Speculating about God

[MongGrel]

• This is a test. Take notes. This will count as 3/4 of your final grade. Hints: remember, in chess, kings cancel each other out and cannot occupy adjacent squares, are therefore all-powerful and totally powerless, cannot affect each other, produce stalemate. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion; the sect of Atman worships the divine spark of life within Man; in effect saying, "Thou art God." Provisos of equal time are not served by one viewpoint having media access to two hundred million people in prime time while opposing viewpoints are provided with a soapbox on the corner. Not everyone tells the truth. Operational note: these sections may be taken out of numerical sequence: rearrange to suit yourself for optimum clarity. Turn over your test papers and begin.
  • "The Deathbird" (1974) First lines.

 

[MongGrel]

• Scientology is bullshit! Man, I was there the night L. Ron Hubbard invented it, for Christ's sakes! ... We were sitting around one night... who else was there? Alfred Bester, and Cyril Kornbluth, and Lester del Rey, and Ron Hubbard, who was making a penny a word, and had been for years. And he said "This bullshit's got to stop!" He says, "I gotta get money." He says, "I want to get rich". And somebody said, "why don't you invent a new religion? They're always big." We were clowning! You know, "Become Elmer Gantry! You'll make a fortune!" He says, "I'm going to do it."
  • "The Real Harlan Ellison" in Wings (November-December 1978) p. 32

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Bacon is delicious - that is a fact.

 

[alzan]

With our current scientific methods I don't think we can prove/disprove the existence of G-d. We can guess, hypothesize and discuss all we want but to me it's nothing more than mental masturbation without an orgasm. And I for one don't need a case of blue balls of cosmic proportion.

Not really on topic but I'll say my peace since it's been brought up by other posters: I think the Big Bang and expansion is responsible for the universe in it's present form but I don't think it was the "beginning" of the universe.

I probably said that wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but it's a thought that suits me, for now at least.

 

[norseamd]

G-d

do you really have to do this type of thing?

why not say y-h-w-h

 

[norseamd]

the buddhist definition of a god would be that they are not different than us only more powerful and no physical form

 

[alzan]

do you really have to do this type of thing?

why not say y-h-w-h

Meh, it's worth a giggle.

If it bothers you or anyone else, it's a giggle +1

 

[squarecut1]

I don't think any of the religions have it right. I can't see this whole universe being created so we can occupy this little itty bitty corner of it and feel as if we're somehow special. But, the universe had a beginning, and beyond what is presently observable may hold quite a few surprises. I don't feel that we can absolutely rule out some kind of higher power, but nothing I see points to any of the current popular religions being correct.

I don't think any of the major religions declare us to be the most special in the universe. Only the earth. Neither do they rule out life, more advanced and enlightened forms of it than us, elsewhere in the universe

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I don't think any of the major religions declare us to be the most special in the universe. Only the earth. Neither do they rule out life, more advanced and enlightened forms of it than us, elsewhere in the universe

Abrahamic religions, especially the literalists/creationists, believe humans are created in in their god's image; I'd say that would make it pretty hard to argue that being modeled after a god doesn't put us in highest favor...

the discovery of life more advanced than our own would be a pretty huge blow to such believers if it wasn't anthropomorphic (i.e. an incredibly huge likelihood when we consider species like dolphins, elephants, and crows), especially if that life isn't even carbon/water based

 

[jtphenom]

I believe there is a God. I believe in the Christian God. I can attribute my logical conclusion that there is a God, and that He is the Christian God, mainly to my readings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Peter Kreeft.

 

[jtphenom]

Btw, if it hasn't already been said, the Big Bang Theory doesn't rule out, but instead is another way of showing, the existence of God as First Cause, First Mover, etc. What caused the Big Bang?

 

[IronWing]

I accept the existence of gods. People create and destroy gods every day. I've done it myself. When I was young creating gods was entertaining. Eventually the exercise grew tedious so I abandoned it (mostly ). That people create gods doesn't surprise me at all. The idea that one person would expect other people to adopt his/her god as their own is odd and suggests the person suffers from an ego on overdrive or feelings of insecurity, maybe both.

If one wishes to assign blame for the creation of the universe to one's god I see no problem with that. Doing so quickly leads to a dead end as far as pinning down the attributes of a god that could do that for the same reason physicists are stuck on "what came before the beginning". Gods are nothing if not accomodating though and folks will adjust their gods to meet any future findings of science.

 

[Caravaggio]

Bad things existing do not erase the good things.

That is inspired. Are you a Taj Mahal fan? Listen to 'Giant Step', 'Further on down the road'. He agrees with you completely.
You nailed it. This is NOT a piss-take.

 

[disappoint]

Btw, if it hasn't already been said, the Big Bang Theory doesn't rule out, but instead is another way of showing, the existence of God as First Cause, First Mover, etc. What caused the Big Bang?

The big banger of course.
That begs the question:
What caused the big banger?

 

[AstroGuardian]

All religions are based on belief. So people are just believing that gods exist. There is no proof about it, neither gods are defined strict enough so we can search for proof.

IMO it's simple as that.

 

[witeken]

Something exists: I find it odd that something at all should exist. I am conditioned to think in a cause an effect way, so I think that an eternal first cause could make sense and might even be necessary.

It is not odd. If nothing could exist, you wouldn't be here to ask the question. This is like the question some people have about the expanding universe: if nothing can travel faster than light, why does the expanding universe not obey that law?

The answer is that those objects don't travel faster than light though space, but space can do whatever the heck it wants. In the same way, nature can do whatever it wants and does not need some superhuman (god) to do so.

