Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1322/1637
(25-Aug-2011 at 10:22)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
That's only if you accept the abrahaimic notion of one omnipowerful god(or considering they quite likely ripped it off the Egyptians, the Egyptian notion) Why would we do this considering the diversity of spiritual belifs on Earth? Especially considering that other religions especially in the East have produced far more impressive results and philosophies?.
Any tradition which invokes an absolute, all-knowning, all-powering god must all refer to the same diety. Well, you can have non-sense like the holy trinity, but I mean logically, there can only ever be one true God (with a capital 'G').

Religions will interpret the notion of God at their own peril. So I don't think the diversity of interpretation undermines the concept.

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
OK. If someone were to ask me whether I know whether god exists, I would answer in short "I don't know for sure, but the evidence suggests to me that he doesn't"

That isn't an absolute answer - the question has only one absolute answer, and that would be for god, if god exists, to simultaneously reveal itself to every living being. Otherwise, the answer to the existance of god can not be an absolute truth, either way. There is simply considering the evidence for and against, which brings us back to my question: "How did god come into being?"
Like I said, the absolute truth is either that an omnipotent god exists, or it doesn't. "I don't know" is not an answer. The ramifications for God existing means that he absolutely does, or he absolutely doesn't. You can't have an all-powerful god only semi-existing.

The problem you have seems to be with with epistemology, i.e. how can one possibly know whether God exists?

I think your skepticism is rightly placed. The scenario that I put forward is that there is an absolute truth before you - that God either absolutely exists or absolutely doesn't exist - and an impossibility in knowing for certain which of the two answers is correct.

This may at least give some insight into why believers are advised to believe with all of their hearts. The mind cannot know the absolute truth of God, but it is possible that the heart can. So through the heart they are lifted to an understanding higher than the mind can obtain.

THEY MAY BE WRONG. It's a gamble, either accept a possible absolute truth, or stick with what is finite and knowable and not risk looking like an idiot.

To your question: how did god come into being? Save it for another thread. That's a debate about (a)causality.
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2736/2825
(25-Aug-2011 at 12:40)


Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
Any tradition which invokes an absolute, all-knowning, all-powering god must all refer to the same diety. Well, you can have non-sense like the holy trinity, but I mean logically, there can only ever be one true God (with a capital 'G').

Religions will interpret the notion of God at their own peril. So I don't think the diversity of interpretation undermines the concept.
According to who's logic? I fail to see how this makes any more sense then other options. Multiple gods are just as likely as one god. Just like not all powerful gods are as likely or even more likely then an all powerful one

Also which traditions? I am pretty sure that in the vast majority of religions there isn't such a thing as an all knowing all powerful god. Especially at their source. In fact I am pretty if you dig deep enough it would be quite disuputed whether the jewish god is an all powerful all knowing one. Hell the Bible sur as hell doesn't make him look like an all powerful one



Quote:
Like I said, the absolute truth is either that an omnipotent god exists, or it doesn't.
Or several gods exist. Or it's not omipotent. Or it has died or a dozen more possibilites

Quote:
"I don't know" is not an answer. The ramifications for God existing means that he absolutely does, or he absolutely doesn't. You can't have an all-powerful god only semi-existing.
Just because YOU have been conditioned by society to the point where you limit yourself to something like this doesn't mean we have to follow your logic

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3794/3863
(25-Aug-2011 at 23:41)


Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
Any tradition which invokes an absolute, all-knowning, all-powering god must all refer to the same diety. Well, you can have non-sense like the holy trinity, but I mean logically, there can only ever be one true God (with a capital 'G').
Why? What evidence is there of this? Why is it not logical to suggest that there is in fact a race of omnipotent beings? why would there only be one such being?

Quote:
Religions will interpret the notion of God at their own peril. So I don't think the diversity of interpretation undermines the concept.
I think it does. The notion of god(s) arises from the human need to understand the world around them, and the human tendency to personalise things. The diversity comes from human beings following the same patterns.

Quote:
Like I said, the absolute truth is either that an omnipotent god exists, or it doesn't. "I don't know" is not an answer. The ramifications for God existing means that he absolutely does, or he absolutely doesn't. You can't have an all-powerful god only semi-existing.
This reminds me of the Schrödinger's cat experiment. The cat is either dead, or it is alive, but until you open the box you can never know.


Quote:
The problem you have seems to be with with epistemology, i.e. how can one possibly know whether God exists?
No, I'm quite certain that the god dreamed of in the abrahamic sense doesn't exist. The contradictions within and between those religions, along with the absurd creation story, and the wealth of physical evidence against tells me those religions are false.

I'm unsure in the sense that I there is no evidence either way on the cause of the universe. A "god" like entity might be simply conducting an experiment.

Quote:
I think your skepticism is rightly placed. The scenario that I put forward is that there is an absolute truth before you - that God either absolutely exists or absolutely doesn't exist - and an impossibility in knowing for certain which of the two answers is correct.

This may at least give some insight into why believers are advised to believe with all of their hearts. The mind cannot know the absolute truth of God, but it is possible that the heart can. So through the heart they are lifted to an understanding higher than the mind can obtain.

THEY MAY BE WRONG. It's a gamble, either accept a possible absolute truth, or stick with what is finite and knowable and not risk looking like an idiot.
Firstly, it isn't an absolute truth, in the sense that "God" would still be subject to my previous statement about the world I perceive not being an absolute truth. The only absolute truth is your own existence. (and is that not enough?)

