Yes, of course, but they don't just Imagine things in a vacuum, as you implied.
And what do you suppose scientists use to "ponder possible solutions"? That would be imagination, which, as one famous scientist put it, is more important than the knowledge you cling to like the very same teddy bear in the sky your opposition does.
Are you willing to "ponder" that you won't make a Planck's length of progress as a species without imagination?
I implied thinking in a vacuum? Where? When I brought up Peter Higgs' theory of the Higgs Field? His proposal of a new yet undiscovered particle? It's discovery recently at the Large Hadron Collider?
Was that in a vacuum? Or are you not above using strawman arguments like your opposition?
"...It wasn't real, and there was no evidence to support it's existence..."
Right. There was no evidence in the beginning. Granted, it wasn't a religion. It wasn't in a vacuum either. It was an attempt to explain observed phenomena. Which is pretty much what many people, with their varying quantities of knowledge try to do from their own viewpoint.
I do not need a reason to not believe. Not believing is the default state. There are an infinite number of things that I have no reason to believe in.
The something from nothing argument is a non-starter. No matter what you name I can just keep saying, 'well where did it come from?' until we eventually get a point where something had to of come from nothing. Either that or there is something that has always existed. Either way you go we can call that object that come from nothing/always existed the universe as easily as we can call it a god.
Since I know that the universe exists it is more logically sound to ascribe that property to the universe that I know exists then to assume a creature that I have no evidence for in order to ascribe that power to it.
People's beliefs are not held in a void. They use those beliefs to inform their decisions. They end up passing laws based on the belief that a magical being will help out. They exclude people based on what magical being you believe in. They fight wars over whose
magical being is the best. If I can get people to see that there is no reason to believe in a magical being maybe I can stop some of this. Failing that maybe I can at least convince people that my lack of a belief in a magical being is not a good reason to have me executed. This might sound silly to you, but it is still happening in this world. So I can't believe that other people believing in magical beings is harmless.
Yes. The argument that god is a jerk is really a argument that there is no god. It is an attempt to discredit the only real source of information you have about your god, leaving the only conclusion that if the source material (the bible) is wrong then maybe the
conclusion (there is a god) is wrong as well.
Why? How ever I got here, I am here now and I generate meaning. I assign meaning to things based on my own system. I like my life and want to keep it. So I do things that I have determined will work to that goal. I have other people that make my life better and I want them to survive. To accomplish these goals I have decided to work in a society of other people all working together for these goals. For that society to work we need rules we all follow. I accept those rules and act as an active participant in helping to form, analyze the effectiveness of, make changes to, and enforce those rules.
I want to save the planet because I like this planet. It is where I keep all my stuff. I
didn’t need any god to tell me that I don’t want to destroy the place I live.
In the end all ethics can be logically derived with out the need of the universe itself
having any meaning, only the knowledge that I am here now and there are things that I
want.
Nonsense. The aversion to poor reasoning is impetus enough.That is not what I am saying... I am saying that if one does not have an answer for the question or any substantial idea how to answer the question, the motivation to attack the belief is suspect.
Oh really? And your evidence is? You've found the edges of the universe?Finite-ness is a characteristic of this universe.
Where, now? (Second time asking)If there is something outside the universe,
According to which premise should that follow? If something is outside the house, the characteristics of the house do not apply. Is that necessarily true?...the characteristics of the universe do not apply to it.
What understanding do you believe that to be, because I assure you it is a misunderstanding.So, the "non-starter" point really isn't valid. If the universe is finite -and from what we understand about matter and time, it is- then it needs a beginning.
What boundaries are those? Where are they?Something outside of the boundaries of time would have had to bring it into being.
Please tell us what you think we "know"about the universe that supports your claims.Well, from what we know about the universe, this is not the case.
It's funny that you claim that humans have no idea what god is, then go on to tell us how obvious it is what god is, claiming that god exists (which you'd have to know what he is to have evidence that he exists to be able to claim that he does exist), and that he's trying to tell us something (which means you'd have to know the mind of a being you claim that we cannot know, blah blah blah).
This is the kind of bullshit word salad nonsense that suckers in weak-minded fools who can't think for themselves.
when we have not the slightest frickin clue what God is telling us.
It is so obvious. Hell, humans do not even know what humans are. lol.
There is ample evidence that humans are not the direct ancestors of previous hominids,
and that there are actually direct hominid descendants walking the earth today.
Rather than becoming informed on this, we just make stupid jokes (using pejoratives like "bigfoot") and simply choose to wallow in ignorance. If anything, God would have to be laughing at our stupidity.
That is not what I am saying... I am saying that if one does not have an answer for the question or any substantial idea how to answer the question, the motivation to attack the belief is suspect.
To know if finite-ness is a characteristic of the universe we would have to have already answered the question as to how the universe came about. Since we are questioning that we cant assume the universe has that property.Finite-ness is a characteristic of this universe.
