The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Koranuso on July 05, 2006, 06:44:25 AM

Title: God Construct
Post by: Koranuso on July 05, 2006, 06:44:25 AM
I guess you could files this under the "what is the meaning of life" category.

I am basically confused as to why God would create humans. Was he lonely? Or he just want a toy?

In the bible it says we were created in the image of god....so guessing he has two arms, two legs and is just far more advanced.

Isn't it more likely that instead of creating being for the purpose of being worshipped (vanity). Wouldn't you prefer to create beings that could one day surpass you? Isn't that the whole point of life.

I know among humans we want our offspring to have a better life than we ourselves did. I believe the same should hold true for God and his children.

If it is a simple matter of creating life from nothing....I believe we aren't to terribly far from that. What happens when our "children" start to view us as gods? Will we finally be worthy of meeting our creator and swapping blooper stories?

Or perhaps he created a bunch of "humanish" peoples on many different worlds and the point of our lives is to participate in a great race to see which of us can create life first and thus prove ourselves worthy of being Gods buddy in the cosmos. :)

Anyways this is just the crap that runs through my head at 8 in the morning. Sorry and hope yall had a fun 4th ;)
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 05, 2006, 11:25:39 AM
We came into being because entropy allows for it. Using statistical reasoning, one can find that the chances of life emerging from choice conditions is not impossible. We need not worry about "why?" as there may of been a million, billion, zillion, or more universes without life in them before this one. All that matters is that in this one, conditions were right, and the statistical dice were in our favor.

I agree with the anthropic princible on this issue; Conditions in the universe are the way they are, and life evolved the way it did, because if it did not, we would not be here. And that's all there is to it.


As for the meaning of life. Many a philosopher, theologian, and spiritualist have spent a lifetime trying to figure this out. Some became sure of their conclusions, some never found an answer they were fully comfortable with. But in the end the meaning of life is an issue of blind faith. A personal comfort that your conciousness will continue, ever after the demise of your body, and that there is a higher purpose to your existance. But nobody can seem to agree on what exactly the meaning of life or what afterlife exists. I have myself found a solution that seems to fit and solve why the search for the purpose of life has been so elusive. Much like if you endlessly search for an object that isn't there in a completely dark and empty room, you will never find it. The answer has been staring everyone in the face the entire time.  

There is no truth, no absolute purpose of life. No goal for humanity. We exist because of complex reactions between protiens that wish to replicate themselves. We are simply here to procreate, care for our young, and die. Nothing more, Nothing less. There is no god that created us. No greater power that holds the truth of our creation. We are alone on this ball of dirt and water to fend for ourselves in a hostile universe. Perhaps there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe also, it is quite possible. But due to our current lack of understanding of how to implement a way to travel great distances in space quickly, we will never meet them. At least for the forseeable future. We are lone strangers stranded in a huge cosmic desert, with limited supplies.
Title: God Construct
Post by: Rick_James on July 05, 2006, 08:48:31 PM
I'm of the same opinion as troub currently - as that is all my mind will allow me to believe (having been raised without religious guidance on the subject)
However, it's also my belief that, by the time I'm approaching the end of my life, I will have:
a) come to terms with the fact that there is no afterlife, hope I've done enough in this life to feel content, and be ready for the warm embrace of an eternity of rest
or b) have come to accept "God" as my creator - purely to relieve myself of the burden of "What will happen when I die" Syndrome.

Currently thinking about an eternity of "Black" distresses me at times, but I'm positive my outlook will have changed by "the end" (assuming that's not premature)

I'm increasingly interested to see which option comes to fruition.
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 05, 2006, 09:12:35 PM
There is no need to be distressed that once you are dead you are gone. Using the same math that allows for our existance, it can also allow for another existance of your conciousness. It may take billions upon billions upon billions of universes for the conditions to be right, but you won't be aware of this because, you won't exist and you have no sense of time. In essence to you, you will die, then seem to be instantly reborn, even though the time between you dying and being reborn took an extrodianary amount of time. BTW this philosophy is called materialism.
Title: God Construct
Post by: qwe on July 06, 2006, 11:33:46 PM
Quote
We came into being because entropy allows for it

i like this sentence

a succinct description of biological life from the perspective of thermodynamic systems
Title: God Construct
Post by: qwe on July 06, 2006, 11:37:06 PM
Quote from: Koranuso
In the bible it says we were created in the image of god....so guessing he has two arms, two legs and is just far more advanced.

it may not be meant to be taken in a physical sense (ie, perhaps according to the phrase "made in the image of god" god has thoughts like us, or has some other meaning, but physically, could be far differently from us)
Quote
I am basically confused as to why God would create humans. Was he lonely? Or he just want a toy?

