Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[jehanne1431]

I think I understand why people need gods.

Your first sentence is one of the major reasons.

I'm not an atheist but many think I am because I am completely indifferent on the subject of gods. I don't think it matters if gods exist or not.

You are not an atheist, correct, but you are an agnostic, and in practice there’s no difference. . I believe when you say you do not care one way or another, but you are still gambling on that not being of consequence after you die.

And maybe I answered your question why we believe in God, (or want to believe in God), but I still cannot understand your reason for being indifferent to what the future may hold.

 

[ding]

I just wanna find out which side of the Euthyphro dilemma he comes out on.

The so called "dilemma" is an artifact of their perception of God. Garbage in equals garbage out.

 

[Blues Man]

You are not an atheist, correct, but you are an agnostic, and in practice there’s no difference. . I believe you do not care one way or another, but you are still gambling on that not being of consequence after you die.

And maybe I answered your question why we believe in God, (or want to believe in God), but I still cannot understand your reason for being indifferent to what the future may hold.

The future will come no matter what. With or without any gods. If gods exist I don't think any of them are the god of the bible as that god is man's wish for what a god might be

 

[ding]

Does science back up the Bible?

Yes. Creatio ex nihilo; a universe created from nothing.

Here's what the 1st two chapters of Genesis tell us in an allegorical fashion:

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation; only man has knowledge of good and evil
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes. Creatio ex nihilo; a universe created from nothing.

But you preserve a special place for God. God does not have a "cause", in other words He's special.

If one claims that nothing can come from nothing but God exists without "cause" then that is special pleading.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The so called "dilemma" is an artifact of their perception of God. Garbage in equals garbage out.

Nope.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, people do react differently. So not everyone's responses are the same. But they usually end up in the same place eventually... acceptance. It's a process that works better with a connection to God so that something good can come from something bad.

Remember, we were talking about people who fail to experience God. They simply fail to "feel" God's presence as you or other believers might. That's the point. So many religious folks look at atheists and say "Just believe in God! It's simple!" But it really isn't that simple. One must feel God to have some sort of "relationship" with him. Otherwise you are simply "worshiping" something that doesn't even feel real to you.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because by “nature” we are more than curious what happens when we die.

More importantly we fear annihilation. The thought of it just ending is terrifying to people. So they tell themselves stories about their "essence" (soul) and imbue it with all manner of mystical, magical powers like existing beyond the physical realm.

People then tell each other these stories and we have a religion.

I am certain God exists from empirical evidence, alone,

That is a blessing for you. For those who fail to be convinced by this empirical evidence it is more difficult.

and many other educated folks are not. . Cannot comprehend that every bit as much as you cannot comprehend us.

I actually CAN comprehend you because I was once you. I was once a believer. But I struggled with my faith. Ultimately it didn't feel "real" so I dropped it. But there's still a LOT of Christianity I rely on in my daily life. Things I think the faith got right.

Perhaps the real problem is just the ONE side can't comprehend the other, but the other can most assuredly comprehend the first.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Pondering the origin questions is anything but that. In fact, it's the exact opposite. It sharpens one's intelligence.

But the words should have some objective meaning.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How else would you describe something (which is in reality no thing) that is eternal and unchanging? The words "source" and "matrix" seem appropriate to me.

I fail to see how the words "source" and "matrix" have anything to do with "eternal" and "unchanging". They are just fun words to throw around. Especially "matrix". That sounds super deep.

Why not just go with "eternal" and "unchanging"?

By your earlier claim, though, no thing like that can actually exist. It cannot be "eternal" because everything comes from something. So you have claimed. You can't get something from nothing. Correct?

So why God? Why does God get to be the special case?

Hint: special pleading.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Is it?

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.

Why do they need a "purpose"? I'm serious. Why does there need to be a "purpose"?

That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing

That's very close to my perception of God. Just no space in between those two words. (In reality I'm what is called a "weak atheist" because, unlike strong atheists who claim "There is no God", I prefer the much more logical "I fail to see evidence for God". Strong atheists are making a universal negative claim which cannot be defended. Universal negatives are a big no-no in logic.

and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body.

Something you have never seen. Something that, arguably, has never been found.

Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy,

Cannot allow that. Since I am not a supernatural being beyond space and time eternal and all knowing I can't really compare my actions with that of God, whatever the conception.

we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose.

Again, that purpose is nowhere required for nature.

So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same

Here's where you syllogism fails: you have jumped to a conclusion based on flawed assumptions (ie comparing my limited physical actions and brain with that of the eternal unchanging God of all creation.)

. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence.

Does it though? My dog has "intelligence" yet he creates nothing and doesn't really do anything.

We are obsessed with making smart things

WE are, but we are not the only thing with "intelligence" on this planet.

. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

That sounds nice. Unevidence, but nice.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.

And that "life" is always made up of the same chemicals as the rest of the junk around us. In fact life's chemistry is nothing more than regular chemistry. "Life" isn't that utterly amazing, nor is it some mystical "thing" or "essence" apart from just plain ol' natural chemistry.

I'm going to go so far as to say that much of your mental state is drive in no small way by CHEMISTRY.

Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible,

This is an argument that actually runs "backwards". There isn't anything special about us existing...we do arise from this particular selection of physical laws, but if the physical laws were different life would likely be different. But even if a universe existed without life it would be effectively the same.

It's this 'Purpose' thing you get hung up on. There's no obvious NEED for a purpose. There may be a DESIRE on your part for a purpose, but no "need".

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise.

No it isn't. The earth existed for literally BILLIONS of years without life developing "intelligence" of any real sort.

If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence

No such purpose is in evidence. Again, it may be your personal wish, but that does not make it ipso facto real.

then a preference in nature for it had to exist.

I disagree with the predicate.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence.

Really? So when an ice cube grows in the refrigerator and it creates a crystal with a repeating pattern of atoms lined up exactly and in accordance with the rules of thermodynamics and physics and chemistry it means that an "intelligence" is required?

In reality it's nothing more than "energy minimizing" and stacking atoms. Nothing more really.

The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose.

Predicate causes do NOT indicate "purpose". It simply indicates something happened before something else.

The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

I profoundly disagree.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure.

In a sense it IS an argument built on "fairy tales". But not the "supernatural kind", rather the fairy tales of our "wishes" overlaid on the physical world.

So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing.

Where does spirit come from again?

So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense.

I like that.

The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey.

Not sure that is a meaningful sentence. Since "existence is not predicate" as Kant noted in critique of Anselm's Ontological Argument, this sentence feels like it may be meaningless.

The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world.

Your concept of a "rule" pre-existing the thing is interesting conjecture. But conjecture is all it is.

The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I will agree that "Spirit is no thing" in that I fail to believe it exists. Given that reality does exist (at least to this observer) will then have to assume that "spirit" is not part of this. It is a wish of the human mind and nothing more. It's wholly understandable. We are "self-aware" to an extreme extent so, of course, we fear "not existing". But some of us actually kind of look forward to that eventuality.

 

[jehanne1431]

More importantly we fear annihilation. The thought of it just ending is terrifying to people. So they tell themselves stories about their "essence" (soul) and imbue it with all manner of mystical, magical powers like existing beyond the physical realm.

People then tell each other these stories and we have a religion.




That is a blessing for you. For those who fail to be convinced by this empirical evidence it is more difficult.



I actually CAN comprehend you because I was once you. I was once a believer. But I struggled with my faith. Ultimately it didn't feel "real" so I dropped it. But there's still a LOT of Christianity I rely on in my daily life. Things I think the faith got right.

Perhaps the real problem is just the ONE side can't comprehend the other, but the other can most assuredly comprehend the first.

I appreciate the honesty and civility in your response. As for me, the preponderance of evidence for the Christian God (historical records, miraculous phenomena, the enduring influence of a Jewish carpenter on the whole world for 2000 years, et al.) is, imo, a thousand times more credible and convincing that any other belief in history, or any position of unbelief. . Two questions:

1) How can a lump of coal turn into an amazing, rational creature as a human just by chance without an intelligent designer guiding the process? . It completely defies logic and science.

2) If a statue of the Virgin Mary in your bedroom started to weep human tears or tears of blood from her eyes for days on end, would that not cause you to rethink the position of no evidence for the supernatural? . So why do you or others doubt it when it is video taped and happening all over the world, time and time again? 99% of all Christians would never lie about something like this just to draw attention upon themselves.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

1) How can a lump of coal turn into an amazing, rational creature as a human just by chance without an intelligent designer guiding the process?

I will first off noting that that isn't where humans come from, but I appreciate the comment.

Biochemistry is nothing more than a special sub-class of chemistry. We are all just plain ol' chemicals. Literally no different from countless substances that occur naturally independent of life. Saccharides (sugars) and phosphates and even amino acids occur naturally without "life" making them.

And we shouldn't assume that chemistry is WHOLLY RANDOM CHANCE. Chemicals react due to relatively simple mechanisms that aren't really special or mystical in any real way, but they DO follow rules. So it isn't random chance when two chemicals encounter each other.

Let's take an example from our biology. Most life on earth has a preference for the shape of the molecules it uses. Some molecules have "stereoisomers" which relates to how the various branches of a chemical coordinate around certain centers. It leads to a left-handed vs right-handed set of chemicals, but life only prefers one for the most part. Interestingly some ROCK SURFACES preferentially adsorb these "stereoisomers" such that they prefer to adsorb only the same isomer that life prefers. And it is highly likely that "life" started off as little more than a surface reaction on some mineral surface.

