up the cards that the person opposite you laid down if they end up being better than your own hand at the end of the discussion. If you believe your hand is the best (your perspective and rationale the strongest) then you should be fully confident that you will be picking up your hand at the end of the debate.

This is what it means to be open-minded and thinking critically, fully willing to put your ideas to every test and strain from opposing points of view.

These terms oughta be agreed upon by both parties before hand and discussing philosophy seriously requires you to be willing to have your mind changed. Going in without this mindset suggests insecurity in your own position's validity.

Just some advice I try to follow as well.

icy gale
#

The problem with that is that it works with most philosophical questions but not so much with the question 'Does God exist?'

Since we know we can't (scientifically) proof it, there is nothing concrete to discuss and other than explaining why you think it (doesn't) exist.

heavy abyss
#

And now we are trying to prove that we can try to prove that God exists 🤦🏻‍♂️

icy gale
#

Okay let me rephrase, we can certainly give reasons as to why we think God exists, but there is no 'hard' proof

#

That's just the reality of faith

night remnant
heavy abyss
#

Eh well you know, first legit debate never goes well

heavy abyss
sonic field
#

Well at least we live our lives the way it makes us happy instead of constantly living in fear of "whatever happens after death"

#

Kinda sad you are so afraid of the deity you believe in, but so long as you are not open to any other thoughts, not much we can do..

inner shale
icy gale
late glade
inner shale
sonic field
icy gale
#

Yeah in that case it doesn't make sense

late glade
#

Understandable that people get heated on such a topic but if you're genuinely trying to change somebody's mind then first try to empathize and consider your own bias

sonic field
#

I've seen it IRL countless times, growing up in the bible belt of my respective country

#

Most of them don't even consider the idea of what if there is no heaven / hell, since that means they lived their lives basically for nothing... which only strengthens their belief since they want to belief more

sonic field
inner shale
#

😆

#

Better than worshipping a dictator for eternity 😆

icy gale
#

But yeah, I still think this whole question is stupid, faith is inherently not something you can proof

#

That's what makes it faith

fierce cargo
late glade
ornate knoll
#

I don't understand why it's so difficult for some to conceive, not the full nature of god, but at least the conviction of some version of it existing?

Everything is created by something else, isn't it?. If you can name me one thing that is not created by something else, perhaps I would consider more the higher probability of there not being some type of god. But that doesn't seem to be the case to me. And if you name something that we don't understand well enough, not knowing what it was created from, that is not describing something that was not created by something else.

Am I dumb? Is there something I'm missing here?

ornate knoll
#

I just hope it's not a thing of someone identifying too much with atheism and their ego making them feel as if their intelligence was threatened by that identity being attacked. It would be refreshing to hear an atheist (if there even are any here) explain their side of their belief instead of attacking the opposite. Why would one believe all of this was not created? I genuinely believe I could be wrong and respect an atheist's view. I would just like to make sure it's founded in some kind of reasoning. Not knowing is fine, but that would be agnosticism.

sonic field
#

They were not interested in a conversation, they were only interested in talking about their own points

inner shale
sharp bobcat
sonic field
# ornate knoll I don't understand why it's so difficult for some to conceive, not the full natu...

No not everything is necessarily created by something else. Take for example energy. Assuning the universe is a closed system, no energy can leave or enter the universe. This means all energy that is here now has always be present and will always be present.

Now I know this is not a satisfying answer, since you are probably wondering "so where does energy come from", and I can't give you the answer. But for me, this is the same problem that we face when looking at god itself:

You can claim that all energy was created by god, but that is only a matter of moving the goalpost. Because now we have a new entity. So where does God come from?

Now there are generally two answers that I get on this question:

  1. I don't know
    Love this answer, I don't either. But then there is no "need" for a god, because we can put this anywhere before arriving to the conclusion of "god made it" and the result is the same. E.g. where does energy come from : I don't know.

  2. God was always there
    OK sure, but if you can assign a property of externality to god (always has been there, was not created) why can't this apply to energy or the universe itself? Why would it be possible for a god to be eternal but not for the universe?

If you want to claim that energy or the universe was created, like Tanyao said, you first have to demonstrate that it is necessary for them to be created in the first place.

I understand the reasoning you give, I just don't like it that you apply this logic to everything except for god itself...

#

I guess this is my biggest question to theists:

How can you accept the quality of eternality for God, but not for anything else?

ornate knoll
ornate knoll
# sonic field No not everything is necessarily created by something else. Take for example ene...

I actually don’t believe I’ve claimed that god could not have been created by something else. My belief is that there are many types of gods. Anything can be a god. But most of the time we talk about ‘the big god’ or ‘a big god’ because it has more weight/purpose.
I asked to name one thing we understand well and that is not created by something else. I don’t know of any. You named something we don’t understand well, one of the things we understand the least. But you haven’t showed me proof of a thing that is not created by something else. You showed me a thing that we are unaware of what created it.

I am ready to claim agnosticism for myself on the origin of all that ever was. But I can also claim faith in a god that would have enough omnipotence for us to venerate it. A god that could be responsible for creating the space for universes to exist. Essentially creating us in the process. Just like a mother and father can be considered gods to the biological cell in the body of their child.

late glade
#

You obviously know what your intentions were when debating, so long as you were honest with yourself about how you approached the discussion don't worry about my comments.

heavy abyss
#

Woah. It got good after I ended my section of yesterday’s debate

late glade
# ornate knoll I actually don’t believe I’ve claimed that god could not have been created by so...

The laws of the universe today governing that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed concerns the physical universe. The origin of the physical universe is still very much unknown. If it appears that time continues on infinitely then it can be reasonably supposed that it had some 'beginning'. What started everything in motion. If everything just was forever in the universe why is anything moving through it? Newton's laws concerning motion and force suggests that an object will only be in motion if some force acted on it.

This is what many people consider to be the Big Bang--that moment that set everything into motion from that point forward, everything today still the result of that initial force. Now consider what could cause such an event, if no physical universe existed before that moment there had to be some force that caused it. This is where philosophers drew the idea of the Primary Mover--a being acting outside the realm of physics in the metaphysical sphere. This is what many believed to be God, I myself tend to believe this line of logic as the best explanation of such an origin. I view God as this primary force, whether a conscious entity or not, the need for us to rationalize all else in the world that follows require us to believe in some metaphysical entity.

#

A quote by Rupert Sheldrake in regards to the Big Bang: "Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation."

#

Such an entity as God does not need an origin because God as a concept operates in the metaphysical sphere which follows no rules of the physical world such as time. God serves as an explanation of our physical universe's origin.

#

This is not claiming any one religion's version of God is completely correct, this position is more closely aligned with Deism actually.

ornate knoll
#

If you imagine the egg in your mother from which you were conceived. If you imagine the things inside that egg whilst the egg is growing. If you imagine they could deduce from where the egg started growing. If you can imagine that the parts in the egg are too short sighted to see where the egg came from.

sonic field
# late glade The laws of the universe today governing that neither matter nor energy can be c...

I want to give some slight nuances to add to this explanation. Since we say the universe is a closed system, and we know from thermodynamics that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it automatically follows all energy that is present now, was also present before the ''big-bang''. The big bang actually only states the beginning of time as we can observe it. It doesn't state anything about the beginning of the universe itself. That is why I am a firm believer that the universe is eternal. It just happens to be the case that from the big-bang with the start of time as we can observe it, all other possible evidence of an earlier universe got wiped out. Sort of like a ''reset-button''. But again, just to be very clear, the big bang is not the start of the universe, it is only the start of time as we can observe it.

Also, you are touching on Newtonian physics, however I would like to suggest that this is actually incorrect. Newtonian physics only work on macroscopic objects, something that definitely did not exist before the big-bang. Even after the big-bang it took quite a while for macroscopic objects to form. Microscopic objects, are governed by quantum interactions that are the result of, ... quanta. These are basically just ''packets'' of energy that happen to look like a particle once you start looking at them.