...

Isn't it more likely that instead of creating being for the purpose of being worshipped (vanity). Wouldn't you prefer to create beings that could one day surpass you? Isn't that the whole point of life.

you're placing assumptions on the christian god without much basis.  how could you possibly infer what the christian god would have as his intentions (if the word intentions would even apply to his mind, or if he even has a mind)
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 07, 2006, 01:18:15 AM
Quote from: "qwe"
Quote from: "Koranuso"
In the bible it says we were created in the image of god....so guessing he has two arms, two legs and is just far more advanced.

it may not be meant to be taken in a physical sense (ie, perhaps according to the phrase "made in the image of god" god has thoughts like us, or has some other meaning, but physically, could be far differently from us)
Quote
I am basically confused as to why God would create humans. Was he lonely? Or he just want a toy?

...

Isn't it more likely that instead of creating being for the purpose of being worshipped (vanity). Wouldn't you prefer to create beings that could one day surpass you? Isn't that the whole point of life.

you're placing assumptions on the christian god without much basis.  how could you possibly infer what the christian god would have as his intentions (if the word intentions would even apply to his mind, or if he even has a mind)


I usually do not get into arguements about interpretations of the bible because frankly, i think it's all just man-made bullshit. But I think the "we were created in the image of god" refers to the fact we have freewill, just like god. Free to make our own choices. Just digging up crap from past religion classes.
Title: God Construct
Post by: Koranuso on July 07, 2006, 05:17:30 AM
The arguments of the two posters above appear just as valid as mine honestly.

1. And why shouldn't we be able to infer what some intentions are if the being under question has been documented in a book that lists nothing but his intentions for us.

2. Ehh whether the words "we were created in the image of god" are meant to be taken literally as "we look like god" or non-literally as "we think like god" are not that different of distinctions.

3. And humans having free will would go along with the notion of us eventually evolving and surpassing the being that created us. Cause without free will we could never make the choices that would bring us further along than God. We would be forever hampered by God's will and whatever limitations he has. (and he obviously has some though that's a whoel different debate)
Title: God Construct
Post by: qwe on July 07, 2006, 01:56:47 PM
Quote from: "Koranuso"
The arguments of the two posters above appear just as valid as mine honestly.

1. And why shouldn't we be able to infer what some intentions are if the being under question has been documented in a book that lists nothing but his intentions for us.

2. Ehh whether the words "we were created in the image of god" are meant to be taken literally as "we look like god" or non-literally as "we think like god" are not that different of distinctions.

3. And humans having free will would go along with the notion of us eventually evolving and surpassing the being that created us. Cause without free will we could never make the choices that would bring us further along than God. We would be forever hampered by God's will and whatever limitations he has. (and he obviously has some though that's a whoel different debate)

1. how can you be sure the bible had divine influence?  it could be entirely manmade and mistaken
2. they're quite different.  if the biblical god had a body, he wouldn't really be the christian god now would he?
3. if he has limitations, he's not the christian god.  if we can surpass him, he's not the christian god.  but at the same time you're using the christian religion to analyze this god?  it doesnt make sense
Title: God Construct
Post by: Koranuso on July 07, 2006, 01:58:57 PM
Quote from: "qwe"
Quote from: "Koranuso"
The arguments of the two posters above appear just as valid as mine honestly.

1. And why shouldn't we be able to infer what some intentions are if the being under question has been documented in a book that lists nothing but his intentions for us.

2. Ehh whether the words "we were created in the image of god" are meant to be taken literally as "we look like god" or non-literally as "we think like god" are not that different of distinctions.