. It completely defies logic and science.

Not in the least.

2) If a statue of the Virgin Mary in your bedroom started to weep human tears or tears of blood from her eyes for days on end, would that not cause you to rethink the position of no evidence for the supernatural?

Once it was established that that was what was happening, it might certainly raise some questions for me. But then I'd also have explain why Muslim miracles or Hindu miracles (like the Milk Miracle) wouldn't move me.

. So why do you or others doubt it when it is video taped and happening all over the world, time and time again?

Because I realize I'm easily fooled by my perceptions. Which is more likely? That the only way the Creator of the Universe can communicate is through a magicians' trick or that people (who have been KNOWN to fake "miracles" literally all the time) were simply faking it, or, could it be that we are both (me and the person with the statue) just confused by what we are seeing and in error?

For me a RATIONAL THEOLOGY has a loving God who makes himself manifestly obvious to ALL without limit. No requirements for credulity. Like gravity. You can't really debate that gravity exists without looking like you are unhinged. But the opposite is true of God.

I should think the single most important fact in the entire universe and for all time would be manifestly obvious to all.

Instead we have a plethora of radically different, often mutually exclusive "Gods" all over the planet.

99% of Christians would never lie about something like this in order to draw attention upon themselves.

 

[james bond]

there were two sets, bond ...

View attachment 684376

no the phonies writen by moses - and were destroyed by moses - before anyone was able to read them, by who made them up.


... they were the only copy, except the makebelieve bond story -



of the "peoples" copy destroyed by the romans ... they also never existed.

* so what are those in the desert books, there is no original to verify them even the phony original copy moses destroyed himself.

How do you know? You have no evidence for it.

 

[james bond]

I don't believe in any theory that isn;t actuall proven fact.

Liar. Evolutionists have nothing, but opinion while science backs up the Bible.

We do not know how the universe came to be and we may never know

The believers and I know.

I don't really have a problem with that so I don't need to make up gods to explain things I might never know

We didn't make up God/gods. We had faith first.

 

[james bond]

I tend not to watch someone else's favorite videos but I'm willing to bet I know all the critiques you have of "evolution" and I bet I am familiar with almost all of the "scientific evidence" you have of the Bible. I have been reading in this area for a few decades now. Even back when I was still a Christian!

I would be hard-pressed to accept much of any of these points given my education and my general lack of religious faith.

I can, however, understand the drive one has to make sure reality aligns with the holy writ, even if it means twisting what the words in the holy writ mean or if it means denying what is manifestly clear in the actual physical evidence.

If I felt my immortal soul was on the line for having the wrong thoughts I, too, would join you. Thankfully I have worked to free myself of that mindset.

Ho hum.

It takes faith first. Then the truth and the facts reveal themselves. It certainly isn't evolution. Why is it even a science when humans made it up and there is no evidence? Even the 13.8 B B yr-old universe and 4.5 B yr-old Earth is made up, i.e. wrong.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Ho hum.

Indeed.

It takes faith first.

In order to believe in God you have to start by first believing in God. Simple one step plan.

Then the truth and the facts reveal themselves.

So you tell us.

It certainly isn't evolution.

It is unlikely you would be in a position to substantively critique the theory of evolution.

Why is it even a science when humans made it up and there is no evidence?

Because there's evidence.

Even the 13.8 B B yr-old universe and 4.5 B yr-old Earth is made up, i.e. wrong.

You are a "Young Earther"? That's a good area for me. I have my degrees in geology and most of the "young earth" stuff I've read isn't even remotely close to science. But it is interesting to see people who have no experience in earth science telling earth scientists how things work.

 

[BreezeWood]

How do you know? You have no evidence for it.

that's the issue, they do not now exist and were never verified as who claimed their origin destroyed them before they could be authenticated ... moses the liar.

so what is written in the 4th century c bible or the other desert documents are without a basis as in fact - tablets etched in heaven - never existed. nor the phony 10 commandments, made up by the jews - who murdered jesus when they disavowed their authenticity in the 1st century.

you are a lose loony, bond and anyone else that claims commandments ever existed - sent from the heavens.

 

[ding]

But you preserve a special place for God. God does not have a "cause", in other words He's special.

If one claims that nothing can come from nothing but God exists without "cause" then that is special pleading.

Just to clarify... my claim isn't that nothing can come from nothing. My claim is existence cannot come from non-existence and that God IS existence. That mind has always existed as the matrix or source of the material world. That the physical world is made of mind stuff.

As for a special pleading I see it more as the logical conclusion of a universe that pops into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

 

[ding]

Nope.

So ANY perception of God is equal in your eyes? That seems illogical to me.