Another point on the physics is that the big bang did not ''put things in motion''. For motion to happen, some particle, wave or other form of energy has to be able to travel through a medium. In the case of the universe itself, the big bang did not happen in a point, but in all of the universe at the same time. This means there was no space before the big bang, and consequently, space is not moving. From the POV of the universe, there is not a center, and all of space is essentially symmetric in the sense that there are no directions: We live in the center of the universe and simultaneously, the center of the universe is 14.7 billion lightyears away

#

Hence, there is nothing required to set the universe in motion, since it is not moving in the classical description. Space is expanding, but this is only measureable from within the universe. So basically, as inside observers, we see space expanding, but from the outside ''looking in'' (this is not actually possible), nothing is happening and the universe looks the same as it looked before the big bang even started.

#

Now, I fully understand that, to probably most of you, this just sounds like gibberish, and honestly I almost agree. But it is important to understand the nuances and to accept that even though in these debates we generally try to keep it simple, in reality the things we are debating about are really not as simple as we make them out to be.

#

It is just easier to say:

there was nothing
big bang happened
the universe started to expand

--> Much easier for everyone to understand the general idea and about 95% accurate anyways

#

but the debates generally get stuck on these nuances, so i feel like they are important to mention

heavy abyss
#

Also we are just as far as to proving the Big Bang theory as I am convincing you God exists

sonic field
#

i mean, technically yes because in science you cannot proof something

#

you can only proof something in mathematics

sonic field
heavy abyss
heavy abyss
sonic field
heavy abyss
#

@dire dagger you’re missing day 2

sonic field
#

To be clear, the big bang doesn't tell us anything about how energy, space and/or time came into existence

#

it only tries to explain how these things behaved AFTER they got into existence

sonic field
heavy abyss
sonic field
#

but now we just get back at where we were yesterday

#

you say god is eternal, i say the universe is eternal without the need of a god

#

and we are done

heavy abyss
sonic field
#

but the point is that we cannot and will not know ever

#

as it is not observable

heavy abyss
#

Therefore is it not unlikely to think that something could’ve existed outside of observable time?

sonic field
#

Yeah sure, we can only look back about 14.7B years, anything beyond that is just impossible to observe

#

So the universe itself can be 14.7 B years old, or 1000 B years old, or eternal

#

no way of knowing

heavy abyss
#

Not in this life

sonic field
#

all we can say is that it is AT LEAST as old as the observable universe

heavy abyss
#

We can know how old the universe is, we just won’t know while we are here on Earth

sonic field
#

that is a hypothesis, but a very bad one at atht

#

since it is not a testable hypothesis

#

but yeah you can believe that if you want

#

i just think it is silly to believe in things that are untestable or unfalsafiable

heavy abyss
#

I think we all agree upon the fact that we will die at some point in time

sonic field
#

So now im curious whether you can propose an experiment that can test the age of the universe

sonic field
heavy abyss
#

Here. According to almost everyone alive, we all go somewhere when we die forever. Whether it be void, Heaven, or hell, we almost all agree we go somewhere. We will meet again in any logistical scenario

#

When we die, all we be known to us

sonic field
#

Okay stop there

#

I got some questinos

#

questions

heavy abyss
#

Fire away

sonic field
#
  1. According to almost everyone alive
    Are you suggesting that because the majority of people believe something, this suggests that is has to be true?
heavy abyss
#

Well we can’t live on this earth forever, can we?

sonic field
#

well no, people generally get burried or cremated...?

#

but thats not an answer to the question

heavy abyss
#

Ok then

sonic field
#

my question is, do you believe that when a majority of people agree on something, this has to be true?

heavy abyss
#

No

#

Quite literally why this debate began

sonic field
#

Okay, so then, do you agree that it does not matter how many people believe in some form of afterlife for it to be true or not

#

i didnt have this debate with you xd

#

but if you had this already, please show me ill just read it

heavy abyss
sonic field
#

You agree it doesn't matter, or you don't agree?

heavy abyss
#

Sorry misread that

sonic field
#

sorry english is not my first language as i told you so its hard xd

heavy abyss
#

You phrased that backwards

sonic field
#

Ok we agree that whether something is true or not is independent of how many people believe it

#

So we agree that whether an afterlife exists or not, it is irrelevant whether the majority of people believe in an afterlife

sonic field
#

Because the way i read it, it seems like you try to claim that something is true because the majority of people believe it

#

Which we just established is not an actual argument

#

And im not dismissing your statement here, im only dismissing your argument

heavy abyss
#

I didn’t know how to put that into words

sonic field
#

Okay so:

We will meet again in any logistical scenario

This could be true, could not be true but we don't have any way of knowing?

#

But i guess i have a feeling what you are trying to get at

#

But in order to make assumptions on an afterlife, first you have to demonstrate that an afterlife exists

#

or at least make it plausible

#

Because i don't believe in having a soul, so there is not really anything to go into an afterlife...

heavy abyss
sonic field
#

Wow what

#

how

#

It goes against what argument, and how does it go against it?

heavy abyss
#

If your concept of Earth and life revolves around scientific conservation of mass and energy, then that life force must go somewhere. You don’t believe in a soul when you talk about energy and yet it has to exist because our life force isn’t entirely extinguished upon death. There’s scientific evidence to that point

sonic field
#

If your concept of Earth and life revolves around scientific conservation of mass and energy
To me, anything in the universe revolves around energy yes, not just earth, but yeah earth is part of that

then that life force must go somewhere.
I don't understand what you mean with ''life force'' .

#

There’s scientific evidence to that point
To a ''life force'' existing and not ''extinguishing'' after life ends? Because if there is, just let me know and i'll gladly read into it

heavy abyss
#

That’s not even a biblical fact. That’s proven scientific theory

sonic field
heavy abyss
#

Please go into a more detailed explanation of this

sonic field
#

Err, i can try...

So two statements you have to just accept from me :

  1. Energy does not get created nor destroyed
  2. All systems will tend to increase their entropy

(first 2 laws of thermodynamics)

heavy abyss
#

Understood

sonic field
#

So, in the sun there is a lot of hydrogen gas. In the sun, the temperature and pressure is really high, which causes the hydrogen to fuse, and create for example helium.

This process takes a little bit off that mass, and converts that into energy. But wait, i just told you that energy cannot be created..? Well that is because mass IS energy, and we know this through the einstein equation E = mc^ 2.

So some of that mass gets converted into photons (''light particles'' ) that carry some of that energy that was once stored as mass.

These photons radiate outwards and some of them come in contact with the earth, which lets a lot of amazing processes happen. It creates wind, tides, temperature differences etc etc etc. All of these things are low entropic states, that tend to increase their entropy and therefore can ''perform work''.

Furthermore, we have plants, that can actually capture some of those photons and use this low entropic energy to store into chemical bonds between atoms (producing sugars). Now we can eat those plants and convert again this chemical energy (e.g. sugar) into mechanical energy (moving muscles) or heat (metabolism).

So your body doesn't produce energy, it just converts chemical energy into movement and heat

#

If somehting is unclear, let me know

#

And so as long as there is a constant stream of low entropic energy reaching earth, life will exist

#

but the key is that low entropic energy enters the earth, and high entropic energy leaves

heavy abyss
#

Where does the remaining mass go?

sonic field
#

and this difference in entropy between the energy leaving and entering the system earth is what makes pretty much all of the processes on earth happen

sonic field
#

So if two hydrogen atoms fuse, they merge their atomic nuclei to form for example He

#

So part of it just creates a different element

#

most of the mass actually

#

and a very small part of it gets radiated out

heavy abyss
#

You’ve gone entirely beyond what God has allowed my mental capacity to understand

sonic field
#

im sorry

#

I have studied chemistry and theoretical physics combined for a good part of 7 years..

