Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:33 am

What did he have trouble with? Christianity is no more unbelievable than any other belief, surely?

If I remember rightly, Glyph's a religious man. Maybe he has something for you?

by **DREWCIFER** » Wed May 30, 2007 7:26 am

Everyone has the same basic need, to believe. Be it religion, science, or whatever. Everyone has to believe that there is an answer to whatever they are questioning. - Olde Drewish Saying

You cannot spell Believe without Lie - Marilyn Manson

The truth is there is no way to prove God(s) exist. IF they did exist, they would only let those who believe in them know. If they don't exist only those who believe in them would miss them. So only people who want to believe, do.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the argument that we came come from nothingness. Also, I don't have a problem with not knowing everything.

The earth was here long before humanity, and it will be here long after humanity, we’re just a small dust spec on pocketwatch of time. - Olde Drewish Saying

When I die, I will feed the worms, they will feed the birds, Their sh!t will feed the planet that my offspring will live on. This is existence.

The problem with Humans, is the same trait that brought us out of the trees and across the plains..."why". We are curious creatures. We want to know why something is.

:DEVIL:

by **Dagon** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:14 am

As humans we also have a deep seated desire to believe in something after an inevitable conclusion. If death is the ultimate end of life, then we want a concept of there being something more. This can go either way, either as a spiritual concept or just a greed-esque desire for more 'life'.
Also, since societies are built in a pyramid fashion with some being in charge of others, we naturally develop the idea that even the rulers are ruled. But the concept of a universal overlord is unsettling to me.
In some of the pantheons the gods were more or less super beings who had an affect on the goings on in the world. Zues threw lightning when he was angry, and if you lost your keys Loki may have taken them to trick you. Religion essentially begins as a way to understand things that at the time are not understood. So in a number of ways it's very superstitious.

While I for one am not religious at all, and while I cannot offer proof in one way or the next that God does/n't exist, it follows human nature to create belief in order to 'explain' the unexplainable. But also as Drew said, if people want to believe they do. Everyone needs something in their lives, be it religion or whatever, to give them something to believe in.

by **DesalationReborn** » Wed May 30, 2007 11:23 am

What is the definition of 'God' anyway? I assume we're discussing a creator deity, which has always rubbed me as kind of odd. We've never seen anything actually created or destroyed, so why does it all even need to be created? As mentioned before, this hypothesis of complexity equaling intelligent intervention may simply be the act of an injenuitive brain used to arranging things as 'orderly' and 'complex' interjecting such thoughts onto the universe. The laws we prescribe to the universe itself are merely imperfect labels to help us understand a seemingly inherent functionality.

If anything, at the moment, the data we seem to be observing suggests a kind of infinite genesis, something similar to the Greek model of continuous cycle. Constantly shifting and changing, acting and reacting it almost has a life of it's own, and the 'God' of that is something I could understand, though not necessarily a 'sentient' one in the common sense.

EDIT: And note, in a continuous closed, even random cycle, everything repeats, so make sure you're happy as you are now, or else you'll be miserable an infinite times over.

The Buddhist understanding of everything being nothing helps. Oddly enough, in my own mind, I don't even recognize singular 'self', although I can understand the concept. I include near everything I use for day to day life, all I meet, and all I pursue as a definition of self, if anything.

For what I seek, it is life, growth and conflict, as all do, for realizing your true path is merely realizing you're already walking it. Nietzsche is huge. Live as the being you are now, and realize death is merely the path to new existence.

Ugh...I had a big long post ready, but I accidently kicked the power cord, so this is a bit pert.

by **lkavadas** » Wed May 30, 2007 11:40 am

Professor Smooth wrote:There are more options than just "God did it" or "something came from nothing." The point of this thread is not to figure out how the universe was created. It is to find evidence that a God exists.

Throughout history, Gods have been used to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Humans didn't know what caused the sun to rise and set, so they credited a God. Humans didn't know what caused lighting to strike. God again. As human knowledge and understanding increased, those Gods were made obsolete.

This is what is known as a "God of Gaps." Whenever there is something that humans don't know or understand, people attribute it to a God.

lkavadas wrote:If you would drop the traditional trappings of the definition of "god(s)" found in the major religions we might actually be able to have a real debate about the subject but I honestly don't think you can separate those notions from the something no matter how hard you try.

That's from my second post. You just aren't capable of interpreting a "god(s)" or "godlike something" as anything beyond traditional notions and stereotypes. This is a pointless exercise.

I called it, you proved it. Why bother having a discussion at all when you already know you won't listen to a word anyone says? Again, simple unwillingness makes this a ridiculous thread. Wow, you're an athiest looking to bash and belittle religious folks for their "antiquated and silly beliefs." How very cosmopolitan of you. Though with a sig like yours I can't say this comes as any surprise.

Way to marginalize yourself. I won't respond to or read any other messages in this thread so feel free to bash my nuts off and make yourself look smart. At least you'll feel good about yourself, right?

by **DREWCIFER** » Wed May 30, 2007 12:42 pm

Dude, you joined a thread that is debating the existence of God. Assume you will be offended. No one thinks the same, everyone has different beliefs. These are not attacks on you.

However, the dialog continues...

My mother has a very strong belief in God(Christian). She is a strong woman, and her beliefs helped her battle cancer. She is a survivor and her beliefs support her.