3. And humans having free will would go along with the notion of us eventually evolving and surpassing the being that created us. Cause without free will we could never make the choices that would bring us further along than God. We would be forever hampered by God's will and whatever limitations he has. (and he obviously has some though that's a whoel different debate)

1. how can you be sure the bible had divine influence?  it could be entirely manmade and mistaken
2. they're quite different.  if the biblical god had a body, he wouldn't really be the christian god now would he?
3. if he has limitations, he's not the christian god.  if we can surpass him, he's not the christian god.  but at the same time you're using the christian religion to analyze this god?  it doesnt make sense


The only limitation of God is God....the only limitation of Man is Man.
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 07, 2006, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: "Koranuso"
Quote from: "qwe"
Quote from: "Koranuso"
The arguments of the two posters above appear just as valid as mine honestly.

1. And why shouldn't we be able to infer what some intentions are if the being under question has been documented in a book that lists nothing but his intentions for us.

2. Ehh whether the words "we were created in the image of god" are meant to be taken literally as "we look like god" or non-literally as "we think like god" are not that different of distinctions.

3. And humans having free will would go along with the notion of us eventually evolving and surpassing the being that created us. Cause without free will we could never make the choices that would bring us further along than God. We would be forever hampered by God's will and whatever limitations he has. (and he obviously has some though that's a whoel different debate)

1. how can you be sure the bible had divine influence?  it could be entirely manmade and mistaken
2. they're quite different.  if the biblical god had a body, he wouldn't really be the christian god now would he?
3. if he has limitations, he's not the christian god.  if we can surpass him, he's not the christian god.  but at the same time you're using the christian religion to analyze this god?  it doesnt make sense


The only limitation of God is God....the only limitation of Man is Man.


God =/= Exist
Title: God Construct
Post by: 6strings on July 07, 2006, 07:42:39 PM
Quote
God =/= Exist

Can you prove that empirically, or is this just something you can't back up, but choose to believe?  Because if that's the case then what you are doing is no different from people choosing to believe in god, which you seem to be criticising...
Title: God Construct
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 09, 2006, 12:35:11 AM
In this one, I will fall back to the ancient and in my opinion true statement.

God in his creation of us and everything else, obviously had great wisdom and power.  What makes you (or anyone for that matter) worthy of judging God's motives and plans.

That is what I used to believe when I had my faith
Title: God Construct
Post by: Mephistopheles on July 09, 2006, 12:40:05 AM
Quote from: "troubadour"
We came into being because entropy allows for it. Using statistical reasoning, one can find that the chances of life emerging from choice conditions is not impossible. We need not worry about "why?" as there may of been a million, billion, zillion, or more universes without life in them before this one. All that matters is that in this one, conditions were right, and the statistical dice were in our favor.

I agree with the anthropic princible on this issue; Conditions in the universe are the way they are, and life evolved the way it did, because if it did not, we would not be here. And that's all there is to it.


As for the meaning of life. Many a philosopher, theologian, and spiritualist have spent a lifetime trying to figure this out. Some became sure of their conclusions, some never found an answer they were fully comfortable with. But in the end the meaning of life is an issue of blind faith. A personal comfort that your conciousness will continue, ever after the demise of your body, and that there is a higher purpose to your existance. But nobody can seem to agree on what exactly the meaning of life or what afterlife exists. I have myself found a solution that seems to fit and solve why the search for the purpose of life has been so elusive. Much like if you endlessly search for an object that isn't there in a completely dark and empty room, you will never find it. The answer has been staring everyone in the face the entire time.  

There is no truth, no absolute purpose of life. No goal for humanity. We exist because of complex reactions between protiens that wish to replicate themselves. We are simply here to procreate, care for our young, and die. Nothing more, Nothing less. There is no god that created us. No greater power that holds the truth of our creation. We are alone on this ball of dirt and water to fend for ourselves in a hostile universe. Perhaps there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe also, it is quite possible. But due to our current lack of understanding of how to implement a way to travel great distances in space quickly, we will never meet them. At least for the forseeable future. We are lone strangers stranded in a huge cosmic desert, with limited supplies.


I've studied this before.

Its a good train of thought, but something's always missing.  It's God.  God as in whatever it is that was the start, the ignition, the existance of which there was no existance.