#

Ehm, lets suppose you have two blocks of like clay

#

and you press them really hard together

#

now they will form one new larger block of clay

#

that is basically what is happening

#

but then a very very tiny amount of the clay gets converted into light in the process of merging them

#

But the important thing is that it is not the energy that we get from the sun that makes things happen on earth, because as a matter of fact, approximately the same amount of energy that enters earth also leaves earth in the form of black body radiation

#

it is the low entropic state of the energy that gets to the earth that makes things happen

#

You know this phenomenon as well:

Suppose you heat up a pan of soup and you put a ladle into it. After some time, the heat has traveled from the soup up the ladle

#

So heat moved from a hot part to a cold part

#

It will never move from a cold part to a hot part

#

That is pretty much what entropy is/does

heavy abyss
#

Is this the logistic equal to an ice cube releasing water and water vapor simultaneously ?

sonic field
#

but it is similar to the idea that when you put a block of ice on a room temperature surface, the heat will travel into the ice and the ice will melt

#

the ''vapour'' you see coming from ice is actually just liquid ice forming a dispersion into the air surrounding it

#

But that gets us to another good point

#

If you take water and boil it, it will form water vapour

#

now, does the water vapour stay only around the pot you boiled it in, or does it spread around the room

heavy abyss
#

It spreads around the room, up actually because heat rises

sonic field
#

which is also the result of entropy

#

the air just above the pot of boiling water is at a low entropic state, since it has a high concentration of water compared to its surroundings

#

so naturally, the water will spread out until the concentration is the same everywhere

#

why? Well because all molecules move randomly through the air, but since there is more water molecules close to the pot, there is a higher change of a water molecule moving away from the pot than moving towards the pot

#

so over time it will spread

heavy abyss
sonic field
heavy abyss
#

Quite literal

sonic field
#

as in a chemical reaction?

heavy abyss
#

Yes

#

Fusion

sonic field
#

no not fuse

#

but they would bond

#

those are not the same thing tho

#

fusion is a purely physical reaction

#

chemical bonding is a chemical reaction

#

so if two molecules bump into eachother, there is a change they will bond, depending on the exact speed, angle etc that they bump into eachother

#

but the odds of two molecules actually binding into a reactoin is really really low

dire dagger
heavy abyss
#

Look who decided to show up

dire dagger
#

Be blessed with my limited presence

heavy abyss
#

You missed 90% of todays argument!

#

@sonic field shall we continue tomorrow?

sonic field
#

You still need to explain a lot of things to me so sure

#

Like, what is this ''life force'' you were talking about. And also, why is it a contradiction of me when I tell you I don't believe in a soul...

#

I DEMAND ANSWERS 😠

heavy abyss
dire dagger
heavy abyss
dire dagger
sonic field
heavy abyss
#

Of course. I can tell this will not be a normal argument

#

More so due to the amount of arguments to be made and the time it takes to establish points

heavy abyss
sonic field
#

I told you I don't believe in a soul, you said that was contradicting to my earlier statements and i dont understand why you think that's contradicting

#

so i guess we can start there

heavy abyss
#

Let’s begin

#

Without a soul, your body has no thoughts

sonic field
#

can you demonstrate that

heavy abyss
#

It just has a processor (your brain) and a machine (your body). Well , a machine cannot operate without programming and user operations. This is where a soul comes in. Your soul is your only part of the body that actually gives commands. Your brain simply intakes information and relays it. Nerves carry movement commands. They cannot execute or give these commands. Your soul gives these commands, not your brain. Think of your brain like a storage device, and your soul as an operator. I will address that momentarily

#

Your brain is a relay for your nerves to respond to commands and your soul to send them

heavy abyss
#

Your brain only operates your body and receives feedback and commands

#

Your soul is actually the thing doing the thinking. It doesn’t make sense to have a dead body but still think in it

#

Hence the soul

#

No rebuttal?

#

Very well

sonic field
#

No

#

i am waiting for the demonstration

#

you only come with a claim

#

not with evidence or demonstrations

#

you cant just say: ''your soul does the thinking because i say so''

heavy abyss
#

Can a dead body think?

sonic field
#

If you make the claim that a soul exists, you have to argue why you believe that

heavy abyss
#

Can your dead body carry out commands?

sonic field
heavy abyss
#

But how?

sonic field
#

how what?

heavy abyss
#

See your previous statement

#

How does a dead body have no brain function while the brain is still alive?

sonic field
#

Well that is where you make the mistake

#

when the body is dead, the brain is dead

heavy abyss
#

Your soul fills this gap. We are now venturing outside the realm of science

sonic field
#

you cant be both alive and dead at the same time

#

All cells in your body, including your neurons, need oxygen to burn fuel in order to keep working

#

so once you are dead, you cells don't get oxygen and they die

heavy abyss
#

“Studies suggest that brain activity may continue several minutes after a person has been declared dead.” Source - Cleveland clinic

sonic field
#

yes because you still have some leftover nutrients, oxygen, fuel etc

#

if you fill up a glass, you can drink out of it until its empty

#

after that its gone

#

no more water

#

so if the tap breaks (= you die) you only have left what was in the glass

#

but it wont get refilled

heavy abyss
sonic field
#

sure

#

im still waiting for any demonstration or evidence for the existence of a soul

heavy abyss
#

As insanely stupid as that sounds

#

There’s still water in the glass after you drink it all

#

I’ve seen it with my own eyes

sonic field
#

What do you mean

#

Becaus3 thats physically impossible

heavy abyss
#

Not according to science

sonic field
#

right so then what are you talkig about?

#

mind you, it just does not make sense to me at all

#

im not trying to be rude

#

i just genuinely don't understand

heavy abyss
#

Ok I may need to actually do an experiment for you to comprehend this

#

Alright, I just found what I needed

#

After you empty that bottle, there’s still water in it

#

@sonic field

#

The water that perspires is your soul. The water you drink represents the rest of your body that deforms after physical death

#

Thus, the perspiration is still there, just like your soul

sonic field
heavy abyss
#

If you are going to argue against me because I have no evidence to my claim, I will do the same

sonic field
#

You know what

#

I'm too tired from work today to argue

#

Gonna be honest

#

So I'm sorry to disappoint you

#

I will gladly debate you another time

#

But not today

#

I hope you forgive me

heavy abyss
#

I will and I’m sure if you asked, God would too

icy gale
#

There is someone called Pim van Lommel who did some research and who claims, if I remember correctly, that consciousness doesn't have to be connected to the brain/body

#

I don't know much about it so I can't really talk about it, but I attended a reading about it once and it was quite interesting

heavy abyss
#

“Consciousness Beyond Life, van Lommel shows that our consciousness does not always coincide with brain functions and that, remarkably and significantly, consciousness can even be experienced separate from the body.”

heavy abyss
icy gale
#

Yeah

ornate knoll
#

If you think about it really consciousness is in all things so yes, not only in the brain. I see the brain sort of as the highest seat of decision making for the body. So i think of it as the brain being the castle, the body being the kingdom and the consciousness being the people and animals all through the kingdom and out of it. Once the castle falls, things can start to slow down. I see the heart as the church/faith/hope. Once that falls, things start to fall apart quickly. But once the people decide to leave for better new venture, thats when you can pretty much say the body is dead. The people/the consciousness gives up and moves on to each its parts.

vapid lake
#

This thread does not mention Christianity by name but I see most of the post here refer to it so that will dictate what I'm about to say. Not having proof and having faith is a large part of Christianity, if anyone here is looking for proof in order to believe your doing it wrong. While I hope someday you find your faith or something else in life to give you happiness and fulfillment, if it's meant for you, it will come.

#

Also don't make fun or belittle people for not having faith, that's very unchristian

#

Vice versa

#

Most comments here are very respectful, but I saw a couple that made me sigh

#

And for slight context, im 22 years old, I was raised Christian but never really understood what any of it meant or believed any of it

#

From when I was about 11-21 I was atheist and only recently discovered religion in my life again

ornate knoll
ornate knoll
valid stratus
#

God is real, I just don’t believe in him. I know he’s real because the whole world exists as it is because of him. It’s all God. The crazy, unsustainable madness of civilized history,,, let alone the UNCIVILIZED “His-Tor-Ies” lolz…. How Long Ago God invented Men, from the Total Ramshackle of apes. He lifted us UP using evolution, or at least… lol THAT is the story they’ll tell if “ThEy” get Their Slate Wiped Clean.

#

God is not real,,, In that I KNOW he is Not Real. But I believe in Him. I believe in Him BecAUUuuuse it is not obvious enough to anybody ELSE in this world told story of bullshit about some place called “”China”” or the “”United States”” so called “”Figures”” or whatever word You Yes You would use. Any comprehension?

#

No proof of God or way to disprove God, always a dumb approach, always the most pcificistic. Whether you are Pro-god or Anti-God. I highlighted Anti-God with capital G because obviously anybody who knows God isn’t real (Me, Huh, Duh. Hey Hey People.) are actually people who are OBSESSED with God and His Existence.