But to play ball with you, the answer to the question might be considered an absolute truth, but in hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, god hasn't chosen to prove its own existence. So with the question unanswerable, to believe one answer or the other, and claim you have found an absolute truth is absurd, and quite simply delusional.

And it's about as far from a higher understanding as you can get. It's wilful ignorance. I guess there must be something behind the statement "ignorance is bliss"

The act of believing something does not make it true. Believers are encouraged to ignore the logical, thinking mind and encouraged to indulge in fantasy. Is it any different from a western child believing in Santa Clause? It's joyful, but it is still is a fantasy.

Quote:
To your question: how did god come into being? Save it for another thread. That's a debate about (a)causality.
The question wasn't about causality. It was making the point that if one believes in God, one must look at it in a logical way. That leads one to ask how god could have come into existance, and the question how this is any more logical or believable than the big bang theory.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 25-Aug-2011 at 23:42.
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1323/1637
(26-Aug-2011 at 08:04)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
According to who's logic? I fail to see how this makes any more sense then other options. Multiple gods are just as likely as one god. Just like not all powerful gods are as likely or even more likely then an all powerful one
I wasn't making a point about which tradition is correct. All I am saying is that if an all powerful god existed, it would have to be the only one, and its existance would be absolute. The existance of a pantheon, in contrast, cannot be an absolute truth (given their lesser status).

Quote:
Also which traditions? I am pretty sure that in the vast majority of religions there isn't such a thing as an all knowing all powerful god. Especially at their source. In fact I am pretty if you dig deep enough it would be quite disuputed whether the jewish god is an all powerful all knowing one. Hell the Bible sur as hell doesn't make him look like an all powerful one
That's a good question. You would have to ask a theologian to be sure. I know that Islam refers to god as all powerful and all knowing.

Would it be so erroreous for polytheism to embrace the concept of monotheism? I don't think it would be. At some point, all religions would have had to make the leap. And since there can only be one all-powerful god (else he would not be all-powerful), then it would still a step towards to a possible absolute truth (no matter the context it emerges in).

Quote:
Or several gods exist. Or it's not omipotent. Or it has died or a dozen more possibilites
Yes, many possibilities exist, but I am only concerned with the possible existance of an omnipotent god, since it represents a possible absolute truth.

Quote:
Just because YOU have been conditioned by society to the point where you limit yourself to something like this doesn't mean we have to follow your logic
I am only discussing the possibility. I consider the possibility because I am not satisfied with the answer "I don't know". I start with the premise "IF an omnipotent god exists..." only to explore the possible rammifications of its existance. This doesn't mean I believe such a being exists, only how one might believe such a being exists. It's just a philosophical exercise!
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6657/7006
(26-Aug-2011 at 08:41)


Originally Posted by DHoffryn:
According to who's logic? I fail to see how this makes any more sense then other options. Multiple gods are just as likely as one god.
Originally Posted by Azure Dragon:
Why? What evidence is there of this? Why is it not logical to suggest that there is in fact a race of omnipotent beings? why would there only be one such being?
I think Gotter is right on this. Think of the old "What would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable object?" question. The answer is that the two things are logically exclusive - an irresistible force means that no object can be immovable, and vice versa.

The same sort of thing applies here. For a god to be all powerful, there cannot be another god - or race of gods - with equal power to resist him.I there were, then none of them can be *all* powerful.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1324/1637
(26-Aug-2011 at 08:49)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
Why? What evidence is there of this? Why is it not logical to suggest that there is in fact a race of omnipotent beings? why would there only be one such being?
The reason why you can only have one omnipotent being is that if you have two or more omnipotent beings then they have to share power, which means it diminishes their power and they can no longer be wholly omnipotent.

To illustrate in politcal terms, it would be the difference in executive power between a dictator and a committee. If a government could be imagined as all-powerful, then it's individuals would have to share that power. A dictator on the other hand has free reign.

Quote:
I think it does. The notion of god(s) arises from the human need to understand the world around them, and the human tendency to personalise things. The diversity comes from human beings following the same patterns.
That's a very reasonable theory. Thanks for sharing.

Quote:
This reminds me of the Schrödinger's cat experiment. The cat is either dead, or it is alive, but until you open the box you can never know.
Yes, similar.

Quote:
No, I'm quite certain that the god dreamed of in the abrahamic sense doesn't exist. The contradictions within and between those religions, along with the absurd creation story, and the wealth of physical evidence against tells me those religions are false.

I'm unsure in the sense that I there is no evidence either way on the cause of the universe. A "god" like entity might be simply conducting an experiment.
And if God did exist, it wouldn't be surprising that man just failed to fathom the unfathomable. You call absurd what falls short of the impossible.

Quote:
Firstly, it isn't an absolute truth, in the sense that "God" would still be subject to my previous statement about the world I perceive not being an absolute truth.
That a God exists, that has always existed, and always will, who knows all is all powerful; if this is true then it is an abolute, unchangable truth.

Why wouldn't it be?

Quote:
The only absolute truth is your own existence. (and is that not enough?)
You keep mentioning this. I didn't address it because it's a tangent but I will indulge.

"I think, therefore I am" What you 'think' is whatever your body contructs for you in your mind, and what you 'are' is a bundle of atoms, just like the rest of the universe. If you want to believe that 'thinking' is the same as existing, then the universe also exists, since it is made of the same 'stuff' that you are. If the universe exists, then we can start thinking about transcendant powers.