One can never forget how much the mind controls the body. If one Believes something bad enough, their body will manifest change. Look as people with Stigmata. Their belief is so strong that they manifest the physical symptoms of the crucifixion.

I love my mom, but I put her faith in the same boat. If she was Buddhist or Jewish and had the same amount of faith in her beliefs, I feel the outcome would have been the same.

:DEVIL:

by **Tammuz** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:31 pm

lkavadas wrote:The fact that you exist is pretty tangible evidence by itself. Or do you honestly think the universe and everything in it came from nothing? Something from nothing? Really?

where did this creator come from? you dispute that something can come from nothing, therefore this creator had to come from something too, no? do not both arguments fail at the same hurdle?

this is why I agree with the big bang theory becuase it does not require something coming from nothing(a common misconception), even if it's crammed into a space infinetly small it still exists, just somewhat diminished.

I have yet to see any argument that beats Hume's 18th century thoughts on the subject of a creator;

1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".
2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine - as in Paley's watchmaker argument - when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.
3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or futher still, who designed the designer?
4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?
5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle)

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Thu May 31, 2007 1:34 am

Tammuz wrote:
lkavadas wrote:The fact that you exist is pretty tangible evidence by itself. Or do you honestly think the universe and everything in it came from nothing? Something from nothing? Really?

where did this creator come from? you dispute that something can come from nothing, therefore this creator had to come from something too, no? do not both arguments fail at the same hurdle?

This is an excellent point, and it ties into points 3 and 4 of the Hume quotation.

Some things I don't quite agree with:

For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".

He says here that "order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes". Why is this true? Surely, making that presumption that the processes are mindless is a mistake? Also, who's to say these processes are mindless? It's very possible that snowflakes and crystal generation, to use his examples, are the results of a designer.

Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine - as in Paley's watchmaker argument - when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.

I think this is as flawed as Paley's watchmaker theory, to be frank. I agree that the watchmaker analogy lacks the comparison between universes, therefore it doesn't hold up as well as one might have first thought. However, a lack of comparison between a designed universe and an undesigned one doesn't invalidate the theory that there may be a creator. It only goes so far as to invalidate the application of the watchmaker (or similar) analogy.

Even if we somehow chanced across a so-called undesigned universe, how would we know it was undesigned? A creator might well create a universe that deliberately lacks order and purpose.

Furthermore, comparing something to a "giant inert animal" is no better, as a giant inert animal could well be the product of a creator. Anything that we can conceive of as a better comparison for the universe may, in fact, be a product of a creator.

by **Tammuz** » Thu May 31, 2007 12:28 pm

i completely agree with your points however i think you may have got the wrong end of the stick about Hume, he's not disproving God's existing, he's refuting the arguments that god exists. he wasn't an atheist, he just didn't accept the arguments for god's existence as being logically sound.

He says here that "order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes". Why is this true? Surely, making that presumption that the processes are mindless is a mistake? Also, who's to say these processes are mindless? It's very possible that snowflakes and crystal generation, to use his examples, are the results of a designer.

before you can make the argument that becuase the world seems so well ordered it must have been desighned, you first must establish that order comes exclusively from desighn.

if it's possible that order can come without a design then you can't esteem that their is a desighner, only that they could be.

I think this is as flawed as Paley's watchmaker theory, to be frank. I agree that the watchmaker analogy lacks the comparison between universes, therefore it doesn't hold up as well as one might have first thought. However, a lack of comparison between a designed universe and an undesigned one doesn't invalidate the theory that there may be a creator. It only goes so far as to invalidate the application of the watchmaker (or similar) analogy.

Even if we somehow chanced across a so-called undesigned universe, how would we know it was undesigned? A creator might well create a universe that deliberately lacks order and purpose.

Furthermore, comparing something to a "giant inert animal" is no better, as a giant inert animal could well be the product of a creator. Anything that we can conceive of as a better comparison for the universe may, in fact, be a product of a creator.

Hume isn't suggesting that the universe is a giant inert animal he's basically saying that becuase we have no universes to contrast ours with we can't make the distinction between a desighned one and a non desighned one.

as we can't establish with any certainty that our universe is desighned we can't be use the argument that it's desighn shows god existence.

the only cogent place to logically stand on the argument of gods existence is on the fence.

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:11 am

Ah, yes, you see:

Tammuz wrote:before you can make the argument that becuase the world seems so well ordered it must have been desighned, you first must establish that order comes exclusively from desighn.

if it's possible that order can come without a design then you can't esteem that their is a desighner, only that they could be.

[...]

as we can't establish with any certainty that our universe is desighned we can't be use the argument that it's desighn shows god existence.

the only cogent place to logically stand on the argument of gods existence is on the fence.

These sentences especially highlight what I was trying to say; that when everything is considered it's nearly impossible to make a distinct judgement. One would have to accept that he may exist, he may not. Sit "on the fence", as you say.

I read Hume's points as arguing against the existence of God, whereas they're actually arguing against the arguments in favour of God. That was my mistake :oops:

.

by **Jar Axel** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:09 am

Leonardo there is no proof either way; you want Tammuz to accept that there is a "god" based on the fact that there is no evidence against it. You can't do that; if you intend to tell someone that they are wrong then you must show them why they are wrong.