 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"Thanks for the link (yeah, go figure, I actually read it!)."
On this forum, it's less common than you might think.
--"But in what way that reasoning serves to those that when confronted with questions like"
Quite simply. If you ask "What was there before the big bang?" and answer "god", that just begs the question "Then what was there before god?"
God is not a necessary requirement to the creation of a universe. Bringing in a god, of whatever type, does not resolve any real questions, it just adds another layer of complexity to them.
As far as definitions offered, I had hoped adding Rand's definition would make it perfectly clear. I'm a fairly conceptual thinker (though not nearly as much so as Rand was), so entities to me was quite perfectly obvious.
As far as philosophy goes, you will find some knowledgeable people here. It is recommended that you do engage in some basic research before attempting to debate/argue on philosophic topics.
As for me, if I see a term I'm not familiar with, I tend to go to a search engine and type it in. Like I said, second page on the list.
Now, just for fun, let me post just about the only sensible argument in favor of there being gods that I've ever seen.
It's from a book titled "The Last Hero" by Terry Pratchett. If you aren't familiar with the Discworld series, some basic info is required to make sense of the quote.
The Discworld is, well, a disc carried on the back of four elephants that are riding on a turtle that swims through space. The inhabitants of the Discworld are based on the usual fantasy archtypes (although Pratchett has great fun with them).
In this book, a group of old barbarian heroes are attempting to return to the gods something that was stolen from them. Fire. In the form of a large amount of explosives. Unfortunately, this will also destroy the world, so some people have been sent to stop them. This includes Captain Carrot, of the Ahnk-Morpork City Watch, whose commander, Vimes, is one of the most cynical characters you'll meet (I quite like him). Blind Io is a major god on the Discworld, sort of a cross between Thor and Wotan. At this point Carrot is not happy with Blind Io.
quote:
"Tell me," said Blind Io. "Is there a god of policemen?"
"No sir," said Carrot. "Coppers would be far too suspicious of anyone calling themselves a god of policemen to believe in one."
"But you are a gods-fearing man?"
"What I've seen of them certainly frightens the life out of me, sir. And my commander always says, when we go about our business in the city, that when you look at the state of mankind you are forced to accept the reality of the gods."
The gods smiled their approval of this, which was indeed an accurate quotation. Gods have little use for irony.
-- Terry Prachett ("The Last Hero") |
Wraith
"The Turtle Moves"
-- Terry Pratchett
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
A Purple Unicorn example will show what I mean. What being magically appears in my closet when I shut the door, yet disappears once again when I open the door to try to catch it? I could say "A magical purple unicorn," or I could say "Nothing." Clearly "Nothing" is the simpler explanation.
|
Whay are you guys so obsessed with pink unicorns? It has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God!
quote:
Science stands a much better chance of satisfactorily answering these questions than some nebulous set of assumptions based on absolutely no evidence. |
This is not true. Science makes no attempt to asswer these questions - nor should it. No matter how well we undersatnd the universe, science asks the question 'how' - not 'why'. At the very best, we will eventually have one equation (or one principle from which the equation is derived) which explains all phenomena from the Big Bang to where your odd socks go when you do the laundry. Then we have the question: where does this equation (or principle) come from?
The pink unicorn makes no attempt to explain this - the existence of God does. Therefore the existence of God is a more favoured idea than the existence of the pink unicorn. And since it at least attempt to answer a question which is not answered by any other idea, it is a more favourable theory than nothing at all. (and this is not to mention all the indirect evidence of God's existence....)
I should point out that God is not a very satisfying theory in this regard either, since one can still pose the question of 'why' did God create the universe, or indeed where did he come from, but still....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Whay are you guys so obsessed with pink unicorns? It has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God! |
Believing in pink unicorns makes as much logical sense as believing in God.
quote:
This is not true. Science makes no attempt to asswer these questions - nor should it. |
What is different about this statement, and a statement like "Science should not attempt to show that the Earth orbits the Sun"? Why are you trying to delimit the areas which science is allowed to examine?
quote:
At the very best, we will eventually have one equation (or one principle from which the equation is derived) which explains all phenomena from the Big Bang to where your odd socks go when you do the laundry. Then we have the question: where does this equation (or principle) come from? |
From God? Then where does God come from? All you've done is add an unnecessary layer to the problem, without really answering anything at all.
quote:
(and this is not to mention all the indirect evidence of God's existence....) |
Such as...
quote:
I should point out that God is not a very satisfying theory in this regard either, since one can still pose the question of 'why' did God create the universe, or indeed where did he come from, but still.... |
Exactly. Believing in God doesn't answer anything without producing the same questions He was intended to answer.