Quote:
But to play ball with you, the answer to the question might be considered an absolute truth, but in hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, god hasn't chosen to prove its own existence.So with the question unanswerable, to believe one answer or the other, and claim you have found an absolute truth is absurd, and quite simply delusional.
Like I said, it's a gamble.

Quote:
And it's about as far from a higher understanding as you can get. It's wilful ignorance. I guess there must be something behind the statement "ignorance is bliss"
It's not wilful ignorance. It's actually the opposite, because it admits intellectual limitations and surrenders the mind to the rational POSSIBILIY of an absolute truth which it may not otherwise have the oppotunity to experience.

Quote:
The act of believing something does not make it true.
Nope, never made that claim.

Quote:
The question wasn't about causality. It was making the point that if one believes in God, one must look at it in a logical way. That leads one to ask how god could have come into existance, and the question how this is any more logical or believable than the big bang theory.
Cosmologists utilize all kinds of crazy ideas to make sense of the universe: dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, infinity, higher dimensions...all of which are unprovable, but still used in order to give the whole more substance.

Looking at the universe in a logical way is fine, but without necessary deviations your will not get far at all. You have to take leaps in the hope it leads onto a greater truth. And what larger truth is there than an absolute truth.

How did God come into existance? Is equal to: How did God get out of bed in the morning? The answer is he didn't: never needed to, never will.
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2738/2825
(26-Aug-2011 at 11:34)


Quote:
I wasn't making a point about which tradition is correct. All I am saying is that if an all powerful god existed, it would have to be the only one.The existance of a pantheon, in contrast, cannot be an absolute truth (given their lesser status).
Why? Because of our limited human logic and language? We don't know what all powerul means. We can't even grasp the concept therefore any of our theories are just as unlikely.


Quote:
Would it be so erroreous for polytheism to embrace the concept of monotheism? I don't think it would be. At some point, all religions would have had to make the leap. And since there can only be one all-powerful god (else he would not be all-powerful), then it would still a step towards to a possible absolute truth (no matter the context it emerges in).
Why not the other way around? Monotheism makes much less sense the polytheism from a human perspective. And you already know my opinion about humans trying to make rules about concept they can't evne begin to comprehend

Quote:
Yes, many possibilities exist, but I am only concerned with the possible existance of an omnipotent god, since it represents a possible absolute truth.
Any and all absolute concepts can't be comphrended by a human mind

Quote:
I am only discussing the possibility. I consider the possibility because I am not satisfied with the answer "I don't know". I start with the premise "IF an omnipotent god exists..." only to explore the possible rammifications of its existance. This doesn't mean I believe such a being exists, only how one might believe such a being exists. It's just a philosophical exercise!
I think you are starting with the wrong question. The right question is what is ompnipotent?

Quote:
I think Gotter is right on this. Think of the old "What would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable object?" question. The answer is that the two things are logically exclusive - an irresistible force means that no object can be immovable, and vice versa.
By the same logic what about the old can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift? If we go by human logic omnipotence is also a rather murky issue

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 26-Aug-2011 at 11:36.
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3795/3863
(26-Aug-2011 at 21:55)


Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
The reason why you can only have one omnipotent being is that if you have two or more omnipotent beings then they have to share power, which means it diminishes their power and they can no longer be wholly omnipotent.
Upon what evidence do you state this?

Quote:
To illustrate in politcal terms, it would be the difference in executive power between a dictator and a committee. If a government could be imagined as all-powerful, then it's individuals would have to share that power. A dictator on the other hand has free reign.
Dictators rarely have total free reign. They must secure their position and defend it. Weakness on their part leads to their downfall. This dictates their actions.


Quote:
And if God did exist, it wouldn't be surprising that man just failed to fathom the unfathomable. You call absurd what falls short of the impossible.
The existence of a god or god does not necessarily mean they are unfathomable. The creationist story is absurd. There is an abundance of evidence to refute it.

Quote:
That a God exists, that has always existed, and always will, who knows all is all powerful; if this is true then it is an abolute, unchangable truth.

Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's not a truth until it's proven to be so. It's merely a theory, one ultimately lacking in evidence. Anyone who feels they have found an absolute truth and derive joy from it are at best premature, and at worst deluded.

Quote:
You keep mentioning this. I didn't address it because it's a tangent but I will indulge.

"I think, therefore I am" What you 'think' is whatever your body contructs for you in your mind, and what you 'are' is a bundle of atoms, just like the rest of the universe. If you want to believe that 'thinking' is the same as existing, then the universe also exists, since it is made of the same 'stuff' that you are. If the universe exists, then we can start thinking about transcendant powers.
Let me refine my statement - the only thing you can be sure of is your own conciousness. Everything else, including your own body is the result of external input to your conciousness, or simply its imagination.

Although, I wonder why you think that transcedant powers are some how implied by the mere existance of the universe. Nothing we have physically observed of the universe has suggested anything like transcendent powers exist.



Quote:
Like I said, it's a gamble.
And those who offer you the gamble usually end up the winners.