In the end it's all just particles that exist. Apparently those can exist. Add enough of them together in a suited environment, and you get life.

BTW, how you are conditioned to think does not matter. You are not evolved to be conditioned to understand quantum mechanics for example.

Experience: It seems odd to me that experience exists in any form at all. it doesn't matter how it happened, but that it exists is enough to cause suspicion.

What do you mean with experience? I guess my reaction underneath also applies for this.

Good things exist: This is subjective, but things are still good from a subjective point of view. Happiness, love, purpose, feelings of rapture and wonder etc. They all exist. If they are false and illusory, it doesn't matter. If they evolved for other purposes, it doesn't matter. The fact is these things exist, and this causes suspicion.

Side note: Bad things exist

Bad things existing do not erase the good things. The fact that good things exist still holds, and the suspicions that I get from those good things still hold. I take my entire personal experience at face value. I understand the experiences of others might not be as pleasant as my own, but this doesn't erase my own experience, and the fact that good experiences exist leads to suspicion.

The existence of good and bad things is because of evolution.

Good: surviving, reproduction
Bad: the 'survival machine' (= animal) getting injured, dying

Everything is a consequence of those principles.

 

[witeken]

What caused the Big Bang?

Probably eternal inflation.

 

[witeken]

I accept the existence of gods. People create and destroy gods every day. I've done it myself. When I was young creating gods was entertaining. Eventually the exercise grew tedious so I abandoned it (mostly ). That people create gods doesn't surprise me at all. The idea that one person would expect other people to adopt his/her god as their own is odd and suggests the person suffers from an ego on overdrive or feelings of insecurity, maybe both.

You are confusing 'god' with 'the concept of god'.

 

[IronWing]

You are confusing 'god' with 'the concept of god'.

There is no difference. Gods can only exist within the context of "concepts of god". Gods are simply thought experiments.

 

[witeken]

There is no difference. Gods can only exist within the context of "concepts of god". Gods are simply thought experiments.

Not everyone thinks so .

 

[moonbogg]

It is not odd...SNIP!

I said that I find it odd. Then you said, as if its a fact, that it is not odd. You could have said that you don't find it odd, but no. You speak with an odd sense of certainty. You are just another know it all atheist who marches into a thread, dictating facts and telling people they don't understand this, and don't understand that, blah blah blah. Save it.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've thought about this a whole lot. What I keep coming back to is that no matter what I put in that place SOMETHING had to exist with out a cause because I can just keep asking, 'what caused that, what caused that, what caused that?' all the way down. Once I accepted that cause and effect is not absolute then I could see that a 'first cause' is not needed.

You know that the universe is supported on the back of a turtle and if you are silly enough to ask what supports the turtle, the answer is that it's turtles all the way down.

 

[Moonbeam]

You will know that God is real when you are real. God is known by being. To ask what being is is to be divided, the asker, a fragment, asking about the whole. To be whole is to have no fragment of self that can ask. When one is one is everything and there re no thoughts that describe it. Thought is division, the thinker and the thought about. As long as one is a thinking self one is divided and can know nothing about God. God is only when the divided self is not. And there is nothing you can do to end the life of the fragment because all desire for an end is the result of dissatisfaction, a desire for unity. To be one must abandon all hope of salvation The self divided is fear and fear fears its end. The door to heaven opens only by grace for those whose self has been reduced to nothing. The kingdom of heaven is for those free of ego, those who are like little children. One enters not by effort but by surrender, by humility, by self abandonment that comes with grief. To enter the kingdom of heaven is to reconnect with a primordial sense of love and feeling. Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou.

 

[DrPizza]

This is not intended to be a fight thread or debate thread. If you think there is no God and you are settled on that issue, this thread is probably not for you.

I disagree. Let's assume we were created by a God. And, that God gave us the capability of reasoning and intellect. Is it not possible that such a God might be disappointed when people choose to ignore all of the evidence that he provided for us that pointed to his existence not being necessary for our present observations. E.g., a fundamental Baptist goes to Heaven, and is met by God at the Pearly Gates: "I gave you reasoning skills. I gave you the capability of intellect. I provided radioactive dating, tree ring dating, stalagmite dating, ice cores, Green River varves, rates of continental drift, rates of sea floor spreading, and a myriad of other processes to date things to a reasonable degree of accuracy, and which all agreed with one another to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Yet you chose to ignore all of them, and believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? I banish you to Hell." Is there any reason to believe it not possible for the correct religion to simply be: live a morally good life, use your capabilities for the better, and you'll be rewarded after you die.

Or, God's view from Monty Python, "Stop singing those miserable psalms. They're so depressing." How does one know that a God would necessarily be as vain as man, and want to be worshiped, rather than simply watch his creation?

 

[Retro Rob]

Is there any reason to believe it not possible for the correct religion to simply be: live a morally good life, use your capabilities for the better, and you'll be rewarded after you die.

No, because you have to define what a "morally good life" is. Even further, you'd have to define what are "good morals". Every person differs on this answer.

Why do I say this?

Without a universal set of morals, people would continue making their own morals which conflict with the morals of others (i,e. beheading infidels is morally correct for some people, or sleeping with any man/woman you want irregardless of their marital status, or robbing and stealing when you're broke and need food).

My point is that morals have to be absolute for us to function as a society while not stepping on each others' toes, so to speak. Religion and religious texts attempts to do this by establishing a set of morals all adherents have to live by to have a peacful co-existence.

In short, you cannot just expect religions who claim to represent God to simply say "live a morally good life".

You haven't begun to explain what that even means. If you do, you're bound to make absolutes, which you will, and make my point for me.