#

Best thing about God? He didn’t have to exist. We just had to fuckin’ believe in him. And then we went and stopped believing in a God, and we started ironically and NOT soooo FUnyon IRONICALLY acting like there is no God. Belief in God… Poop.

#

Ohhh belief in God or whoever the fuck you call him, yeah it’s a complete JOKE! I believe in God?!? FUNK you, I SAIDDDD FUNK GOD DAMNIT, GOD IS NEVER GONNA BE REAL, lol. Believe in Him ANYWAY! Why?!?!? STOP ASKING SO MANY QUESTIONS! ”Eeeeeek! People People! Hear me Cry! Then you will feel the pity!” INB4 THAT BS

#

God is not real and that means nothing because the topic instead should be, in the updated modern sense… It ShOulD be a discussion about why we better start denying all the religions that DON’T accommodate for the “”” facts “” so-called of The Day, I.O.W Most people who think They Are Smart ((lol)) … not smart. Who Knew. WOW Huge surprise. Ohhh Lol. People today are more ideologically possessed than ever, on the brink of mass hysterics and the general lunacy of any organized religion in history. NOT The Buddhists. Just Kidding. They did worse shit too.

#

We gotta start Lyin’ about this “”God isn’t Real”” fiasco and just make a new one up. Swear to GOD it needs to happen, see what I did there?? Ny’ehhh? Ny’eeeehhhhh? YEA, Huge Revelation. Oh Whoops. Freudian Slip. Is God my Father, after all? Maybe he REALLY IS REALLL oh shit, no wait, I’d be dead by now.

ornate knoll
# valid stratus God is not real and that means nothing because the topic instead should be, in t...

« Believe in god anyway? Why? » For the simple reason that god represents the unknown yet to be discovered. And it’s fun to explore the frontiers and it’s fun to attempt to work in tandem with a bigger organization. It’s understandable that someone would not see the point of it all if someone isn’t grateful for our civilization and our planet and their future. And if someone does care but still doesn’t believe, it’s simply because either they call it something else or they just believe in it unconsciously.

valid stratus
# ornate knoll « Believe in god anyway? Why? » For the simple reason that god represents the u...

Feels really good when you find pieces of angels scattered about. Thanks. Okay so a man who is gonna be a tyrannical monster denies the existence to someone. Is he right? No. Does there need to be, in any way shape or form, that we need to reform Christianity anymore? We can debate the@ obscene despicable political of religion all day but to question my belief in God? OyyyYy Vey! That is my unironic exclamation as well it is not a fun gag. I mean God is there anyways at the end of the day!!! Hahaha it doesn’t matter because the feeling you’re gonna get as your brain hits a dead Wall is the last thing you experience. It always it will always be, intimately yours. It needs to be SPECIALzzz

ornate knoll
#

Honestly, no I don’t think christianity needs to be completely reformed. Perhaps the things that are causing problems in Christianities politics and sexual abuse, sure reform would be good. But completely reform christianity? No I don’t think it’s necessary because I believe it could be proven that the organization does far more good than harm for the time being. Reform some new kind of religion or reform the ethics and beliefs in science? Perhaps yes. In fact, nothing of science needs to be removed really. Only certain things need to be added for it to be adequate on the long term.

sonic field
# ornate knoll Honestly, no I don’t think christianity needs to be completely reformed. Perhaps...

Well actually, historically speaking its only been very recent that christian people tend to interpret the bible in more of a literal meaning. During most of christian history, the bible was merely used as a guideline for how to live life. When science started to become a thing, science and religion went hand in hand because even though there were some inconsistencies between the two, no one cared as no one took the bible word for word. However, as both science and religion evolved, in some theological ideologies, they are now seen as mutually exclusive.

#

So in that sense, religion ''has to'' change again, however, that would actually mean it will become closer to how religion was percieved historically anyway

ornate knoll
ornate knoll
valid stratus
#

Historically, people understood that the church was an institution that would wield the ‘power of God’ against them. Not literally the power of God, of a thing that doesn’t exist, but it is the power of the tool that Religion has been, throughout human history.

#

So of course, it is a question they cannot Answer. Did they believe in God, yes yes absolutely of course. But did they believe in God? Or did they just know God was ‘real’ because if they answered No then ‘god’ will come visit them.

#

It’s the smothering of faith that comes with the hegemonic order of faith. You can’t freely believe in God when you are being compelled to believe in God. You can try to but the pressure of a “perfect” Religion that occupies every space of human spirituality is that it ‘fills the gap’in the human psyche where we need the flexibility of unknowns to master ourselves. People can’t be religiously pacifists until they have already had the technology to shield themselves. The isms of today are the replacement for religious indoctrination, the only psychological evolution modern people have made of meaning is that they stopped ritual sacrifices because they could afford to not practice population control, which is what that really ‘was’ if you can objectify a belief system like that.

sharp bobcat
valid stratus
# sharp bobcat ChatGPT had too many drugs? What am I reading? <:emoji_8:1131613643201577111>

❤️❤️ thanks for that, I don’t think I am a good writer. I think I’m Crazy, and I don’t have anything valuable to write down. Fortunately I think that Half of my ideas are great, and the Other Half are where the bad samples come from. No I don’t see why there should even be a conversation about God if drug use and God have no connection at all the the spiritual crap people have in their case is actually more true than the pedants who think placebo matters can even fathom.

ornate knoll
ornate knoll
#

Just for fun: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iLv-t79Ool0&feature=share

YouTube
GOLDY LYRICS
Kanye West - Praise God (Lyrics)

Kanye West - Praise God (Lyrics)

SUBSCRIBE AND PRESS (🔔)
╔═╦╗╔╦╗╔═╦═╦╦╦╦╗╔═╗
║╚╣║║║╚╣╚╣╔╣╔╣║╚╣═╣
╠╗║╚╝║║╠╗║╚╣║║║║║═╣
╚═╩══╩═╩═╩═╩╝╚╩═╩═╝
join the Notification Squad and stay updated with new uploads Follow GOLDY LYRICS

Follow GOLDY LYRICS
https://Instagram.com/official_goldylyrics

:©️If any producer or label has an issue with this song or...

▶ Play video
inner shale
#

Surprised the gender thread was closed before this one 😂

late glade
steep mantle
#

I'm confused on what happened? Was someone breaking TOS?

ornate knoll
inner shale
steep mantle
#

Very strange

late glade
#

Not sure either but people were getting real defensive

slim gulch
#

the bible is too inconsistent in this day and age unfortunately for me to believe it is the word of God.
There are quite a few places in which I can point that out
so for you to say that ALL answers are in the bible, I think you can't back this up.
(I am Muslim btw, so I do believe in God in fact the same God as the Judaeo-Christian beliefs)

I believe in my faith because I doubt it. allow me to explain
I constantly challenge beliefs written in the Quran which I sometimes don't understand or completely disagree with I then take these doubts to scholars or someone more knowledgeable than I to explain them, then I debate them and I have never won a debate against my religion.

For those who would attribute all these losses to my incompetence, it is not. I am proud to say I studied Christianity ,Ethics and Philosophy as a subject for 2 years and am constantly learning.
But the main reason I believe my faith is correct is because it has never been edited, it has predicted many things and made statements about science that as a species we did not find evidence for until hundreds of years later. So it contains prophecies which continue to be proven as correct no matter how small the prophesised subject.
and I believe only 1 thing could have the power to all this and this would be my point to why God exists.
(tried to tie back to original point of thread towards the end, lmk ur thoughts)

❤️ thx for reading if u got this far in the small rant

night remnant
astral lotus
late glade
sonic field
astral lotus
#

It doesn't matter if I back it up, the inconsistencies will be explained away in some random way just like Christian apologists do for inconsistencies in the Bible.

#

It's the same for the claim that the Quran provides scientific insights or that it has never been altered.

''
Until now, there were three ancient copies of the Koran. One copy in the Library of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, and another in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, date from the eighth century. A copy preserved in the British Library in London, known as the Ma'il manuscript, dates from the late seventh century. But the Sa'na manuscripts are even older. Moreover, the Sa'na manuscripts are written in a script that originates from the Hijaz - the region of Arabia where the prophet Mohammed lived, which makes them not only the oldest to have survived, but one of the earliest copies of the Koran ever.