Quote:
It's not wilful ignorance. It's actually the opposite, because it admits intellectual limitations and surrenders the mind to the rational POSSIBILIY of an absolute truth which it may not otherwise have the oppotunity to experience.
There are intellectual limits, but the answer is not to give up asking the questions. Newton had no concept of faster than light travel. He was intellectually limited by this. Einstein, following on from the knowledge discovered by others improved upon Newtons work. Science works in this way, and the collective human intelligence knows more now about the universe than it did. Intellectual limits are being expanded. Today's limit is tomorrows challenge.

The only thing one surrenders in believing in god is logic, and all that is gained is delusion.



Quote:
Nope, never made that claim.
Quote:
Yes, similar.
And your response to the points made?



Quote:
Cosmologists utilize all kinds of crazy ideas to make sense of the universe: dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, infinity, higher dimensions...all of which are unprovable, but still used in order to give the whole more substance.

Looking at the universe in a logical way is fine, but without necessary deviations your will not get far at all. You have to take leaps in the hope it leads onto a greater truth. And what larger truth is there than an absolute truth.
There is a number of differences you fail to consider. Firstly, those are merely proposed as theories. They are openly subjected to doubt, and further investigations and evidence is collected to support, refine or disprove the theory. The doubters and questioners are not subjected to accusations of blasphemy.

You're right, certain leaps do need to be made, but frequently they are made after careful consideration of evidence previously collected, questions previously asked.

There is no evidence beyond stories, claims made with out factual evidence repeated, and written down.

Quote:
How did God come into existance? Is equal to: How did God get out of bed in the morning? The answer is he didn't: never needed to, never will.
From where do you get this information? Upon what basis do you proclaim this "answer"?

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 26-Aug-2011 at 22:04.
#28  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1325/1637
(27-Aug-2011 at 02:19)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
Why? Because of our limited human logic and language? We don't know what all powerul means. We can't even grasp the concept therefore any of our theories are just as unlikely.
You are correct. Man cannot really understand God's nature, but what I have being saying is that he can still surrender himself to the possibility that God exists.

What I mean is that while it is not possible to know what all powerful really means, it is possible to orientate ourselves to a situation where an all powerful being may exist.

I don't need to know what all powerful means (well, I need some idea!). But no more than a patron eating at a resturant needs to know the recipe for the meal he is dining on.

Quote:
Why not the other way around? Monotheism makes much less sense the polytheism from a human perspective. And you already know my opinion about humans trying to make rules about concept they can't evne begin to comprehend
Like I said, it's up to you. Monotheism is a risk. At least with polytheism you can fall back on the anthropology.

Which raises the clear point (following from the above): the rules surrounding the concept of monotheism can only refer to our orientation to such a being. Such rules like: there can only be one all-power being, are logical, but the 10 commandments and the hadiths are not. These can only be recommendations for the social climate which allows for monotheistic thinking, but obviously can result in a slippery slope which I'd like to distance from this argument.

Monotheism is abstract philosophy, not social science.

Quote:
By the same logic what about the old can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift? If we go by human logic omnipotence is also a rather murky issue
Actually, an omnipotent being could create a rock so heavy even he can't lift, and then of course he could lift it. Yes, it's paradoxical, but it's the only answer which satisfies omnipotence.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 27-Aug-2011 at 02:22.
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1326/1637
(27-Aug-2011 at 04:51)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
Upon what evidence do you state this?
1 divided by 2 is 0.5

0.5 < 1

Quote:
Dictators rarely have total free reign. They must secure their position and defend it. Weakness on their part leads to their downfall. This dictates their actions.
I'd like to highlight this part (by the way it's only a metaphor).

Quote:
The existence of a god or god does not necessarily mean they are unfathomable.
You will have difficulty in explaining what all-powerful means and how it is possible to comprehend it.

Quote:
The creationist story is absurd. There is an abundance of evidence to refute it.
I won't argue with that. The creationist story was used as a learning aid. I wouldn't expect it to have much use today considering what we now know (though it still has its uses, such as telling us about the people who wrote it).

The thing about the bible is that it was never claimed to be written by anyone other than man. You may find the Quran much more interesting in this regard, since it claims (direct) divine origins.

Quote:
Because it's not a truth until it's proven to be so. It's merely a theory, one ultimately lacking in evidence. Anyone who feels they have found an absolute truth and derive joy from it are at best premature, and at worst deluded.
I will have to concede that this is the nature of absolute truth. It requires a large degree of anticipation. However, you paint it like this is unusual.

Keep in mind that even the hardest truths run into problems. You would think that theories like gravity have plenty of evidence, but the theory doesn't work all the time, for example when you apply it to galaxies.

All 'provable' truths have their limitations. The non-provable ones have their problems in the opposite fashion, they are not limited enough in scope or theory to make complete sense of.

On top of this we have the absolute truths, which compound the problem by being both non-provable and unknowable.

Quote:
Let me refine my statement - the only thing you can be sure of is your own conciousness. Everything else, including your own body is the result of external input to your conciousness, or simply its imagination.
But if your body is an imagination (potentially) then there is no knowable 'I', no knowable external world, and then there is no means to verify that you are conscious, i.e. how do you be sure that you are conscious? To say 'I am conscious because I am conscious' is a circular argument. Consciousness requires content, and content implies existance. That is, if you are conscious, then you must be conscious of something, and these things must be co-dependant, i.e. co-existant.

Quote:
Although, I wonder why you think that transcedant powers are some how implied by the mere existance of the universe.
Because the leap between consciousness and the universe is comparable to the leap of a universe to a universal consciousness.

