A question for atheists/etc

[mattpegher]

I appologize I guess I was a bit preachy, in a whiney kind of way.

I guess I am still hoping to see some nondenomiational philosophic debate about the existence of a supreme being and afterlife.

 

[alejandroAT]

we are all mortals.......do not blame us for not having the intelligence to make usefull conversation

 

[mattpegher]

As you said, this is a debate that continues today and I really would love to have a believer and nonbeliever discuss this without bringing religion into the mix. Consider me hungry for the experience. I really do value others opinions. I cannot explain my irrational believe that I am experiencing something extracorporial. Yet I want to avoid the "I think therefore I am" train especially the end of that train which is "I am god".

I find myself aggrivatedly in the middle, and become frustrated when neither end seems to be clear.

AlejandroAT where do you fall, if you don't mind my asking

 

[alejandroAT]

you cannot be clear due to lack of proof on either side...thats why we are not talking about religion but why do people belive or not believe....what they are trying to achieve through beleif or disbelief..if we mention religion it is to aid our arguments...it is by no means the topic of conversation

 

[mattpegher]

Go On, please.

 

[alejandroAT]

oh didnt see the bottom question......I cannot claim i am an atheist since i have no proof that god does not exist.

But i cannot believe in god either because i find the whole idea irrational..thats just my own logic that finds the notion irrational so I cannot say it IS irrational. I just cannot bring myself to believe something thats is passed on to me like that....catered even....

one of the arguments that believers bring forward to answer the above is that since i do not believe in something that is passed on by others then why do i believe in science. I dont . I believe in science only to a certain extent...the ravings of astrophysicists for examples are just nice theories that may prove to be wrong in 10,20,100 years time......

but i would take science over religion any time because science has a tendency to disprove itslef for the sake of its own existance. Whereas religion cannot because it will break down..

This why i do not believe in god. Because if you did then you could not possibly disprove his existance. You are limited by default.

 

[mattpegher]

I often wonder given Einsteins postulate suggesting the existence of a 4th physical demention and the possiblity of still further physical dementions are there sentient beings that exist in a larger dementional space.

 

[alejandroAT]

they probably would but that is none of our concern. According to the hyperspace thoery even if we could travel from our 4 dimensions to the other 6 we still wouldnt be able to see anything. Due to our physical nature as 3 dimensional beings we can only perceive the projection of other dimensional figures and not the figures themselves. A bit like being in a dark room and smelling a fart. You cant see the person who farted but you know they are there. same with light and gravity, they are the farts of something that exists in the other dimensions. So even if god was a sentient being from the other dimensions, hence having powers that seem supernatural to our world, he would still be incapable of being aware of us. His actions would indeed manifest in this dimension but they wouldn't be on purpose.

 

[mattpegher]

Ah but they might be aware of us. Sort of like if you saw a sentient 2d.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
I have studied all the arguments. I was raised and educated catholic through highschool. I do not adhere to any particular faith but I believe that the basic rules of all apply. In undergraduate I took several courses in the philosophy of religion including the classic arguments. In graduate school, I engaged is several further courses in ethics. And after 40 years on this planet I am a little sick and tired of the venom that spews from the mouth of both sides. I don't care if you believe or not, as long as you treat others with respect.

I have followed this thread for a while now and see nothing constructive in it. I was hoping to see some intelligent debate but have not.

I will say again that I believe that we have two sides each with closed minds on the subject and nothing constructive to say.

Spare us the close-minded crap. According to your definition, anyone who has ever studied something out and come to a decision as to what they accept as truth is close-minded. With that being the case, anyone who is open-minded would also be known as a gullible sap.

I have studied religion, and I have done to for just as long if not longer than you. The fact that I have come to some conclusions does not make me close-minded. However, if you want to study all your life and never find any answers, more power to you.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Oh goodness, did you just take like everything out of the DaVinci code adn repeat it? Please, the book has some truth to it, and Constantine did NOT "invent" a religion and while there were issues debated at the Council meetings at that time, it wasn't anything as big as the whole divinity of Christ. It's quite arguable, but you sound very gullible like you believed the whole book word for word.