Puin noticed minor textual variations, unconventional ordering of the chapters (surahs), as well as rare styles of orthography. Then he noticed that the sheets were palimpsests - manuscripts with versions written even earlier that had been washed off or erased.

These findings led Dr Puin to assert that the Koran had undergone a textual evolution. In other words, the copy of the Koran that we have is not the one believed to have been revealed to the prophet.''

barren mural
#

Just a quick question, isn't it a tell that all of these religions MUST relate back to a HUMAN made book/text/artifact more evidence that Humans created God, and not the other way around?

astral lotus
#

Generally those who follow a religion like Christianity or Islam believe the texts to be of divine origin, not human. Of course there is no proof for such a claim, but that doesn't stop people from arguing for it.

sonic field
#

well yeah, just because you believe in something doesn't mean it is true

#

to me god is like the adult version of santa claus

#

people believe in it because they really want it to be true, but not because there is resounding evidince for its existence

chrome depot
#

Asking for proof of god is akin to asking a red blood cell to provide proof that dinosaurs existed. You have a better chance of receiving an accurate answer from the cell.

Try to visualize a black hole in your mind... humans can't truly grasp the enormity of this, yet we know them to be fact. Apply this to the entirety of the universe and then multiply the complexity by adding the concept of a being so power to have created it all.

Virtually any described versions of "god" will be inherently flawed and personified to reflect the image of man. The best we can do is reach a probability through inductive reasoning.

Examples to consider when HONESTLY (setting aside any ego and/or previous beliefs) reflecting on the evidence of a divine being:

Light & the speed of light
Avogadro's number
Planks Constant
The golden ratio
Irreducible complexity
etc.

Then there is the more philosophical examples:

The human desire to create
Love
Our ability to find/witness beauty
Advanced intelligence - currently from a human perspective an oddity in nature

While any one of these alone does not equate to the "proof" of the divine, the journey to the divine becomes more aligned to actualization that intelligent design is apparent when considering a multitude of data.

Short of "god" irrevocably making it's "self" know to all simultaneously there will never be anything a human could provide another human as irrefutable proof of the divine.

Ultimately it comes to FAITH, and perhaps that's by design.

barren mural
#

Light & the speed of light

This is just electromagnetic radiation. We understand it very well, and take much advantage of it in most of the technology you use every day.

Avogadro's number

This is an arbitrary number based solely on our definition of a gram/kilogram
It's nothing more than a count "how many marbles do I need to make 1 pound"

Planks Constant
This is again, just a physical property. It's the definition of the smallest unit of discrete energy.

The golden ratio
Again nothing spectacular, just a self referential proportion. Often the path of least resistance, not unlike the reason why we see spheres and hexagons pop up everywhere. If you think this is magic or Divine then the same is true for blowing bubbles in soap and being amazed they make spheres.

Irreducible complexity
This has never been satisfactorily proven. There are no such biological systems that cannot be arrived at if you understand the fundamental proven fact that there are near infinite time scales and interactions in the universe.

#

My counterpoint to all of your arguments is, there have been millennia of people claiming "this is how it work, because GOD" only to be proven wrong repeatedly by science. At what point do you accept the fact that God is a human invention to answer the unknown, one which is rapidly losing its usefulness as science explains those mysteries.

#

What is the real difference between the "ripples in the pond" if they were created by a drop of rain or by a drop of water off someone's finger

#

Effectively, God is just an extra step the people hold on to, which we are rapidly providing demonstrably extraneous

sonic field
# chrome depot Asking for proof of god is akin to asking a red blood cell to provide proof that...

Examples to consider when HONESTLY (setting aside any ego and/or previous beliefs) reflecting on the evidence of a divine being:

Light & the speed of light
Avogadro's number
Planks Constant
The golden ratio
Irreducible complexity
etc.

I am quite confused on how you would think these are could be evidence for the existence of anything divine? How do you logically go from e.g. avogadro's number to a divine being without some mental gymnastics

#

You only give a list of things that you cannot give a plausible alternative explanation for yourself

#

All of these things however can be perfectly reasonably explained by experts without the need of anything divine whatsoever

chrome depot
#

I am perceiving what has been replied here as a lack of understanding of my contribution to this conversation. I encourage you both to re-read my contribution in it's entirety. I openly stated that this was not "proof of god", presented the idea of inductive reasoning to the conversation.

At no point did I pretend or imply humanity never understood a plethora of fundamental laws of our universe. Nor did I say, and quite the opposite, that any one of these points alone provide "proof of god". However, when examining the entirety of our understanding, from an open minded perspective, there are indications of fine tuned universe. It is if any one of the multitude of Universal laws that if adjusted slightly, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Combine this with the more non tangle aspects of our reality could lead a person to the inference of an intelligent creator.

"What is the real difference between the "ripples in the pond" if they were created by a drop of rain or by a drop of water off someone's finger"

From the ponds perspective, there is no difference. From an outside observer, there is a very observable difference.

"You only give a list of things that you cannot give a plausible alternative explanation for yourself"

I find this amusing, that on this platform, you gave me ten minute to reply to you before the above response from you.

sonic field
#

no no i was merely responding to specifically this sentence:

Examples to consider when HONESTLY (setting aside any ego and/or previous beliefs) reflecting on the evidence of a divine being:

#

But those examples are fallacious as not being able to explain or proof something does not say anything about the plausibility of the opposite idea

#

idk what its called, argument from ignorance or sth

#

Maybe i was not clear, I didn't mean to state anything about the specific examples mentioned, but more about the process of deduction/reasoning behind it

sonic field
#

But now I see it came across as quite rude, im sorry about that

sonic field
barren mural
sonic field
barren mural
#

Appeal to ignorance is "You haven't proved ghosts DONT exist, there it was ghosts"

#

Which is actually the fallacy that covers God's existence

#

You haven't proven God doesn't exist, therefore it must be god

chrome depot
#

Cury I agree, there could be alternative explanations towards the creation of a perceived finely tuned universe. One off the top of my head, a Multiverse. Should our universe exist within an in an infinite multiverse then ours is inevitable.

barren mural
#

My contention is that, we have debunked 99.999% of what was originally claimed to be God's works, and can explain all of that with reasoned facts.
To that end it doesn't matter if God exists or not, and why assume an extra step in the process.

#

We also continue to whittle down that tiny minutiae of the unexplained daily

#

Occam's razor - why overcomplicate what can be answered simply

chrome depot
sonic field
barren mural
barren mural
#

Intelligent design my ass

chrome depot
chrome depot
barren mural
#

It was a joke, but also an illusion to the shitty horrible "design" that is the human body

chrome depot
astral lotus
#

There are other supposedly clearly so intricately designed things that it must have a creator, for example eyes. But mammalian eyes are so grotesquely inefficient and on the brink of simply not functioning at all that if someone truly did design them then they did a pretty shit job and I'd want my money back.

barren mural
#

There are many primitive photo receptors on other animals. There is clear examples that show progress toward an eye of sorts and with hundreds of millions of years to randomly iterate it is conceivable that you could develop a directional, and then a focusable eye

ornate knoll
#

I hear critics against the imperfection of the human body. Do you understand that the human body hasn’t been here for very long relative to the amount of time we believe matter to exist? The human body is in a very early stage of design when you compare it to something like atoms. Do you believe the design of atoms to be a shit job?

#

Saying: A higher power hasn’t, at the very least, participated in creating all that we know and that it is instead all these various scientifically ’proven’ concepts that have created all that we know is akin to saying: You did not create the texts you are writing down on this discord, it is instead your hand and your brain and all the elements that allow for the movement of your hand that wrote your texts. I mean, both are true. But why would I stick to saying: You didn’t write it?

barren mural
#

Again, I would say, it is improbable that it was designed. If you believe in the science that has provided you the technology that you are typing this on and you still don't see this, then you are living in cognitive dissonance.

I make no claim to having all the answers, but I also believe in the iterative processes, and the accumulated knowledge we have built as a species.

#

Unlike the proselytizing from much in this channel, I don't automatically and close mindedly believe that I have all the answers. I also don't have the arrogance to believe that my ~3 Billion of all of humanity are the only ones to be correct on the matter.

#

To think that out of ~120 Billion humans that have lived in our history that some tiny subset were the only correct ones with all the answers is pompous and arrogant.