Religious or not, it remains to be the thing we are searching for.
Title: God Construct
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 09, 2006, 12:44:19 AM
Even in the most commonly accepted creation theory, the Big Bang, there still needs to be something there at  explodes, even if you believe in the idea of an elastic universe, one that continually falls into itself, there had to be some start to it.  Many would argue that the origional thing is the God that people search for
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 09, 2006, 07:38:45 AM
Quote from: "6strings"
Quote
God =/= Exist

Can you prove that empirically, or is this just something you can't back up, but choose to believe?  Because if that's the case then what you are doing is no different from people choosing to believe in god, which you seem to be criticising...


that is like saying can you prove superman doesn't exist. Just because a lot of people believe in a god(or a god, gods), doesn't make them correct. One simply cannot believe something into existance.
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 09, 2006, 07:40:12 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Even in the most commonly accepted creation theory, the Big Bang, there still needs to be something there at  explodes, even if you believe in the idea of an elastic universe, one that continually falls into itself, there had to be some start to it.  Many would argue that the origional thing is the God that people search for


I think you have misinterpraeted what the big bang was.
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 09, 2006, 07:42:19 AM
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Quote from: "troubadour"
We came into being because entropy allows for it. Using statistical reasoning, one can find that the chances of life emerging from choice conditions is not impossible. We need not worry about "why?" as there may of been a million, billion, zillion, or more universes without life in them before this one. All that matters is that in this one, conditions were right, and the statistical dice were in our favor.

I agree with the anthropic princible on this issue; Conditions in the universe are the way they are, and life evolved the way it did, because if it did not, we would not be here. And that's all there is to it.


As for the meaning of life. Many a philosopher, theologian, and spiritualist have spent a lifetime trying to figure this out. Some became sure of their conclusions, some never found an answer they were fully comfortable with. But in the end the meaning of life is an issue of blind faith. A personal comfort that your conciousness will continue, ever after the demise of your body, and that there is a higher purpose to your existance. But nobody can seem to agree on what exactly the meaning of life or what afterlife exists. I have myself found a solution that seems to fit and solve why the search for the purpose of life has been so elusive. Much like if you endlessly search for an object that isn't there in a completely dark and empty room, you will never find it. The answer has been staring everyone in the face the entire time.  

There is no truth, no absolute purpose of life. No goal for humanity. We exist because of complex reactions between protiens that wish to replicate themselves. We are simply here to procreate, care for our young, and die. Nothing more, Nothing less. There is no god that created us. No greater power that holds the truth of our creation. We are alone on this ball of dirt and water to fend for ourselves in a hostile universe. Perhaps there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe also, it is quite possible. But due to our current lack of understanding of how to implement a way to travel great distances in space quickly, we will never meet them. At least for the forseeable future. We are lone strangers stranded in a huge cosmic desert, with limited supplies.


I've studied this before.

Its a good train of thought, but something's always missing.  It's God.  God as in whatever it is that was the start, the ignition, the existance of which there was no existance.

Religious or not, it remains to be the thing we are searching for.


The only people that say that a god was needed for creation are ones that do not have a grasp on inflationary cosmology.
Title: God Construct
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 09, 2006, 10:14:28 AM
Troubador, the big bang theory from what I remember about it involves one small superdense point of all matter, which essentially went bang and produced the cosmos.  Its a bit more complicatd than that, but if I remember correctly that is the basic idea.  That matter had to come from somewhere, saying it was "just there" is similar in my view to saying God just came up and said "let there be light"

If there is some major theory I'm missing and making a total idiot of myself, please enlighten me
Title: God Construct
Post by: Mephistopheles on July 09, 2006, 10:20:24 AM
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Quote from: "troubadour"
We came into being because entropy allows for it. Using statistical reasoning, one can find that the chances of life emerging from choice conditions is not impossible. We need not worry about "why?" as there may of been a million, billion, zillion, or more universes without life in them before this one. All that matters is that in this one, conditions were right, and the statistical dice were in our favor.

I agree with the anthropic princible on this issue; Conditions in the universe are the way they are, and life evolved the way it did, because if it did not, we would not be here. And that's all there is to it.


