Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by mhailey

Anything I can say has already been said by men far wiser and more articulate than me. I differ to the Bible.

Matt

I think everyone has a duty to research as much as he can without avoiding things that he may disagree with.

Those wise and articulate people were just people like you and me, with all their good and bad traits. Among those wise men were also those ordering the crusades, the salem witch trials, the burning at the stake of those guilty of heresy, the spanish inquisition, ....
Which proves to me that some of those wise men were anything but wise.

Pope innocent the 3d -being supposedly a an infallible appointee of God- ordered the death of 7000 to 20000 people in the languedoc area because they refused to give up 200 kathars hiding in their midst. His words live on today: 'Kill them all, God will know which are his'.

The content of the NT were determined by wise men like that, so it would greatly surprise me that only that has true value, while everything they dismissed should be dismissed by us as well.

And then there is also the issue of which holy book is the right one? The NT, the Koran, the Torah,...?

If there are no facts, then there is no science and no certainty.

Instead of the law of gravity we have the opinion of gravity. Instead of the law of conservation of angular momentum, we have the opinion of the conservation of angular momentum, etc... .

I am of the opinion that I can fly here on earth by flapping my arms and being propelled by nothing more than my flatulence, while naked at a jaybird. However, it is a fact that I cannot.

Never has it every been demonstrated or documented that life can come from non-life. Even the latest attempts by scientists to create life in a petri dish is not life from non-life. It is life creating new life (which has yet been unsuccessful to my knowledge).

Originally Posted by mhailey

If there are no facts, then there is no science and no certainty.

I must rephrase what I said.
There are facts aplenty, and anything based on facts can be sound theory, but some things cannot be proved or disproved either way.

In the case of making life out of no-life, there are no hard fact. That is what I meant by 'no facts' in my earlier post.
It may be possible of impossible, but there is no way to know.

EDIT: I just updated the original post to clarify this.

Originally Posted by mhailey

...

Lastly, the law of entropy cuts against the theory of evolution as a means of creation. the law of entropy is the law that matter is moving from a state of complexity to a state of simplicity. (when you eat a banana, the matter of the banana goes from a complex state, to a simple state, and your body uses up the nutrients, the sun is burning out and going from a complex state to a simple state, ...) However evolution as a means of creation holds that matter went from a simple state, to a complex state, and continually gets more complex.

It is much more logical for me to believe that we were created by a supreme being, than to believe that we happened by mere chance. Just looking at the world, and the complexity of nature, there is no way that all of this "just evolved." There has to be God.

I'm not quite sure that's an entirely accurate reading of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, I know several evolutionary biologists and statistical mechanics who think the complexity we see in nature is entirely consistent with ideas of entropy But it's been quite a few years since I studied it, so...

But this raises a question for me (and always has - we learned a bit about both evolution and creationism in undergrad. biology, although only 1 lecture on creationism) - is it possible to believe in God and in science? I know a few Christian scientists, but have never asked them whether this causes them any issues.

And just to clarify, the best description of me, at the moment, would be a non-practicing agnostic, or perhaps more accurately an Agnostic Theist - I have belief but not knowledge (and think that it is not possible to have that knowledge).

James.

Yep --it's the ultimate battle --- the orthodox, classical robed priest vs the twig-necked ,philosophy spouting, cappuccino drinking, cafe worm ----- I've listened to both from time to time ---I always just end up going fishing--- most religious experience I know

Justin

Originally Posted by mhailey

atheist or agnostic? If you are truly and atheist, I would love to hear your arguments as to where everything came from, how life began, and what our purpose is.

Where everything came from?

--This one is easy. What exists now has always existed and will always exist because there is nothing but existence. However, the form of its existence is ever changing. There is no begging to existence or end to it. The idea of the first is conceptually easier to understand, but ultimately many logical problems result.

How life began?

--Its kinda already been put out there. the elements combined in the right form to create "life" as you call it. The real issue is how to define "life." A "life form" could be a very simple combination of molecules, molicules combine and fall apart all the time. Why couldn't they, in the uncountable number of times they have bonded and unbonded created an animate object? If you throw numbers and symbols on a page eventually you will get an equation. All that matters is how many times you do it.

What our purpose?

--Why does there have to be some higher purpose? We have no "Higher" Purpose. We might have our own pusposes, goals, and impulses but those have no religous place. It would be nice to think we as a species have some purpose that can be discovered by comuning with a higher power. However, I think it is wishful thinking.

Even though noone asked, it's on the tip of your brain: How would society exist without religion, the lack of values would result in anarchism.

--There is what some people call the golden rule: treat others as you would be treated. I behave accoding to societal norms because generally they are norms for a reason outside of religon. For example, the various Jewish customs of not eating pork etc were very beneficial because during that time of history they made you healthy. There are a few areas I disagree with the current religous traditions. But I don't make it a point to flaunt that. If society didn't have religon it would still have reasons to be as good as it is now, and there would still be people dying for no reason. Anarchy is no the nessecary result, but one of many that could occur.


Atheist/Agnostic

--God in any form must remain undefined. This is because to define him is to make him limited in some way. God cannot be limited. If he or she is, the result is not GOD. But then by saying god cannot be limited we are ultimately limiting him. Basically, we have to say god completely demolishes any notion of logic, science, or disiplin we have come up with. This forces us to reject these things. I am not willing to reject the observations the keenest human minds have made about the world, and argumentation. Thus I am not willing to accept god's existence. That might make me an atheist or an agnostic depending on what you think they are.