The logical constant being that knowledge and power is relative to the degree of consciousness.

Quote:
Nothing we have physically observed of the universe has suggested anything like transcendent powers exist.
That's because the scientific method can only accept cause and effect.

Quote:
And those who offer you the gamble usually end up the winners.
Anecdotal, but thanks.

Quote:
There are intellectual limits, but the answer is not to give up asking the questions. Newton had no concept of faster than light travel. He was intellectually limited by this. Einstein, following on from the knowledge discovered by others improved upon Newtons work. Science works in this way, and the collective human intelligence knows more now about the universe than it did. Intellectual limits are being expanded. Today's limit is tomorrows challenge.
I never suggested that you should give up asking questions, only that you understand their limitations. Not the specific limitations themselves, they change, but the limitations regarding the nature of the questions, i.e. are they provable/nonprovable, finite/absolute etc.

I have already alluded to this when I said provable questions are too limited in scope, nonprovable questions have too much scope, and absolute questions have unknowable answers. This understanding is all I want to get across.

Quote:
The only thing one surrenders in believing in god is logic, and all that is gained is delusion.
Not really. You can be logical given any supposition, no matter how radical. To dismiss a supposition straight away because it appears unlikely is not logical.

Quote:
And your response to the points made?
O.K.

"The act of believing something does not make it true. "

Correct.

"This reminds me of the Schrödinger's cat experiment. The cat is either dead, or it is alive, but until you open the box you can never know. "

This is similar, but it is not a fair representation of the question of God because it there are no absolute consequences either way. On the other hand, if God exists, it has the grandest of consequences (much more than a cat).

Quote:
There is a number of differences you fail to consider. Firstly, those are merely proposed as theories. They are openly subjected to doubt, and further investigations and evidence is collected to support, refine or disprove the theory.
This is different from exploring the concept of an all-powerful being, how?

The evidence I have discussed here is abstract, I'll admit, but theoretically sound.

Quote:
The doubters and questioners are not subjected to accusations of blasphemy.
Can we please let go of the social implications of monotheism as they have nothing to do with the philosophy we are here to discuss.

Quote:
You're right, certain leaps do need to be made, but frequently they are made after careful consideration of evidence previously collected, questions previously asked.

There is no evidence beyond stories, claims made with out factual evidence repeated, and written down.
I don't care about what any text says about God unless it is logically sound. I am not here to promote any religious tradition but only to explore objectively the plausibility of an omnipotent God.

It's not fair to pin what I say with some campfire jingo jango.

You keep demanding: where is the evidence? Well, as I have suggested, evidence denotes cause and effect. Where is the cause and effect which proves that consciousness exists? There is none whatsoever. I repeat: none. It's a mystery. Scientifically, consciousness is a scam, there is no 'you', there is no 'out there' and all of reality is an arbitrary illusion that you have no influence upon. Sound fine to you?

Quote:
From where do you get this information? Upon what basis do you proclaim this "answer"?
An omnipotent God would have always existed and always will exist, otherwise he would not be God. That's makes perfect rational sense according to the concept.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 27-Aug-2011 at 04:52.
#30  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1327/1637
(27-Aug-2011 at 05:05)
*Sorry, the last post was meant to read "The reasoning I have discussed..." not "The evidence...". Since I cannot provide evidence of God, only reasoning.
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2740/2825
(27-Aug-2011 at 07:59)


Quote:
You are correct. Man cannot really understand God's nature, but what I have being saying is that he can still surrender himself to the possibility that God exists
No. He can surrender himself to a man made idea. This is the equivalent of surrendering yourself to the idea that Lord of The Rings is real or Twilight. The very idea of what we understand as god and most religions are just a combination of slightly smarter then average people looking for a way to control the populations and lots of drugs and halucinations.

Quote:
What I mean is that while it is not possible to know what all powerful really means, it is possible to orientate ourselves to a situation where an all powerful being may exist.
No it's not. It's possible to orientate yourself only in a situation where YOU are god


Quote:
I don't need to know what all powerful means (well, I need some idea!). But no more than a patron eating at a resturant needs to know the recipe for the meal he is dining on.
If you want simply something to believe in yes. If you are actually seeking for some absolut truth no. Nowhere near close

Quote:
Like I said, it's up to you. Monotheism is a risk. At least with polytheism you can fall back on the anthropology.
No that's the thing. It's not a risk. It's the same thing as everything else. We have just been conditioned by society to accept as it as something special

Quote:
Actually, an omnipotent being could create a rock so heavy even he can't lift, and then of course he could lift it. Yes, it's paradoxical, but it's the only answer which satisfies omnipotence.
Which just proves that our human logic can't comprehend it

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#32  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1328/1637
(27-Aug-2011 at 13:46)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
No. He can surrender himself to a man made idea. This is the equivalent of surrendering yourself to the idea that Lord of The Rings is real or Twilight.

No it's not. It's possible to orientate yourself only in a situation where YOU are god

If you want simply something to believe in yes. If you are actually seeking for some absolut truth no. Nowhere near close

No that's the thing. It's not a risk. It's the same thing as everything else. We have just been conditioned by society to accept as it as something special

Which just proves that our human logic can't comprehend it
I don't suppose you can accept the possibility of:

1. Knowledge and ideas intelligble by man but not man made
2. Man having insight to these ideas through some means, i.e. a soul
#33  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2741/2825
(27-Aug-2011 at 16:43)


Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
I don't suppose you can accept the possibility of:

1. Knowledge and ideas intelligble by man but not man made
2. Man having insight to these ideas through some means, i.e. a soul
SUre. If you give me some means of detecting them. What makes them different from a common story?