An statement I've occasionally heard is, "The Universe came from God." Fine, then where did God come from?
The answer is always "God is beyond our understanding, so that question is unanswerable."
Now why is this somehow more satisfying than saying "The Universe is beyond our understanding, so we cannot know why the universe came into existence"? Why is it better to believe in an incomprehensible entity, rather than an incomprehensible universe?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
What is different about this statement, and a statement like "Science should not attempt to show that the Earth orbits the Sun"? Why are you trying to delimit the areas which science is allowed to examine?
|
There is quite a bit of difference. Science can show that the Earth orbits the Sun. It cannot say why the physical laws are as they are, or where they come from fundamentally. I am not trying to restrict science in this - it is just a fact.
quote:
Then where does God come from? All you've done is add an unnecessary layer to the problem, without really answering anything at all.
|
Was discovering that the protons are made of quarks and gluons laying just another unnecessary layer to the problem of the structure of matter, in your opinion?
quote:
Believing in God doesn't answer anything without producing the same questions He was intended to answer.
|
There doesn't have to be any question about where God came from . Cause and effect presupposes the existence of time. If God is outwith time (as an omnipotent being must be) he requires no cause.
quote:
Why is it better to believe in an incomprehensible entity, rather than an incomprehensible universe? |
It is not a case of an ''incomprehensible universe'' at all - the universe itself can be perfectly well understood, and I have no doubt that some day we will have a theory of everything. It is only the question of why the universe exists as it is that we cannot answer definitively. But isn't it better to question what might be rather than to throw up out hands in defeat and be content in ignorance?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
I think that people in this world who try to be reasonable have a problem with a God who is reasonable, and an entity or a person as such, becaues of current lack of scientific evidence for anything like him operating in this world. Therefore it is reasonable to assume from our perspective that an entity like him does not exist.
The answer to question why, could be in an unreasonable event/chance/something that does not exist/influence the world now nor did it influence it after it occured for example. Something that is not a person or entity/ omnipotent or omnipresent. That event could have happened or did happen in somehting that is outside the scope of the laws within this universe but it did trigger the creation of this universe, and the laws within it as such, perhaps purely by chance. And since we have no empirical idea about the existance of God, nor do we have and empirical idea about the set of circumstances in the 'area' where the universe was created we cannot have the right to claim one or the other as the reason for the existance of the universe, we can only claim that we don't know.
Or to annulate the existance of God from circumstantial evidence such as a claim that He does not appear in this world and if that is so (and the God is omnipresent for example) the God does not exist. Now you only have a problem with all the people who claim that they have a Godly experience and there are quite a few. Even as such they are presented to us as unscientific/ however for those people their experinces fill the void that science leaves as an answer to everything. So God might be just outside of the scope measurable by us, which could theoratically be the case, and you again cannot kill the idea that he exists.
So the present answer to why could be 1. chance (or some other unreasonable event)
2. God
Which one is your personal choice to make, no reason to believe in God - don't, have reasons to believe in God, examine them and make your choice.
I doubt you will ever have a higher reason to believe in chance apart from the 'most likely answer to: why?' 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"Wraith: Is The Last Hero on paperback yet?"
Not that I've seen. It is a graphic novel, so I'm not even sure they're planning a paperback edition. Amazon didn't seem to have it listed.
--"Whay are you guys so obsessed with pink unicorns?"
The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" theory has been around quite a while. It's just fun, is all.
--"The pink unicorn makes no attempt to explain this - the existence of God does."
As has been pointed out, assuming the existence of a god does nothing to answer any of those questions, either. Not only do you get the same "what was before god?" and "where did god come from?" you also get the "why did god create a universe?" level of questions.
--"It cannot say why the physical laws are as they are, or where they come from fundamentally."
Actually, high-energy particle physics can at least partially answer some of these questions. Explorations of how the universe would be different with minor changes of physical laws are not outside the realms of science, nor are things like many worlds theory, which can also address at least some of this.
--"Was discovering that the protons are made of quarks and gluons laying just another unnecessary layer to the problem of the structure of matter, in your opinion?"
Of course not. They are actually there. Their existence has been determined by experimentation. These experiments can be reproduced independently by others.
In fact, the discoveries of things like quarks has helped move us closer to the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Knowing more about the fundamental particles allows us a better basis to make such theories on.
I think you've got the whole concept of unnecessary layers wrong.
--"There doesn't have to be any question about where God came from ."
Why doesn't there? Just saying that the laws of our universe don't apply to him doesn't exempt him from being open to question.
You've heard of the phrase "Deus Ex Machina" I assume? These kinds of claims are why that phrase is used as it is.
You're also begging the question of how something can exist outside of existence, but that's another matter.