There are alot of debates on this and it will go on forever. However, the result of the debate over gods existence is:
---the people trying to prove god exists cannot prove it
--the people trying to prove god does not exist cannot prove it

This happens because the people trying to prove gods exisstence reject logic, they have no choice. The people trying to prove god does not exist embrace it, they are on two diffrent planes of discussion and won't ever meet. This is the leap of faith that many people talk about. You have to take the leap and say God completely obliterates any way of thinking the human can handle. Denying the validity of the product of the human mind is the only way to get to god.

This only applies to the Judeo Christian God. I have not done enough reasearch on other religions to legitimately claim this is the case with them as well.

As Hunter pointed out, pulling the god card means you automatically win. It cannot be argued against, there is no way to prove anything either way on the issue. Saying "God did it" simply takes any responsibility from your hands for producing a logical or empiracle arguement. Thus you deny the validity of the product of the humand mind: Logic, etc.




This discussion has been done many many times and will be done many many more without any improvement because nothing can be shown at all. Philosophy has moved on to other areas. For a more interesting topic and perhaps another way to debate this question you could look into naturalized epistemology. That is epistemology turned into science, the direct result has been neurology. This looks directly into the issue of the soul in an indirect manner. The soul, do we have one? If so what is it? Is it matter? if it is matter where is it found? If it is not matter does it exist, considering all we know is matter. If the soul does exist, what of you compromises it? Would it be your conciousness? Well information discovered in neurology tends to show that your "conciousness" if that exists at all is physical and is the result of systems in your brain functioning togather. If your conciousness is physical, then it probably is not your soul. If your soul is not your conciousness then why do you care about it?

There are many many issues in that area that directly affect this debate, mainly because it has been posited for a long time that your soul is your conciousness. Descartes even thought he could locate the point at which the physical world and your soul connect: the pituitary gland.

How about this one: if your soul is not physical, but your body is, how can your soul affect your body. Or even better: if your soul is not physical but the molecule alchol is, how can alchol affect your soul/conciousness.

This is all fun stuff to kick around, but let me assure you that there is not answer that can be found through discussion. If you are a believer, thats great. Your faith is a strength. Use it as you will, but please be tolerant of others who cannot make that leap. If you are an atheist, thats great too. Don't push to hard. Be respectful because noone likes an A.......

I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, it is the result of my exhuastive study of the area. I think there are many more productive areas to discuss, don't get too bogged down in this.




Oh, and for the record: I don't wear turtle necks, I hate coffee, and I am a former footbal player that weighs about 275 pounds.

Originally Posted by izlat

I don't know if you guys saw the article on Mother Theresa in Time - turns out after her initial vision(s), she lived her whole life without feeling God's presence, in doubt and suffering (excluding several weeks when the Pope died)!

Quite a surprise to anyone, including her sisters. Only her confessors knew, because she wrote them letters - she could not even talk about this. She had asked for her letters to be destroyed but the person responsible for her beatification decided to publish them...

Cheers
Ivo

Well we found a saint. I'm not Catholic yet I believe she was a saint.

Not because of her acts or vision, but because of her faith.

Despite not feeling his presence, she had faith enough to live every moment of her life as an act of worship to a God she herself could doubt at times was there.

If we are going to talk about religion and God don't forget to leave room for people who believelive like this.

And their antithesis those who claim to constantly feel his presence yet feel they can no better serve than as human bombs spreading destruction instead of light.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Never has it every been demonstrated or documented that life can come from non-life. Even the latest attempts by scientists to create life in a petri dish is not life from non-life. It is life creating new life (which has yet been unsuccessful to my knowledge).

I think you hit on a key point here, yet! The problem with all facts is, they have not been proven wrong yet.
History is a great teacher.

I think it is perfectly possible to combine religion with science. At least, I know I see no conflict despite having a masters degree in electronics.

My hobby in Uni was theoretical physics (Yes I was a nerd, no I did not have a girlfriend). It never ceased to amaze me that a couple of very very simple laws that fit on the back of a napkin could be used to work out some amazingly complex problems and still come up with the correct answers despite the fact that they went against common sense.

A Phd in quantum physics I once knew told me that quantum theory is the most verified theory in existence because it gives some pretty weird answers that defied common sense. So people created experiments they thought would fail, yet each of them succeeded.

Anyway, I feel that there has to be a higher purpose or design to have made this mathematical perfection possible.
If I had to put my feelings to writing in a very crude way, I'd say that God set up the ground rules and let the universe figure itself out from that moment onwards, following those rules.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I'm not quite sure that's an entirely accurate reading of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, I know several evolutionary biologists and statistical mechanics who think the complexity we see in nature is entirely consistent with ideas of entropy But it's been quite a few years since I studied it, so...

But this raises a question for me (and always has - we learned a bit about both evolution and creationism in undergrad. biology, although only 1 lecture on creationism) - is it possible to believe in God and in science? I know a few Christian scientists, but have never asked them whether this causes them any issues.

And just to clarify, the best description of me, at the moment, would be a non-practicing agnostic, or perhaps more accurately an Agnostic Theist - I have belief but not knowledge (and think that it is not possible to have that knowledge).

James.

I know several scientists who are quite strong in their belief, some on the cutting edges of their fields. They believe so strongly because of their science. They have found in their investigations complexity beyond entropy, order above chance so that they can not find it in themselves to doubt the idea of creation. As you peel back there layers and explain this then that yet keep finding ever more layers in the universe you have to ask yourself when do all these proofs and theories start to sound like excuses and rationalizations for that which we really don't understand.