Just so you know, several aspects of Christ were debated at that time, including his relationship with God. There were two major ideals, one that stated God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost were one being, and another stating they were two. For arguable reasons, the first was accepted. If you need more details on this, let me know. I've got the two major people on each side listed, as well as more details on their arguments, I just have to find them.

I would be careful calling this man gullible. I can assure you he has a pretty good understanding.

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: mattpegher
I have studied all the arguments. I was raised and educated catholic through highschool. I do not adhere to any particular faith but I believe that the basic rules of all apply. In undergraduate I took several courses in the philosophy of religion including the classic arguments. In graduate school, I engaged is several further courses in ethics. And after 40 years on this planet I am a little sick and tired of the venom that spews from the mouth of both sides. I don't care if you believe or not, as long as you treat others with respect.

I have followed this thread for a while now and see nothing constructive in it. I was hoping to see some intelligent debate but have not.

I will say again that I believe that we have two sides each with closed minds on the subject and nothing constructive to say.

Spare us the close-minded crap. According to your definition, anyone who has ever studied something out and come to a decision as to what they accept as truth is close-minded. With that being the case, anyone who is open-minded would also be known as a gullible sap.

I have studied religion, and I have done to for just as long if not longer than you. The fact that I have come to some conclusions does not make me close-minded. However, if you want to study all your life and never find any answers, more power to you.

Please share, I find I am getting no where with the prior plea, and accepted that all opinions must be accepted and weighed. If you haven't yet please see my later posts.

 

[alejandroAT]

bringing the 2d example in our conversation i can only assume you are aware of the theory and the example that Dr Kaku has used to prove the "projection" of extra dimensions on ours.....

but let me ask this.....if you saw a shadow of something....its projection...would you know that it is alive? or indeed intelligent?
and is seeing enough? how would you be able to intervene if all you see is shadows?

Putting ourselves in the shoes of the otherwordly sentient and giving us all the technology and power required to make a split and travel from one set of dimensions to the other and assuming that the minute we crossed we did not collapse into an infinitely small space:
just for the sake of argument, do you think its possible to actually communicate with lets say Abraham?

 

[alejandroAT]

i m afraid i ll have to put myself on ice for tonite....its 4 in the morning over here....

 

[mattpegher]

Since we truely have no examples of any 2 demensional matter in our universe only the appearance of 2 dimensional images from 3 demensional phenomenon, I guess it can only be speculation. I still love "Flatland".

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
they probably would but that is none of our concern. According to the hyperspace thoery even if we could travel from our 4 dimensions to the other 6 we still wouldnt be able to see anything. Due to our physical nature as 3 dimensional beings we can only perceive the projection of other dimensional figures and not the figures themselves. A bit like being in a dark room and smelling a fart. You cant see the person who farted but you know they are there. same with light and gravity, they are the farts of something that exists in the other dimensions. So even if god was a sentient being from the other dimensions, hence having powers that seem supernatural to our world, he would still be incapable of being aware of us. His actions would indeed manifest in this dimension but they wouldn't be on purpose.

I do not doubt the use of science by God, but I'm curious about the idea of him being on a different dimension. I've always considered God to be the ultimate scientist. The miracles that have been performed I believe to be completely and totally explainable by science. What I think is the difference is that science could explain how they happened, but not why.

Perhaps mattpegher could talk about that. I believe you stated you were a doctor before. Have you ever seen things in you medical career that you could explain how they happened, but not why? I myself am an example of such an event, but perhaps you have some better ones. Perhaps these could be such things as alejandroAT speaks of my saying occurences that happen on another dimension but still express themself somewhat in ours.

 

[mattpegher]

Just like there are no atheists in foxholes, the medical profession often relies on the spiritual. Whether random events or the guiding hand of a diety, I have experienced both tragedy and appearent miracles. Unfortunately (or fortunately), my experiences have not confirmed or denied my spiritual beliefs.