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#34  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1329/1637
(28-Aug-2011 at 00:14)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
SUre. If you give me some means of detecting them. What makes them different from a common story?
Thanks for entertaining the idea.

Let's assume you already have a soul, but are unable to recognise it. The next and finally concession needed is twofold, and it surrounds free will.

1. The universe contains randomness as a fundamental principal
2. That 'randomness' is attributed to free will enacted by conscious beings

It's a bit of a paradigm shift, but picture a universe where both causality and acausality exist along side each other. The 'soul' is what connects the intentions of the coscious being to the undercurrent of acausality and what enables that being to 'make stuff happen' spontaneously (of his own free will). Without a soul, free will would be an impossible concept.

Now we know what a soul is and what it does, how would the soul allow man to comprehend ideas that are not man made, and how would he recognise them as such?

If randomness in the universe is the result of conscious beings with free will, then in order to determine what transcendental power exists outside of mankind we simply outline the obvious limitations of man's free will. To give you a clear idea, let me contrast it with the greatest feat of spontaneity that we know of: all of creation itself. It is impossible for man to have willed the universe into being, so then, according to the new paradigm, another conscious being much, much more powerful must have created it. And given the continual existance of free will in the universe (and therefore acausality), such a powerful being would continue to 'live' in the universe. By definition, this being would be all-powerful, it would be God. That is, if you accept the above presumptions, the existance of creation itself is proof that God exists.

To summarize, if there is free will then there is randomness in the universe, that randomize is connected by the soul, the existance of the soul, and our limited power over the universe indicates that there are other, non-human souls, and the creation of the universe and the ongoing engagement of randomness therein proves that there is an all-powerful God.
#35  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1330/1637
(28-Aug-2011 at 01:16)
To respond more directly (using the above reasoning): since you arn't the creator of your own consciousness, all ideas are freely acquired and not contructed independantly in the minds of men. If you follow this long chain of reasoning, no idea is exclusivel man-made, but merely a droplet in the stream of universal, acausal consciousness share amongst all conscious beings.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 28-Aug-2011 at 01:19.
#36  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3796/3863
(28-Aug-2011 at 02:37)


Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
1 divided by 2 is 0.5

0.5 < 1
Quote:
You will have difficulty in explaining what all-powerful means and how it is possible to comprehend it.
I've put these two quotes together, because they appear to be rather hypocritical. One on hand you claim to know the power of gods in order to make statements on how the power cannot be shared, yet on the other you claim it is impossible to comprehend it.

Which is it?

Frankly sounds more like an argument about the powers of a comic book super hero.

Quote:
I'd like to highlight this part (by the way it's only a metaphor).
Exodus 20:3, 5
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.




Quote:
I won't argue with that. The creationist story was used as a learning aid. I wouldn't expect it to have much use today considering what we now know (though it still has its uses, such as telling us about the people who wrote it).

The thing about the bible is that it was never claimed to be written by anyone other than man. You may find the Quran much more interesting in this regard, since it claims (direct) divine origins.
All religious texts were written by men. But then so was the Lord of the Rings.

The creation story wasn't a learning aid. It's in the Old Testament, as part of the word of god.


Quote:
I will have to concede that this is the nature of absolute truth. It requires a large degree of anticipation. However, you paint it like this is unusual.

Keep in mind that even the hardest truths run into problems. You would think that theories like gravity have plenty of evidence, but the theory doesn't work all the time, for example when you apply it to galaxies.

All 'provable' truths have their limitations. The non-provable ones have their problems in the opposite fashion, they are not limited enough in scope or theory to make complete sense of.

On top of this we have the absolute truths, which compound the problem by being both non-provable and unknowable.
You mix words about like an old woman making cookie dough.

Absolute truths by definition have to be provable beyond doubt. Otherwise they are not absolute. False truths are those which are unprovable.

You appear to take our current knowledge as a species, and assume it will not expand any further. You point out theories that don't quite add up yet, but don't seem to acknowledge that those theories are just that - suggestions about how things work for further investigation.

They do not claim to be truths, and nor should they be used as if they are.


Quote:
But if your body is an imagination (potentially) then there is no knowable 'I', no knowable external world, and then there is no means to verify that you are conscious, i.e. how do you be sure that you are conscious? To say 'I am conscious because I am conscious' is a circular argument. Consciousness requires content, and content implies existance. That is, if you are conscious, then you must be conscious of something, and these things must be co-dependant, i.e. co-existant.
You're right; That the content exists in some form is not in doubt though.



Quote:
Because the leap between consciousness and the universe is comparable to the leap of a universe to a universal consciousness.

The logical constant being that knowledge and power is relative to the degree of consciousness.
I fail to see the logic in this. If we put aside the "I think, therefor I am" argument and take for granted that the universe is "real" and not dependent upon my conciousness, or yours, or anyone elses, then we must look at the evidence it provides us as to how we came to be. There is no leap between universe and conciousness.




Quote:
That's because the scientific method can only accept cause and effect.
Enlighten me about the transcendent, unknowable powers of god.