#

Especially when you consider that much of the exact same source material has been proven wrong and/or hyperbole

#

Again, what's more plausible, that humans make up stories (like we have millions of examples of) or that there is an Omnipotent, Omniscient being that we have no proof or evidence of

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

As I said, I would point you to the above prothletizers who say they will convert us, and that they are the ones that know the true words of god

ornate knoll
# barren mural Especially when you consider that much of the exact same source material has bee...

So I’m assuming by the 3 billion vs the 120 billion, you are comparing the group of humans who were present while the most popular religious books were being written compared to all the humans that ever lived since some far out point in time in the past? I personally believe that a lot of the things in the bible are wrong (because they are in fact stories written by humans like you say). But I believe the essence of what is written is still very true and relevant. And I don’t believe equating “the inconsistent representations of god amongst other things, by humans who wrote the bible” to “the absence of a god” to be accurate.

barren mural
#

I am explicitly referring to the approximate number of Christians that have ever lived

#

Vs the number of hunans

#

As they are the ones that are most vocal about being absolutists

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

There was the guy who wanted to convert Pete a couple days ago for starters

#

My standpoint is that there are several groups of people that all made up their own stories, or built off precious ones.
99% of what they made up in the past, be it Norse, Egyptian, Hindu, Christian, Muslim etc has been refuted by modern science

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

And if you accept that modern science is correct, as you have tangible proof of this with all the technology that surrounds you. Then it is irrelevant to the workings of the universe if a God set it in motion, of it it set itself in motion

#

Religion is a tool, created by humans to explain things that we previously didn't have answers for.

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

I believe he even said "The one true God"

#

So yea, pretty sure he thought he was absolutely and close mindedly correct

#

Or a troll

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

I also do not begrudge someone for having Faith, especially if it makes their life better or easier.

#

But Faith is not Proof

#

The thoughts of some monkeys are irrelevant when there are more stars in existence by a factor of a million than number of those monkeys that have ever lived

ornate knoll
# barren mural I believe he even said "The one true God"

I admit that comes close to someone claiming to have all the answers so I wouldn’t blame you if you were annoyed by me splitting hairs here. But sometimes I believe splitting hairs is important in order to get closer to the truth. Scientists would agree. They constantly be splitting ‘hairs’ of many kinds.

ornate knoll
barren mural
ornate knoll
#

Do you have any proof of anything? What does the word ‘proof’ mean to you?

barren mural
#

I can prove that muscle work by standing up and using them

#

I can prove that paper burns by lightning it on fire

ornate knoll
#

I can prove that higher powers exist because some do not have powerful enough muscles such as your in order to allow them to get up. Therefore you are a higher power than them in that sense. And it’s just common sense that different things have different levels of powers. Just that is proof enough to know that there is a highest (or to be more plausible) power higher than most out there.

barren mural
#

That is a fallacious proof of omnipotence

#

Just because there is something heavier than a marble doesn't mean there is something with infinite mass

ornate knoll
#

And whether someone stubbornly sticks with “arguing against the inconsistent representation of a god from certain groups from the past” vs “simply believing in a higher power out of curiosity and attempting to learn more about it whether it be with science or any other means.” It still remains, why would one argue against the second example I gave?

barren mural
#

Without a counterpoint there would be no science or learning

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

That how this works

barren mural
#

Your example was that someone is weaker than me, therefore God exists

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

That is a fallacy in the same way that a rock is heavier than a pebble therefore an infinite mass object exists

barren mural
#

Atleast there

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

A baby cannot jump as high as me therefore a human can jump to the moon

ornate knoll
# barren mural I think we are on the same page.

You know what I think is beautiful about this? Is that we are all on the same page deep down but still, we each have our little inconsistencies about ourselves that we share and untangle to help each other out. Sometimes just for fun. Words can be very inconsistent because there is a thing of self appropriation when we use our words. There are definitions that we can both agree on for certain words. But when you use a word in many different scenarios it creates many inconsistencies and that is probably the main reason people argue and get into fights. Just different life experiences projected onto the same words that we both use.

barren mural
#

the fallacy of unwarranted extrapolation

#

A baby is shorter than me therefore there is a 10km tall human

#

It doesn't work

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

You said that because there is someone weaker than me there is by extension an infinity powerful being

#

This is the same thing reworded, and it is fallacious logic

#

It's infinite extrapolation, which is illogical

ornate knoll
# barren mural A baby is shorter than me therefore there is a 10km tall human

When I was saying higher powers I was not being as specific as say: someone jumping to the moon or being 10km tall (although how ever implausible that is, I would not say I have proof it doesnt exist somewhere out there). I was simply saying, there are some powers higher than others. Is that not a fair statement? And then that being said, would it be that much of a stretch to say there are higher powers out there that we have not discovered yet?

barren mural
#

That is not proof of omnipotent God that created the universe

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

And is not proof of infinite extrapolation

ornate knoll
#

And sharing mine

barren mural
#

My mind is open, and also accepting of others opinions.

But I require more founded reasoning than fallacious infinite extrapolation.

ornate knoll
barren mural
#

Again, I'm open to the crazy abundance of variety in the universe. But this topic was about God

ornate knoll
#

Which one?

sonic field
sonic field
#

what does that have to do with design?

ornate knoll
sonic field
#

so there was at least about 3.5 billion years of design before the design of humans

#

and about 13.8 billion years of design of the universe

#

now i dont know how long it takes for a ''perfect'' god to get a good design

ornate knoll
sonic field
#

but it seems like a stretch to me to believe in an omnipotent god and then back them up by saying they only had ''so many time''

sonic field
sonic field
ornate knoll
#

I understand it’s fun to debate but it seems like you’re just wanting to debate for the sake of it here. What is wrong with what I said. Sorry, I don’t get where you’re coming from with this

sonic field
#

but i guess we just fundamentally see the world differently

#

where we talk past each other

ornate knoll
#

Hhmmm. Okay. Let me reread back a little then

sonic field
#

oh i only replied to the messages that i quoted

#

i didnt read back everyting

#

so if i missed somethign thats on me

ornate knoll
sonic field
#

i dont know if that made any sense

ornate knoll
#

It makes sense but it can stop making sense if we think about what does perfect even mean?

#

Basically, design is just a series of causes and effects over time by different entities. So everything is by design.

sonic field
#

because thats gnerally not what people mean with ''design'' right?

#

i mean i might be wrong

ornate knoll
#

What do they mean by design?

sonic field
#

but thats not how i interpret the concept of ''design''

ornate knoll
#

What do you mean by design?

ornate knoll
sonic field
#

purposefully

sharp bobcat
#

Just to clarify for anyone that thinks this is just semantics again:

A common strategy used by apologists is the following (avoiding technical terms):

  1. A design needs a designer (By definition)
    Because as Cury said, a design is created purposefully/intentionally.

  2. Redefine "design" such that it is self evident.
    The same reasoning as ezra: a synonym of "causality", which is a self evident phenomenon.

  3. Design is self evident (2), therefore a designer is necessary (1).

I'm not saying ezra is using this strategy, but it makes it clear why debating semantics is useful and why we can all learn from each other by asking what we mean 🙏

barren mural
#

I think there are a bit of semantics going on, in that Ezra is talking more about "designing" where as Cury, and most others on this subject, talk about a finished design.

#

A design inside of this context is almost universally a finished product

#

Based on previous debate with Ezra, they are much more open to the idea of an initial creator/great architect working in the background.

~14 billion years of iterative process etc.

In my opinion however, that falls apart when analyzed, because evolution doesn't take a straight path. It's not the best solution, it's "the adequate solution given the current environment"

acoustic cove
#

God is something you have to have faith in. If you have proof of that, then by definition you can't have faith... simple as that. If you truly KNOW God exists, you are unfaithful.

night remnant
#

Yep. That is why it's a bad question

sharp bobcat
#

Proof of god is only impossible if he doesn't exist. Asking for proof of god is an openness to being convinced.

Why would you take anything on faith? It just means that there's no real reason to believe in something.

Like, you shouldn't just have faith in other things, like the scientific method, or the laws of logic, or the existence of altruism or whatever. We have good reasons to conclude that they are pretty useful tools in guiding us through thought and human existence.

So why would god be the exception?

#

If a god were to exist, that would change my behaviour in this life. But I won't change that without a good reason.