As for the meaning of life. Many a philosopher, theologian, and spiritualist have spent a lifetime trying to figure this out. Some became sure of their conclusions, some never found an answer they were fully comfortable with. But in the end the meaning of life is an issue of blind faith. A personal comfort that your conciousness will continue, ever after the demise of your body, and that there is a higher purpose to your existance. But nobody can seem to agree on what exactly the meaning of life or what afterlife exists. I have myself found a solution that seems to fit and solve why the search for the purpose of life has been so elusive. Much like if you endlessly search for an object that isn't there in a completely dark and empty room, you will never find it. The answer has been staring everyone in the face the entire time.  

There is no truth, no absolute purpose of life. No goal for humanity. We exist because of complex reactions between protiens that wish to replicate themselves. We are simply here to procreate, care for our young, and die. Nothing more, Nothing less. There is no god that created us. No greater power that holds the truth of our creation. We are alone on this ball of dirt and water to fend for ourselves in a hostile universe. Perhaps there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe also, it is quite possible. But due to our current lack of understanding of how to implement a way to travel great distances in space quickly, we will never meet them. At least for the forseeable future. We are lone strangers stranded in a huge cosmic desert, with limited supplies.


I've studied this before.

Its a good train of thought, but something's always missing.  It's God.  God as in whatever it is that was the start, the ignition, the existance of which there was no existance.

Religious or not, it remains to be the thing we are searching for.


The only people that say that a god was needed for creation are ones that do not have a grasp on inflationary cosmology.


I believe you misread me.  I used the term God metaphorically as the key that started everything.  And I'd daresay you would not disagree that inflationary cosmology doesn't explain how everything came to exist from non-existance.
Title: God Construct
Post by: 6strings on July 09, 2006, 08:23:07 PM
Quote
that is like saying can you prove superman doesn't exist. Just because a lot of people believe in a god(or a god, gods), doesn't make them correct. One simply cannot believe something into existance.

And simply because you don't believe in a god, does not mean none exists, just as I cannot will a wall into non-existance.  In short, your non-belief in god has the same merit as anyone else's belief in god, and as such, you should at least attempt to respect people, regardless of their beliefs, rather than being such a prejudiced prick about religion whenever anybody mentions God or Christ.
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 09, 2006, 11:08:27 PM
Quote from: "6strings"
Quote
that is like saying can you prove superman doesn't exist. Just because a lot of people believe in a god(or a god, gods), doesn't make them correct. One simply cannot believe something into existance.

And simply because you don't believe in a god, does not mean none exists, just as I cannot will a wall into non-existance.  In short, your non-belief in god has the same merit as anyone else's belief in god, and as such, you should at least attempt to respect people, regardless of their beliefs, rather than being such a prejudiced prick about religion whenever anybody mentions God or Christ.


how about this for a prick. Fuck you.
Title: God Construct
Post by: TheEngineer on July 09, 2006, 11:16:22 PM
Quote from: "troubadour"

how about this for a prick. Fuck you.

Yep, that proves it.
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 09, 2006, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Troubador, the big bang theory from what I remember about it involves one small superdense point of all matter, which essentially went bang and produced the cosmos.  Its a bit more complicatd than that, but if I remember correctly that is the basic idea.  That matter had to come from somewhere, saying it was "just there" is similar in my view to saying God just came up and said "let there be light"

If there is some major theory I'm missing and making a total idiot of myself, please enlighten me


Well it is a bit more complicated then that, and we are still uncovering more and more about what happened so the picture is kind of blurry. But the theory that is dominant at the moment, and without a doubt the brainchild of this era of theoretical physics, is inflationary cosmology. Basically the universe was scrunched up into a tiny space as small as the plank length, 10^(-33). In a matter of less then a fraction of a plank time(10^(-43)) (the number that flys around the most is 10^(-77) of a second) the universe exploded by a huge factor. On the low end there is 10^(30), on the high end there is 10^(100) of what is was. To put this in perspective, using the low end model of 10^(30) , that is akin to an atom balloning up to the size of the milky way galaxy almost instantly. This is much different then the big-bang models of the 60s and 70s. Inflationary cosmology proposes that the universe inflatated by an incredible amount in the first split second. The reasoning behind this is because of the mathmatical discovery that gravity can actually have a repulsive side. Under certain conditions(IE, the conditions at the big bang) gravity can repel matter instead of cause it to attract.