Quote:
I never suggested that you should give up asking questions, only that you understand their limitations. Not the specific limitations themselves, they change, but the limitations regarding the nature of the questions, i.e. are they provable/nonprovable, finite/absolute etc.

I have already alluded to this when I said provable questions are too limited in scope, nonprovable questions have too much scope, and absolute questions have unknowable answers. This understanding is all I want to get across.
Questions, and the answers, are only limited by the intellect asking them. I've demonstrated that there has been substantial improvement in the intellects asking questions about the nature of our universe. What was "unknowable" for Newton wasn't for Einstein.

The way you mix up words in your arguments makes me wonder if the notions behind them get mixed up on your head. Absolute truths are truths that are proven beyond doubt. They are not questions that have not yet been answered. You talk about scope of questions as if you are some kind of authority on questions. There are plenty of things I do not know, and would not know to even attempt to learn of what I don't know. That doesn't mean that what I don't know isn't knowable at all.

Quote:
Not really. You can be logical given any supposition, no matter how radical. To dismiss a supposition straight away because it appears unlikely is not logical.
Following one religion above any other is illogical.


Quote:
This is different from exploring the concept of an all-powerful being, how?

The evidence I have discussed here is abstract, I'll admit, but theoretically sound.
It has a right to be a theory of course, but anyone can have a theory about anything.

Quote:
Can we please let go of the social implications of monotheism as they have nothing to do with the philosophy we are here to discuss.
Fair point.

Quote:
I don't care about what any text says about God unless it is logically sound. I am not here to promote any religious tradition but only to explore objectively the plausibility of an omnipotent God.

It's not fair to pin what I say with some campfire jingo jango.

You keep demanding: where is the evidence? Well, as I have suggested, evidence denotes cause and effect. Where is the cause and effect which proves that consciousness exists? There is none whatsoever. I repeat: none. It's a mystery. Scientifically, consciousness is a scam, there is no 'you', there is no 'out there' and all of reality is an arbitrary illusion that you have no influence upon. Sound fine to you?
You're evading. We can debate our own existence if you like, but I suggest the evidence that I am posting these words is enough to prove my own existence, if not to you, then certainly to me. Your formulating a response to this post should prove to you your own existence, if not mine.

We're talking about the shared reality we supposedly co-inhabit. This shared reality has some people who believe in an omnipotent being, or beings. They believe this despite the lack of evidence to suggest the existence of such a being.

You want to explore objectively the plausibility of an omnipotent god, then answer my request for evidence that such an omnipotent god exists.


Quote:
An omnipotent God would have always existed and always will exist, otherwise he would not be God. That's makes perfect rational sense according to the concept.
It makes no sense at all.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 28-Aug-2011 at 11:38.
Edit reason: fixing the quote thingy
#37  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2743/2825
(28-Aug-2011 at 06:13)


Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
Thanks for entertaining the idea.

Let's assume you already have a soul, but are unable to recognise it. The next and finally concession needed is twofold, and it surrounds free will.

1. The universe contains randomness as a fundamental principal
2. That 'randomness' is attributed to free will enacted by conscious beings

It's a bit of a paradigm shift, but picture a universe where both causality and acausality exist along side each other. The 'soul' is what connects the intentions of the coscious being to the undercurrent of acausality and what enables that being to 'make stuff happen' spontaneously (of his own free will). Without a soul, free will would be an impossible concept.

Now we know what a soul is and what it does, how would the soul allow man to comprehend ideas that are not man made, and how would he recognise them as such?

If randomness in the universe is the result of conscious beings with free will, then in order to determine what transcendental power exists outside of mankind we simply outline the obvious limitations of man's free will. To give you a clear idea, let me contrast it with the greatest feat of spontaneity that we know of: all of creation itself. It is impossible for man to have willed the universe into being, so then, according to the new paradigm, another conscious being much, much more powerful must have created it. And given the continual existance of free will in the universe (and therefore acausality), such a powerful being would continue to 'live' in the universe. By definition, this being would be all-powerful, it would be God. That is, if you accept the above presumptions, the existance of creation itself is proof that God exists.

To summarize, if there is free will then there is randomness in the universe, that randomize is connected by the soul, the existance of the soul, and our limited power over the universe indicates that there are other, non-human souls, and the creation of the universe and the ongoing engagement of randomness therein proves that there is an all-powerful God.
Sorry but this is the same thing. You are again assuming based on pretty much nothing. Why should creation be proof of god?. What makes you think that in a few thousand years we won't be able to create a new universe simply with science without needing any higher being? And even if it is why would the all poweful being be one instead of an infinited amount of beings who work together and are inserparable but still with a different personality each one messing with the new universe in a different ? I think an all powerful all diffferent beigns would be much more interesting and just as likely.



Basically no matter how complicated you make your argument and how much you try find logic in the end you are saying the same thig. An all powerful God exists because I say so and hey look it just happens to be pretty similar to what society has been conditioning me my whole life to believe


Hence why I always thought that trying to debate over absolute truths is kinda pointless. In the end it always comes down to this

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#38  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1331/1637
(29-Aug-2011 at 03:42)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
Sorry but this is the same thing. You are again assuming based on pretty much nothing. Why should creation be proof of god?. What makes you think that in a few thousand years we won't be able to create a new universe simply with science without needing any higher being? And even if it is why would the all poweful being be one instead of an infinited amount of beings who work together and are inserparable but still with a different personality each one messing with the new universe in a different ? I think an all powerful all diffferent beigns would be much more interesting and just as likely.