So I would first need to be convinced of the existence of god, before I decide to act against my own moral code.

night remnant
#

I take things on faith because I have ultimate humility. I think it is highly likely that there are things in the universe that I completely lack the capacity to understand

chrome depot
#

I wish I could say I have ultimate humility, I know myself well enough to say I have room for improvement and always will. While i differ with The Peteman here i arrive to a similar chain of thinking. Should there be a being be so powerful to have created the entirety of the universe, I think it would be incredibly naive of me to believe there is any way I could come remotely close to understanding the nature of this being. This is where I find my "faith".

sharp bobcat
#

For example, we don't have to have faith in 1+1 being 2, to use that information to understand the world better.

#

And if someone were to prove that the sum isn't 2 in any conditions, I would update my view.

#

So why insert faith?

sonic field
#

But I agree with your point 🙂

sharp bobcat
sonic field
night fulcrum
#

Isn't faith the point of religion? If there was undeniable proof of god, then he wouldn't be rewarding his followers for their faith right? They only did what was logical

sonic field
#

there will never be a scenario where it will not be the case since thats how addition is defined

night fulcrum
#

I'm atheist, don't know all that much about the topic but in Christianity and islam at least, the world is supposed to be a test, and i feel it wouldn't make sense if god had already written the answer on the sheet

sharp bobcat
sonic field
sharp bobcat
sonic field
#

but can we take a moment to appreciate the fact that we need 5 fundamental axioms to logically close the concept of addition? 😄

sonic field
sharp bobcat
#

I agree, they would most likely hold. But we both accept that theoretically it might not, however small the likelihood.

So we don't have faith in our axioms. We just defined numbers, logic, etc in a way that conforms with our experience of reality.

sonic field
#

i'm the ''well acksually'' nerd everyone hates..

sharp bobcat
#

Thanks, I often hear that I make conplicated math seem simple 🙈

sonic field
#

im a bit of a complicated math enjoyer myself :p

sharp bobcat
#

We should talk about that sometime peteOK

night remnant
sharp bobcat
#

That might be it. When I'm talking about religion, I mainly use the biblical definition of faith rather than the colloquial use.

#

Maybe we're using different definitions of "bad question" too, then 😏

valid stratus
# sharp bobcat For example, we don't have to have faith in 1+1 being 2, to use that information...

When we spend money, are we spending money because we Know what it is worth, or because we Believe in what it is worth?

Of course, we are spending because we have to engage in commerce for one reason or another, but where do we find the proof of Money’s value?

There is a matter of “The vendor demands X and so I must provide X and that is that”
There is also the matter of “We know the Government backs the currency, it’s value is upheld by the institution which issues it” which would seem to discount Faith from the equation here, but what is the State, is that something built from pure logic, therefore it is proven to exist?

We know Rome existed, etc. etc., but if there was a map of an empire drawn to exact scale, so that the people who lived within the empire also lived within the map, what would happen in the event that this empire suddenly vanished from behind the map? There would be People still living within the bounds of this map, and what would they experience in terms of their faith? Wouldn’t they be told that their empire is Gone by others? And would they or wouldn’t they accept this, given the map that defines their idea of the empire?

#

I think that God in literal terms does not exist, and we want proof that He still exists for Us. So that if I again go to the point in my life where I am in despair, and I am without cause, and I am lost, then I can still find the location of God in my mind. If I need him, I can revive him. But in a world where he physically can’t exist, He has to become a Crazy, Reactive Phenomenon that jumps the shark during discussions. He has to be redefined to be a better guide to us.

sharp bobcat
sharp bobcat
valid stratus
inner shale
#

👀

slim gale
#

God is a potato. Final answer

tawny plinth
#

🤷‍♂️

olive atlas
#

not that this is necessarily proof of god, and i dont exactly know what to think of either side, but boiling down the bible to "some book made 2000 years ago" completely disregards the history of how it was developed and how much thought goes into what books are accepted and declined from the official "bible". from my limited understanding there are many books that are written directly from jesus's apostles, direct testimonies of what happened throughout his walks of life. many corroborating the same stories, and there are many unofficial "books" of the bible that aren't accepted as canon because the person writing the books weren't close enough to jesus to have their writing taken as scripture. and to me, it seems really unlikely that for 2000 years, all talks about jesus were a lie, and this book is just a made up story that has been passed down for countless years. also the connection between religions of different regions believing in very similar stories seems to big to be a coincidence. of course we will never truly know. and i will never claim to know myself, i stay out of it as much as possible, but i find stuff like this interesting

wanton zodiac
#

The world came into being last Thursday for no discernible reason and all evidence to the contrary is either fabricated or due to mass hallucination. Also the potato thing.

inner shale
wanton zodiac
sharp bobcat
#

It's so funny that the last time I heard about Last Thursday Thursdayism was Tuesday, and the last time I heard about Last Tuesdayism was Thursday

fierce cargo
#

Was listening to a song that brought this to my heart:

“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”

  • 1 Corinthians 1:21
#

Here’s the song, assuming links are allowed…

https://youtu.be/rPrp6yi6ejo?si=ylBzpbDF61XHHHl-

YouTube
Trinity Fellowship
Shadows of the Dawn - The Gray Havens - Lyrics

The Shadows of the Dawn
Written by Dave Radford and Licia Radford - The Gray Havens Music, and Ben Shive - Junkbox Music.
©2016 The Gray Havens Music.

I do not own the rights to the music. Please support the artists by buying the song or the album ("Ghost of a King" - awesome album)

All imagery copyright 2017 by Robert. J. DeGray. This was all...

▶ Play video
ornate knoll
vernal brook
#

Sorry about the paragraph but I thought I’d lend my two cents on the topic as philosophy interests me. I apologize if this point has been gone over already I only skimmed over the conversation(in my defense it’s quite long). If that’s the case feel free to ignore it.

The core issue with this debate is we are searching for evidence for something we can’t explain. Have you ever tried to explain the color purple to a blind man, or perhaps the taste of salt to someone who has never had it. At its very core our reality is beyond our description. Similarly god is beyond description, or in other words without experiencing it you can not comprehend it. You can learn about a color. Such as if it “warm” or “cold”, its wavelength it appears as, and even what elements emit that form of radiation. Nevertheless, You will never find proof of what purple looks like. Likewise, I don’t believe you can find proof of god. There are things like this you can only know from certain once you experience it ie “I think therefore I am.” Some people must experience something or religion would not exist. How “real” that is to you I believe is up for the individual to define.

sharp bobcat
# vernal brook Sorry about the paragraph but I thought I’d lend my two cents on the topic as ph...

If you use "I think, therefore I am" as an argument that some things can't be proven, you're misunderstanding the point.

Namely, spawned from a philosophy of radical doubt, it was the demonstration that some things can be proven.

  • Premise: If there is nothing, there cannot be thought.
  • Premise: There is thought.
  • Conclusion: There is something.

But since it was a while ago, he phrased it less succinctly and prematurely filled in the next conclusion, which is that if there is thought, there has to be a thinker.

pseudo zinc
sharp bobcat
#

But I think, therefore I am was the first step

#

Descartes is literally the most frustrating philosopher to read, absolutely insufferable.

pseudo zinc
#

Oh lmao I didn't realize Descartes was the creator of the ontological argument

(1) Our idea of God is of a perfect being, (2) it is more perfect to exist than not to exist, (3) therefore, God must exist.

twin anchor
# vernal brook Sorry about the paragraph but I thought I’d lend my two cents on the topic as ph...

I don't agree that you can't explain things to people who have never experienced them in a way that means they can understand them. I do agree that having something explained to you is not the same as experiencing it yourself, but things that have empirical evidence and that fit into established patterns of nature can be explained in ways that make them make sense to others. That contrasts very sharply with the belief in the existence of a god, which doesn't fit into any system of nature, and has no evidence.

Some people must experience something or religion would not exist.
For me, the most obvious flaw to this argument is the fact that people perceive things incorrectly all the time. Take deja vu. Does the fact that people perceive that they have lived through a situation before mean they actually have? No, of course not. It's an illusion, like many things.

The only pattern that I'm aware of that religion does fit into, is a system for controlling other people. I find it remarkable that most religions take the exact same form that a brainwashing scam would take.

hearty harness
vernal brook
# twin anchor I don't agree that you can't explain things to people who have never experienced...