Also no. If there is something outside the universe, the characteristics of the universe Might not apply to it.If there is something outside the universe, the characteristics of the universe do not apply to it.
I'm pretty well versed in modern physics and I know nothing in the theories that state that space or time had to have a beginning. We only know that at one time they underwent extreme expansion. (Understand, expansion does not even mean that they are finite, it could have been an infinite universe that expanded.)If the universe is finite -and from what we understand about matter and time, it is- then it needs a beginning.
By the logic you are trying to use that does not really even make sense. For something to come into being there would have to have been a time before it was.Something outside of the boundaries of time would have had to bring it into being.
I don't think you understand. I pursue meaning because of what I believe. I believe that there IS NO universal meaning. That if there is going to be meaning I have to generate it.The belief you hold contradicts what you experience. You pursue meaning despite what you believe.
All I am saying is if you don't have a clue about something, why would you attack someone else's idea on it? There is no rational reason to disagree if you don't have anything to add to the conversation. Your dislike for what followers of a particular idea might do is not a rational reason b/c the activities of the "believers" does not necessarily negate the belief itself.So you have no problem with the substance of the attack it is the motivation that you object to? I already spoke of the motivation of why someone would attack the belief, and you accepted it as valid in this post. Im wondering if we are talking about two different things here.
To know if finite-ness is a characteristic of the universe we would have to have already answered the question as to how the universe came about. Since we are questioning that we cant assume the universe has that property.
Also no. If there is something outside the universe, the characteristics of the universe Might not apply to it.
I'm pretty well versed in modern physics and I know nothing in the theories that state that space or time had to have a beginning. We only know that at one time they underwent extreme expansion. (Understand, expansion does not even mean that they are finite, it could have been an infinite universe that expanded.)
For something to come into being there would have to have been a time before it was.
I don't think you understand. I pursue meaning because of what I believe. I believe that there IS NO universal meaning. That if there is going to be meaning I have to generate it.
It is up to me (and you, and everyone else) to generate meaning. And my meaning does not have to be same (or even compatible) with your meaning.
Heck, this is why we have dictionaries, because we can't naturally agree on meaning.
Because some ideas are just bad ideas. I don't need to know much about god to know that an idea of god that includes the alleged ability to draw square circles is a bad idea of god.All I am saying is if you don't have a clue about something, why would you attack someone else's idea on it?
And I just showed that this is false.There is no rational reason to disagree if you don't have anything to add to the conversation.
Yes, this is true, but that isn't the reason why people like myself criticize arguments for the existence of gods.Your dislike for what followers of a particular idea might do is not a rational reason b/c the activities of the "believers" does not necessarily negate the belief itself.
Are you every going to actually support these outlandish claims of yours? What do you think is observable that disagrees?There are theories that might agree with you, but that which is observable disagrees with you.
Not all of them.Are Hawking's theories considered modern?
Baloney. You haven't the foggiest idea what it means to be infinite.An infinite universe cannot expand.
And that is flatly false. Some infinities are larger than others -- take for example the distinction between countable and uncountable infinities.Expand means grow larger.. infinite is not measurable- it goes on forever, the concept of "larger" does not apply.
Says who? Where's your evidence? Why should we believe you're not just talking out of your ass?If the universe was brought into existence from an eternal plane, there would not be a "time" before it.
Please speak for yourself. Not all of us are so limited.The human brain is limited to thinking in time, so we apply time to everything. This is why one would struggle with this concept.
It might be pointless to you, but it doesn't mean its pointless to him, or to me.No, I understand what you are saying, I am just saying that it is pointless to "create meaning".
Not to him it wouldn't.You could create any meaning you wanted and it would all be the same.
So what? Who cares what your value judgements are?It doesn't matter what you do, b/c you are the one who assigns value to the meaning you create. Others (like me) can make value judgments about the meaning you create , but there is nothing that says my value judgement is worth more than yours.
Preposterous. Meaning is only meaning to someone.The word "Meaning" actually implies an intrinsic value...
Where is your evidence that there is any other kind of value?ironically when you create meaning there is no value to assign but your own...
Which I just showed was a bunch of silly nonsense.which is pointless b/c everything that I already stated.
Physician, heal thyself!In all seriousness, you will be fine as long as you don't think about it too hard. It might benefit you more to think about it a bit harder though.
One thing I am certain of: regardless of the existence or nature of God, the often savage, biting, scraping debates over its existence and nature are a purely human creation born of purely human needs.
Ah yes. The God allows bad things to happen so you can learn trope. That is why god allows men to gang rape 3 year old children until they are dead. Those children needed to learn the valuable lesson that being gang raped until death is not something you want to experience.
I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks that bad things happen so we can learn from them has not seen the depths of depravity that this world is capable of.