Basically no matter how complicated you make your argument and how much you try find logic in the end you are saying the same thig. An all powerful God exists because I say so and hey look it just happens to be pretty similar to what society has been conditioning me my whole life to believe

Hence why I always thought that trying to debate over absolute truths is kinda pointless. In the end it always comes down to this
I find it especially frustrating that you would say that my argument comes down to "because I say so". Just because you can deduce the subject to it's obvious components doesn't mean the subject is limited to those components. For example, you say that all ideas are man-made. Yes, ideas can reside in the human brain, but are they limited to it? Since logic cannot say so, so I'm exploring it further.

Anyway, you've clearly lost interest in reading any further details about the matter.
#39  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1332/1637
(29-Aug-2011 at 04:48)
Re: All Your Religion Belong To Me

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
I've put these two quotes together, because they appear to be rather hypocritical. One on hand you claim to know the power of gods in order to make statements on how the power cannot be shared, yet on the other you claim it is impossible to comprehend it.

Which is it?
Making a statement about what omnipotence ISN'T is not the same as making a statement about what it IS.

Omnipotence ISN'T divided between multiple beings.

Quote:
Frankly sounds more like an argument about the powers of a comic book super hero.
Yes, belittle my argument, that'll work...

Like water off a duck's back.

Quote:
Exodus 20:3, 5
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
Yes, because there can only be one omnipotent being (so don't bother with others).

Quote:
All religious texts were written by men. But then so was the Lord of the Rings.
Just because something is produced by hands of men doesn't mean it is concieved by him. Moreover, the idea might not be limited to his mind. You can't take for granted that what is so far provable is all there is. Like I keep saying, theories that are provable have limited phenomena to which they are applicable. The very fact that science is constantly updating its 'proofs' is indication of the value of logical extrapolation.

I've given the exact reasoning to Dhoffryn, and you won't get any different.

Quote:
The creation story wasn't a learning aid. It's in the Old Testament, as part of the word of god.
How are these things mutually exclusive? Are you saying God doesn't want to teach you anything through stories?

Quote:
You mix words about like an old woman making cookie dough.
Old women are superb cooks, right?

Quote:
Absolute truths by definition have to be provable beyond doubt. Otherwise they are not absolute. False truths are those which are unprovable.
No, absolute truths by definition contain truths that are absolutetly true in nature. False truths are just lies. Read:

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner

Quote:
There is no leap between universe and conciousness.
Oh but there is. We are not all-knowing.

Quote:
Enlighten me about the transcendent, unknowable powers of god.
Please see my reply to DHoffryn, "Thanks for entertaining..."

Quote:
Questions, and the answers, are only limited by the intellect asking them. I've demonstrated that there has been substantial improvement in the intellects asking questions about the nature of our universe. What was "unknowable" for Newton wasn't for Einstein.
O.K. I will put this clearly.

I am decribing different kinds of truths.

Quote:
The way you mix up words in your arguments makes me wonder if the notions behind them get mixed up on your head.
It's really fairly simple:

Theory X is provable, but to be provable it must have limited applications. As an example I mentioned gravity. You can prove gravity to be a correct theory, but the theory doesn't always work under all conditions.

Theory Y is unprovable, because, while it might make sense in simulation, we are not yet able to test it under scientific conditions.

Theory Z is absolute in scope, therefore, while it might make sense in simulation, we can still never test it under scientific coniditions.

There are just categories for theories, so that you know exactly what I mean when I talk about there being an absolute truth.

Quote:
Following one religion above any other is illogical.
In principle, why?

In practice, at some point you have to.

Quote:
It has a right to be a theory of course, but anyone can have a theory about anything.
Theories have to make sense, though, otherwise its just crazy talk.

Quote:
I suggest the evidence that I am posting these words is enough to prove my own existence
Unfortuantely, it's not. You have to make certain assumptions in order to believe that you exist. But this is no different to what I am supposing in reasoning the existance of God. I certainly do require that you make certain assumptions along the way.

That being said, if any of the assumptions I am suggesting, like the existance of free will for example, is shown to be unreasonable, then it would undermine my theory completely. But I am content with that.

Quote:
You want to explore objectively the plausibility of an omnipotent god, then answer my request for evidence that such an omnipotent god exists.
I don't have evidence, only reasoning. I can't provide reliable evidence for an absolute truth or an omnipotent God. Sorry, but that's just the rules. You will have to follow my chain of reasoning and then decide for yourself.

I think, for the sake of this discussion and my own personal use, I will compile the argument in full in some concise manner so that there is not further ambiguity.

Quote:
It makes no sense at all.
You are making an assumption that there needed to be a beginning. I just removed that assumption.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 29-Aug-2011 at 04:56.
#40  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments AsianAmerican Religious Discussions 54 27-Aug-2005 14:08
The illogic of religion Gus Mackay Religious Discussions 46 05-Aug-2005 12:28
Why is religion taken serious in some parts of the world? draconis84 Polls Heaven 30 24-Apr-2005 07:46
On the topic of Evangilism and Finding your religion. pump Religious Discussions 17 31-Jul-2004 11:13
So take a look at this bill that's going through the house... Erik64 Respectable General Discussions 34 03-Apr-2004 06:23


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 19:55.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.