What makes your senses more perfect than your peers? One could just as easily argue you are the one with faulty senses that are blind as easily as you could argue that they are seeing what isn’t there.

And for your second point I fear you may have misunderstood my statement. I was not arguing that because it is perceived that it is truth but more simply the force exists. I think to be able to deduce if that said force is a “scam” it’s something you’d need to experience before you judge. It would be foolish of a blind man to pick a favorite color. Even if he had every color explained to him.

vernal brook
# sharp bobcat If you use "I think, therefore I am" as an argument that some things can't be pr...

I was more referencing the method of thought (proof of reality is annoying) rather than the deduction received from the statement. (I completely agree that things can be proven but that diverges from the main topic and I don’t want to make this thread more annoying to work with than it all ready is) I understand how that’s misleading and realize there was probably a better way of communicating it. I apologize it was quite late when I was writing my statement.

twin anchor
# vernal brook What makes your senses more perfect than your peers? One could just as easily ar...

Nobody's senses are perfect, we're all susceptible to illusions. And we're all vulnerable to peer pressure, and mental conditioning techniques, and other forms of brainwashing as well. But once we are aware that those things exist we can look out for the effects of them. We can recognise instances where, even though we perceive something, we understand that our perception does not reflect reality. Where there is already an explanation that is understood that fits all of the evidence associated with religions, and where that explanation also fits with a ton of other stuff we know about how we work as humans, there is no need to pretend that there are extra explanations that cannot be understood.

There are forces driving religion, I agree. The desire to exploit and control others is one obvious one, as is the desire to have someone to comfort you. I don't need to experience them in the same way a religious person does in order to understand them, just like I don't need to be shot to understand the effects of being shot.

Religion is indistinguishable from a scam. It does involve brainwashing techniques, it does involve peer pressure, it does involve preying on people's irrational fears, and it does involve individuals giving themselves authority over others and exploiting them for power, money and other less savoury things that I'm sure we've all heard about. The idea of faith is itself brainwashing in the form of gaslighting, because it's encouraging people to reject their experiential evidence. What's more, we have tons of examples of this scam, because it's been tried many times in the past. Sure, maybe this time it's for real. But we've also heard that before.

Until a religion can provide any evidence whatsoever that it is not a scam, it makes sense to treat them as a scam.

orchid night
#

Part of Bible before Solomon is not historically proven. Jesus part also is very sus

#

Humans are very imperfect biologically. Complex things can emerge from simple one (every chemical element is derived from Hydrogen, for example). Sapience was achieved gradually after billions years of evolution. Dinosaurs had brain a size of nut and in our age sentience is common trend among placental mammals( dogs, cats, chimps, orcas, dolphins etc.). Humans are just the most successful variant.

pseudo zinc
#

More interesting question than asking for hard proof of Christianity is if modern science actually disproves parts of Christianity. It def disproves genesis, global flood, etc

orchid night
#

Jesus part is also very sus because New Testament is compiled from specifically selected books during 4th century. Bassically, even the most old versions of Bible are already very redacted

steep mantle
orchid night
pseudo zinc
# orchid night What is your definition of consciousness? Because from what I know some animals ...

Mary's room is an interesting read, but problem of consciousness is like an open subject for debate.

People always ignore the Christian side of the problem of consciousness though. Is that at some point along the gradient of primative primate ancestor to human evolution, God has to draw a line in the sand where he's like "your dad has no soul and can't go to heaven, but you can cause you are human enough"

Unless they deny evolution in which case that's another discussion altogether

orchid night
steep mantle
#

Defining consciousness is literally part of the problem

#

How do you define the experience of qualia?

#

Its non-communicable

orchid night
twin anchor
#

We can ask "what causes consciousness?", which is a much simpler question and has an answer already. But I think "why" questions like "why do we have consciousness?" are often based on pre-existing religious viewpoints. Questions like "why does gravity exist?" or "why is 2+2 4?" don't really have any meaning unless you assume there is some purpose behind it all to begin with. The rest of us are just happy to say that this is how it is for no particular reason.

pseudo zinc
#

Yeah imo the best explanation to problem of consciousness is that we just don't know yet, and that science will eventually get to that point. Like there really is a part of the brain that contains the entirely of the experience of the color red that we can point to.

orchid night
pseudo zinc
orchid night
pseudo zinc
#

Wikipedia usually has a pretty approachable language

steep mantle
pseudo zinc
#

Starting with the thought experiment may be more concrete and easier to understand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

Knowledge argument

The knowledge argument (also known as Mary's Room or Mary the super-scientist) is a philosophical thought experiment proposed by Frank Jackson in his article "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982) and extended in "What Mary Didn't Know" (1986).
The experiment describes Mary, a scientist who exists in a black-and-white world where she has extensive acces...

steep mantle
pseudo zinc
#

You can't just dismiss stuff as "mental masturbation" without actually trying to engage with the material

orchid night
#

There are so many things wrong with almost every sentence

#

I don't even know where to start

pseudo zinc
#

Wow uhh okay

#

Usually it's flat earthers and global warming deniers that claim wikipedia articles are filled with misinformation

#

Do you have any especially problematic passages you want to quote?

orchid night
pseudo zinc
#

For example, suppose someone were to stub their foot and yelp. In this scenario, the easy problems are mechanistic explanations that involve the activity of the nervous system and brain and its relation to the environment (such as the propagation of nerve signals from the toe to the brain, the processing of that information and how it leads to yelping, and so on). The hard problem is the question of why these mechanisms are accompanied by the feeling of pain, or why these feelings of pain feel the particular way that they do.
An explanation for all of the relevant physical facts about neural processing would leave unexplained facts about what it is like to feel pain.

#

No ones filling any of the gap with God yet, and a pure physicalism view does work fine, but you can't just deny the problem exists by calling it mental masturbation

orchid night
woeful mesa
# orchid night It is not. My brain hurts when I read some mental masturbation and I cannot foll...

There is much of philosophy that is what you refer to as mental masturbations. It started long ago and has been built upon by intellectuals who see the need for thought exercises. The problem with higher philosophy, which philosophers refuse to acknowledge, is that at a certain point logic breaks down.

For instance, simulation (or matrix) theory that we are all just a brain in a vat and that all experiences are virtually fed to said brains to give the illusion of reality. Technically, that can't be proven except that every action taken by said brains betrays that premise. That is further explained that consequences of actions are just the simulation itself, dropping out of intellectual honesty of every philosopher unwilling to test the theory saying that the simulation itself is what they are unwilling to test. Meanwhile, burden of proof resides in claims against the thought exercise of simulation theory because the claim is that it technically can't be proven either way.

So simulation theory is taught and pondered and nurtured with more and more "proofs" of its non-provability which is a complete waste of productivity in reality (which is a simulation, which is reality). I get what your saying but not all philosophy is a brain (in a vat or out of a vat) fart. There are many useful things that can come out of philosophy. Its just that philosophers have a hard time recognizing what is useful and not in the real world (they don't even see the world as provable to be real).

orchid night
# pseudo zinc > For example, suppose someone were to stub their foot and yelp. In this scenari...

I call it mental masturbation because there are questions that shouldn't be asked in philosophical discussion. Your quote mentions pain. It helps you to preserve yourself that is all. "But why it feels like that?". Feels like what? People feel it very differently and as a part of BDSM community I can tell you that there are a lot of ways to feel pain and reasons behind it. Thus, question asked in Wikipedia page is just simplistic and dumb.

woeful mesa
# orchid night I call it mental masturbation because there are questions that shouldn't be aske...

All questions should be asked within philosophical discussion. Its just that the perpetuation and nurturing of theories that are not tested against real world logic (such as the provability of the real world) and should be tested for viability of advancement and relegated to historical reference in classrooms.

I haven't checked on the current issue, just addressing the mental gymnastics in general and the conflict with real world logic. Although I would say that the subject should be entirely known in order to test it against viability. Its just one of the downfalls of using real world logic when jumping down the rabbit hole of philosophy. Everyone has to be the pioneer, instead of referring to historical resolution.

I am pretty sure this is by design because every individual cannot resolve every logical conflict so it justifies perpetuation of simulation theory, for example (but I could be wrong on the motives).

sharp bobcat
#

Ain't nothing wrong with mental masturbation

woeful mesa