Let's look at the Bible for a case of this: The Slaughter of Innocents. So God creates a star which leads the wise men to Herod, who wants to kill the child. After they see the child, an angel warns them away from Herod. Now lacking a target Herod decides to slaughter all the infants in the town. Now an angel tells Joesph to escape with Jesus. All the other infants are killed. Now what purpose did this episode serve other than to fulfill OT prophecy? Had the angels visited the wise men prior to visiting Herod, all those kids could have been spared. Guess God just really loved those babies and wanted them with him sooner than later.
Let's look at the Bible for a case of this: The Slaughter of Innocents. So God creates a star which leads the wise men to Herod, who wants to kill the child. After they see the child, an angel warns them away from Herod. Now lacking a target Herod decides to slaughter all the infants in the town. Now an angel tells Joesph to escape with Jesus. All the other infants are killed. Now what purpose did this episode serve other than to fulfill OT prophecy? Had the angels visited the wise men prior to visiting Herod, all those kids could have been spared. Guess God just really loved those babies and wanted them with him sooner than later.
So you'd argue that if God did exist and was loving and merciful, you'd want to sacrifice free will to ensure perfect peace?
There was no "purpose" Herod had free will was simply being an asshole. Likewise the star didn't lead them to Herod, it led them to Jesus. The Magi passed through Jerusalem on the way, looking for a more precise location; which is when Herod heard about it. Once again, all through free will.
As I said I'm not Christian, but the argument that if God was all-loving and all-merciful nothing bad would happen implies that God would have perfect control over humanity, and we would completely lack free will. That's assuming that a being as vast, powerful and complex as God even shares our human definitions of "love" and "mercy" in the first place.
So you'd argue that if God did exist and was loving and merciful, you'd want to sacrifice free will to ensure perfect peace?
There was no "purpose" Herod had free will was simply being an asshole. Likewise the star didn't lead them to Herod, it led them to Jesus. The Magi passed through Jerusalem on the way, looking for a more precise location; which is when Herod heard about it. Once again, all through free will.
As I said I'm not Christian, but the argument that if God was all-loving and all-merciful nothing bad would happen implies that God would have perfect control over humanity, and we would completely lack free will. That's assuming that a being as vast, powerful and complex as God even shares our human definitions of "love" and "mercy" in the first place.
So I haven't read the last 16 pages. My thoughts on God are rather simple:
1. We have no way of knowing whether he/she/it exists or not. Some people derive faith in a any number of deities for any number of reasons, some don't.
2. Some people lose faith in God, some gain faith in God. Most often at the same time, during a simultaneous exchange of faith in one thing for faith in something else.
3. There is a stark distinction between faith and fact. The latter is substantiated by human logic, the former is not. One may or may not override the other depending on specific circumstances.
4. The human condition requires faith in something to progress. It's how we're wired. It may be faith in something as physical as wealth, or in something as mind-bending and ethereal as Aristotle's meta-physics, but there has to be something upon which to base our view of the world.
God may or may not be an outcome of this need.
5. Some require God more than others.
As for my background, I was raised Baptist, became Agnostic, became Deist, and recently consider myself a philosophical Taoist (meaning I regularly read, analyze, and attempt to follow the lessons of the Tao Te Ching).
I suppose that Tao could be considered "God" by one interpretation. It's described as the source of all creation, the place where all things eventually return; and that its essence can be observed but never grasped by mankind. However, in verse 1 it's stated: "Tao and this world seem different, but in truth they are one and the same. The only difference is in what we call them".
Given that the entirety of the Tao Te Ching is poetic and interpretive you can take it any number of ways. But for all the possible interpretations there's a surprising consistency to the traits ascribed. In fact, reading the Tao Te Ching there are surprising parallels to Christian teachings, albeit without all the explicit divine mandates (part of the reason I gravitated towards it).
So I'd say I believe in Tao and you can call it God if you like. I can't say whether it will be accurate, as "God" usually implies a sentient being with a coherent will, and Tao is never described as such in essence.
One thing I am certain of: regardless of the existence or nature of God, the often savage, biting, scraping debates over its existence and nature are a purely human creation born of purely human needs.
I thought god was all powerful and all knowing?
How do you know we have free will to begin with(without god)?
Do you really think it's holy to destroy innocent children in Sodom and Gomorah? Do you really think it's holy to bid a man take his son into the wilderness, make an alter, and sacrifice him to god? The bible is full of immoral, unethical atrocities demanded done by the christian god. Christians have absolutely no room to make moral or ethical claims.
None of that light/dark business is meaningful. Allegory and imagination are philosophy, not fact or rationale.
God is. you missed his point about control I think and irish can certainly correct me if I am incorrect. God has perfect knowledge of all possible choices. Our freewill is our ability to choose from an infinite set of choices. If God exerted His perfect control, their would be no free will.
This illustrates my point rather nicely. You judge right/wrong, good/evil by their works.