Inflationary cosmology also means that since the bang was so fast, there was no time for entropy to take it's course and prevent the objects in the universe from forming as they are. If the expansion was over a longer period of time, the highly ordered state of everything at the big bang would of quickly spun into disorder before the universe was large enough for stars and galaxies to start forming. Evidence of this is in the background radiation we receive from all directions in space. It is equal in all directions to the thousandth of a degree, just the amount that meshes with inflationary cosmology.


That's pretty much inflationary cosmology in a nutshell. If you wish to read up more, try google. Or a good book(also avalible on audio format from audible.com) for more information about it is The Fabric of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene.
Title: God Construct
Post by: Koranuso on July 10, 2006, 05:08:13 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
In this one, I will fall back to the ancient and in my opinion true statement.

God in his creation of us and everything else, obviously had great wisdom and power.  What makes you (or anyone for that matter) worthy of judging God's motives and plans.

That is what I used to believe when I had my faith


Because what makes God a God in my opinion is his ability to create life from nothin.

When we attain this level of technology I see no reason why we should not be God in the eyes of our "children".

Such is the logic behind my first post.
Title: God Construct
Post by: 6strings on July 10, 2006, 09:19:55 AM
Well, we wouldn't really be creating life from "nothing", so to speak, merely inbuing otherwise non-sentient objects with sentience.  But I see where you're going.  Clearly, if we define God in such a way that he is the one that create life, then, yes, we would be God to what we create.  Of course, that seems, to me, to be altering the traditional definition of the word God.

On the Big Bang;  The idea that god created the matter that exploded in the Big Bang really just pushes the problem back a step, and its only virtue over the godless model, or flaw, depending on your beliefs, is that it includes god.  In general, the religious person's argument goes like this: "But what created the stuff that exploded in the Big Bang?", clearly it must have been God.  But this really doesn't solve the issue at hand, it mearly begs the question "What created God?".  The traditional religious answer is that God was always there. , of course, if god can always be there, why can't this matter from whence the Big bang came?

Troubadour:  In spite of your brilliant retort, I apologize.  I'll grant that I probably shouldn't have called you a prick,  regardless of how you act. However, it simply strikes me as exedingly arrogant that you would come into a theological discussion and simply state that God does not exist, when you have no evidence for this one way or another, and procede, in other discussions, to act as though anyone who believes in a god is somehow childish or less intelligent than you given that your sole basis for these statements are you beliefs which have, more or less, the same degree of validity of those who believe in a god.
Title: God Construct
Post by: Mephistopheles on July 10, 2006, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: "6strings"
Well, we wouldn't really be creating life from "nothing", so to speak, merely inbuing otherwise non-sentient objects with sentience.  But I see where you're going.  Clearly, if we define God in such a way that he is the one that create life, then, yes, we would be God to what we create.  Of course, that seems, to me, to be altering the traditional definition of the word God.

On the Big Bang;  The idea that god created the matter that exploded in the Big Bang really just pushes the problem back a step, and its only virtue over the godless model, or flaw, depending on your beliefs, is that it includes god.  In general, the religious person's argument goes like this: "But what created the stuff that exploded in the Big Bang?", clearly it must have been God.  But this really doesn't solve the issue at hand, it mearly begs the question "What created God?".  The traditional religious answer is that God was always there. , of course, if god can always be there, why can't this matter from whence the Big bang came?

Troubadour:  In spite of your brilliant retort, I apologize.  I'll grant that I probably shouldn't have called you a prick,  regardless of how you act. However, it simply strikes me as exedingly arrogant that you would come into a theological discussion and simply state that God does not exist, when you have no evidence for this one way or another, and procede, in other discussions, to act as though anyone who believes in a god is somehow childish or less intelligent than you given that your sole basis for these statements are you beliefs which have, more or less, the same degree of validity of those who believe in a god.


I had no problem with troubadour's posts at all.  I'm not sure I quite liked the quick anti-religious retorts he had about him, but substance wise, he has contributed a fine idea to this thread.

Whatever you accept, you accept with a grain of salt and will allow small gaps to be taken for granted because for something of this magnitude, its not possible to know as true or false yet.  Or perhaps ever.