Wraith
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. If you really make them think they'll hate you."
-- Donald Marquis
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" theory has been around quite a while. It's just fun, is all.
|
No - it is silly and offensive to people who believe in God. This is its intention I believe.
quote:
As has been pointed out, assuming the existence of a god does nothing to answer any of those questions, either. Not only do you get the same "what was before god?" and "where did god come from?" you also get the "why did god create a universe?" level of questions.
|
Did you not read my post? Questions like 'what was there before time?' are not well defined questions. It is not a case of us just not knowing the answer, or not being clever enough to understand the answer - there is no answer because the question doesn't make sense.
quote:
--"It cannot say why the physical laws are as they are, or where they come from fundamentally."
Actually, high-energy particle physics can at least partially answer some of these questions. Explorations of how the universe would be different with minor changes of physical laws are not outside the realms of science, nor are things like many worlds theory, which can also address at least some of this.
|
This is not what I was meaning. In physics we try to come up with theories which describe the universe, and have predictive power. We think up some principle which naturally leads to laws (or equations if you like) which we then test with experiment to see if they are correct. At the moment we have lots of laws, which are unrelated (or only slightly related) to one another. The goal of a theory of everything is to combine all of these laws into one law, so that all the individual laws are just special cases of the same thing. However, at the end you are still left with one law (or principle from which it is derived). You cannot further combine one law with itself to get no laws at all - therefore there will at best be one law (or principle) which we cannot explain. Where did it come from?
This question, by very definition, is philosophical, and science makes no attempt to explain it. If science can further simplify this single law then it is not by definition the final theory.
quote:
--"Was discovering that the protons are made of quarks and gluons laying just another unnecessary layer to the problem of the structure of matter, in your opinion?"
Of course not. They are actually there. Their existence has been determined by experimentation. These experiments can be reproduced independently by others. In fact, the discoveries of things like quarks has helped move us closer to the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Knowing more about the fundamental particles allows us a better basis to make such theories on.
|
Of course they are there. That was my whole point (  ). Finding real things that exist and using them to answer questions about the universe is not laying 'unecessary layers' onto our concept of the universe.
I do admit, the cases are somewhat different - we will never be able to prove that God exists, while we can 'prove' that quarks exist (I use inverted commas since no-one has actually directly observed a quark or gluon in experiment - we only observe their effects). But this is just the difference between science and philosophy - should we stop all philosophical thought too?
For your information, a Grand Unified Theory (or GUT) attempts to combine the electromagnetic, the weak and the strong interactions into one theory. A Theory of Everything is an attempt to combine this with gravity. The discovery of quarks did very little to advance a GUT because in our current models, the strong, the electromagnetic and the weak interactions are still all separate. All attempt to combine them so far have problems. (It did a little bit to move us forward because the three theoies are actually now very similar to each other.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Just for my information Rogan, are you a physicist? |
Yes - I am a high-energy particle physics theorist, working at CERN.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
In the real world do the likes of Angels reveal themselves to you? |
No. I'm not different than you!  Unless your were thinking about those spirits Tiamat just referd to. Thankfully, no. 
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
Zealot et al., why would God intervene in the beginning of time to create us, and during a 2000-year segment in the middle, and at assorted other times, but be surprisingly absent for the numerous catastrophes that have befallen humanity in modern times? |
That is a really good question, and a pretty valid doubt! 
But the answer is quite simple, and not anything spectacular.
For several thousand years the Israelites were considered God's chosen people. Yet, many of them did not follow God's law, and created dificulties for those with good heart that wished to follow God's law.
As many of you might know, the Israelites were punished for rebellion and worshiping Gods of the neighbour countries. And this is part of the whole Israelite history.
This changed when Jesus preached that the Gentiles could worship God beside the Jews. Because what was in cause was now not a nationality, but a religion. What mattered since then was those who wanted to worship God, and so that those who didn't want to would further be judged for their acts!
That's why the long silence. Since those who worship God and follow His law are now the chosen, whatever their nationality may be.
Bear in mind that since divine intervention, a messiah, and several prophets didn't correct the Israelite rebels, then it is proven that those who have no faith, or wish not to have anything involved with religion, and those who worship false Gods would not start worshiping the only existing God if He had given proof of his existence. Therefore, only those who love Him will get rewarded with eternal life.
And since no one can love someone he/she doesn't know about, that's why Jesus said (Mathew 24:14):
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Everybody will have a chance to make a stand whether to follow God's law or not.
Did I manage to make me clear?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
To zealot,
well this is a christian take on the problem, what happens with all who do not know for the existance of christian god? Do they burn in hell or? |
edited: I'm sorry I misinterpreted your question! 