Materialism has many holes in it, but it is acceptable if you do not find yourself able to have faith in a God entity or other omnipotent "force" or existance.
Title: God Construct
Post by: 6strings on July 10, 2006, 04:41:16 PM
Granted, but there is no reason to act as though any who don't hold your opinion as fools, espescially when your opinion is no more valid than those you criticise.

En tout cas, you're right; materialism seems a fairly viable alternative to an afterlife for atheists who do not want to believe that there is nothing beyond death.
Title: God Construct
Post by: Dr. Bakerfield on July 10, 2006, 04:44:25 PM
If I say I have a pink elephant which can heal people in my room, would you believe me?

The point in these discussions is, it isn't about how you can disprove him, it's about how you can prove him.

If you have no proof for something, the question isn't if it doesn't exist,
The question is if it does.
Title: God Construct
Post by: Mephistopheles on July 10, 2006, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: "Dr. Bakerfield"
If I say I have a pink elephant which can heal people in my room, would you believe me?

The point in these discussions is, it isn't about how you can disprove him, it's about how you can prove him.

If you have no proof for something, the question isn't if it doesn't exist,
The question is if it does.


Will you please stop posting off-topic?

Thanks in advance.
Title: God Construct
Post by: 6strings on July 10, 2006, 04:56:09 PM
Given the troubles expounded by Hume on inductive reasoning, it's fairly well-established that proving things is impossible.  But I take your point.  There are, and have been, over the ages, many events that can be taken to be the hand of God meddling in human affairs, but can also be taken, by those who don't believe in a god, as mere coincidence, or chance, such as unexplained, spontaneous remissions.  Granted, these are not absolute proof that a god exists, but I feel that they give at least some credence to the  belief in a god.

Quote
Just because a lot of people believe in a god(or a god, gods), doesn't make them correct. One simply cannot believe something into existance.

I'd also like to explore this idea.  If something's existance or non-existanc makes no difference to the world beyond how people act, based on their belief in this thing's existance, can believing in it make it exist?

For example, say, somehow, it were proved, mathematically that God either did or did not exist.  The physical world would remain the same, given that god's existance or non-existance had been the case all along, however, human interactions would change drastically, simply based on their knowledge of this fact.  It seems to me that, in this case, simply believing in a god is analogous to his existance.
Title: God Construct
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 10, 2006, 05:03:23 PM
Quote from: "6strings"


On the Big Bang;  The idea that god created the matter that exploded in the Big Bang really just pushes the problem back a step, and its only virtue over the godless model, or flaw, depending on your beliefs, is that it includes god.  In general, the religious person's argument goes like this: "But what created the stuff that exploded in the Big Bang?", clearly it must have been God.  But this really doesn't solve the issue at hand, it mearly begs the question "What created God?".  The traditional religious answer is that God was always there. , of course, if god can always be there, why can't this matter from whence the Big bang came?


I think I understand the point youre trying to make, but at least with the religion, God is God, it is not something as tangible as the matter.  The matter would have to come from somewhere, a total double standard can be used where God comes from... its God, hes been there forever, what made him act is a big mystery, but its God, so we wouldnt understand anyway.

I completely understand why this would be illogical and angering, in fact, I usually end up arguing your side of this.

Oh and on a sort-of side note, I was recently talking to this crazy religious friend of mine, and he was trying to convince me that the singularity was in fact God's happy kingdom, and the Big Bang was when Lucifer and his companions tried to usurp God's throne.  I thought that was sort of funny

- :twisted:
Title: God Construct
Post by: troubadour on July 11, 2006, 07:51:51 AM
For all you people wondering where the matter came from.

Energy condensed into matter from photons violently smacking into each other shortly after the temp was suitable enough post-bang.


This is possible and has been produced in labs with high-powered lasers. When 2 photons smack into each other with enough energy, the energy is converted into matter.


FYI, our notion of matter, or familiar matter (electrons, protons, neutrons) make up about 5% of all of the matter in the universe according to the most recent theories. 25% is dark matter, and 70% is dark energy. Latest theories show that the universe DOES have the critical mass required for the shape of space to be flat rather then curved in or out.