If you mean in the past, (an Inca or Aztec prior to the "Conquista", for example), they will benefit the ressurection, if in his life he wasn't any killer or anything. Yet, you can't apply what I just said as a rule, since I'm nt God, and I'm not the one who will judge who will deserve the ressurection or not!
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
How can a just God make a difference between equal people who are only born at different places. There you have a contradiction.
Either it is not so as you explained or the God is not just which in turn is equal that he does not exist (at least not the one you believe in). |
I'm really sorry, but I really can't understand what you wrote. 
Could you rephrase, please?
Last edited by Zealot on 05-03-2002 at 17:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
A God that is omnipresent surely sees what we are writing here, and if he feels offended or if he feels that he can teach us something// whatever correct our opinion, an omnipotent God could definitly request a login - God - (even though Ming would disable him quickly )and tell us what it is all about. Obviously even as this would be handy for us and wouldn't be a problem for and omnipotent being this is not on his schledule, or better to say there is a good reasoin for him not to do it, a reason that we don't know, nevertheless he could have a reason we wouldn't understand.
While his inaction on this forum is understandable, his inaction in all the catastrophes all over the world is not, not for an loving/ caring God who sees it all and can correct it while he is doing nothing, nothing at all from our perspective. Not even for the toatally innocent like small children, and everyone dies or gets injured - randomly as being on the wrong place at the wrong time describes it best.
So his inactivity leads to a conclusion that this god is invisible or imaginationary. Like the pink unicorn. One would expect the Christian god to be active by definition, while he doesn't seem to be. That is why it seems reasonable to atheists to believe that there is no God. ... Therefore the God does not exist.
What about you? Do you see God working on this earth now, or is it just the tradition you follow?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
from that one could understand this:
people who do not know God are going to die forever. Only at the end of times they will all know him. |
Not exactly. Those who don't know Him because never heard of Him might have a second life, after the Armageddon. For those who don't live by God's law because they don't want to, then they only have one life, the one we all have. Once dead, they remain dead. There is no reward for those who don't like/don't want to know Him.
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
So all that have been before and have been born at the wrong place - like in China, will be doomed to death just because they did not know God, and did not get the chance to love him just because of the birthplace. |
No, no one is doomed by God or by the luck they have in life. That's why Christians have the obligation to teach wich are the purposes of God for the humanity. That's why God's law must be teached to all before the end. So that no one shall be accused of ignorance because there was no one to teach. That's why I quoted Mathew 24:14.
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
And don't forget that we deal with an idea of omnipresent and omnipotent god who can make himself known to the whole world at will. |
Yes, but part of humanity keeps rejecting God! It happened with the Israelites, with the nations around Israel, and even with Christianism around the world! History teaches that divine intervention doesn't make people to live by justice, love, peace, benevolence, and other qualities that give hapiness! So why do you keep demanding divine intervention, instead of seeking what is His will, and what might God require from us?
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
This is not just.
SO your god is either unjust, or you didn't understand him well. |
Me?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Not right now, no.
He stoped intervening on Earth when the Israelites were really despising His law, and He allowed the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians, in 607 BCE.
You could count the earthquake that hit Jerusalem when Jesus died, but I can't precise if it was caused by God or not. |
well that is interesting, well than how can can you believe that an inactive God exists, well when there is no proof now, apart from some ancient testimony, that might have been made by the people who did not understand scientific ways of today, to whom the idea of God was the best explanation of everything unexplainable, and who could have been making up the stories (like other tribes, Germans, Bablonyans, Indians, etc..).
Therefore an idea about the inactive God does not appeal to the modern people since there is no need for him, we can have other ways of explaining how the universe works, without relying on 2000 year old possible myths. Because that idea seems more reasonable than the idea of an inactive God.
(off topic)
Still so everyone can is equal at birth, which is how it should be, but the word still has to go out to make the plan available to all - there is still an inconsistency related to TIME. - under the premise that all the people are born equal no matter when. How could one be accused of ignorance if their grandchildrend did not consciously find out who the God was? Therefore there is no point in spread of the gospel if all of those who will die before it gets to them will get a second chance. (nevermind off-topic).
Obviously we cannot answer the question why by science, but the answer in the shape of Christian god is not fulfilling either. I personally am not satisfied with the idea - He is not acting now. He gave us the instructions, and we have to follow them, if not - sod it. I mean What if the stories about Odin the German god are true? How can I judge which one is correct? Maybe he is inactive for last 1000 years? - Who is the correct answer to "why?" becaue there is many choices, mainly differing by cultures. Therefore making the 'myth' solution a more probable choice. ... God is a myth and therefore God does not exist.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-03-2002 05:43
|