PDA

View Full Version : Can The Existence of God be Proven?



Northern Paladin
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Can The Existence of God be Proven?

If so how.
If it can't be proven why?

Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the philosophical arguments—the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument.

Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God, and so supports each of the various religions to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.


Some proofs God does exist.

knowing what “God” means makes it obvious that God’s non-existence is impossible.

Another part of what “God” mean is “perfect”; something can’t properly be called God unless it is perfect. This is the key idea behind the ontological argument.

If something is perfect, then it couldn’t possibly be better than it is; there can’t be anything better than perfection. This means that if a thing is perfect then it is impossible to imagine it being better than it is; there is nothing better than it is to imagine.

The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity. The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.


If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero”, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false.

The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/

Ewergrin
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 09:52 PM
Of course not.
That's why we have this thing called faith.

Aristotle
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 12:16 AM
EYTYXEITE!
Of course it can be!
Please have a look in my Passport!
Kindest Reg... sorry, blessing!

Newgrange
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 12:39 AM
are dazed&confused and Resurgent Atavism one in the same
person? is the greater question.

look at their avatars :D

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 01:16 AM
The existence of God will never be proven.

It's entirely contradictory that (an axiomatic) God seeded man with reason and that man has used this reason to distance or eliminate God's intimacy with humanity.

The entire concept of an intimate, all-scrutinizing, ever-judging God is risible and was a consequence of overwhelming ignorance and insecurity. It's the panacea for the ignorant, the weak-willed, and those afraid of the unknown.

Other than advanced conceptual abilities, there is nothing special about humanity (a product of evolution, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps; 40% with yeast) to distinguish it from the rest of the planet's life so as to necessitate divine origin -- to think otherwise is absolutely pretentious.

Naturally, there must have been something that brought about existence -- this must be admitted even if one subscribes to something as agnostic as the Big Bang -- but to think this power is the same petty, petulant God of the Bible is preposterous. Even if the conventional (Biblical) God exists, His track record is abysmal: whenever the innocent and pious have found themselves in the greatest need of His omnipotence, He has been most notable for his gross inaction. If God does exist, He is cynical and refuses to validate His existence. In which case, why worship Him at all?

Belief in God demands faith -- the antithesis of reason.

Ewergrin
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 01:28 AM
are dazed&confused and Resurgent Atavism one in the same
person? is the greater question.

look at their avatars :D


I'm afraid not. Besides, I don't know who that is in his avatar, but it certainly isn't Mike Patton (:idolize :bow :worship).

green nationalist
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 01:40 AM
it wont be proven because he does not exist

Ewergrin
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 01:48 AM
The existence of God will never be proven.

Proven while we are alive on earth? Absoutely not.


It's entirely contradictory that (an axiomatic) God seeded man with reason and that man has used this reason to distance or eliminate God's intimacy with humanity.

:thumbsup
Hardly exemplary behaviour of such an all-powerful, omnipotent and lofty fellow. Oops!


The entire concept of an intimate, all-scrutinizing, ever-judging God is risible and was a consequence of overwhelming ignorance and insecurity. It's the panacea for the ignorant, the weak-willed, and those afraid of the unknown.

:thumbsup
Everyone has a crutch. To a vast majority of humans, this crutch is god. Only cripples use crutches.


Even if the conventional (Biblical) God exists, His track record is abysmal: whenever the innocent and pious have found themselves in the greatest need of His omnipotence, He has been most notable for his gross inaction. If God does exist, He is cynical and refuses to validate His existence. In which case, why worship Him at all?

At the very best, let's just assume that "God" just doesn't give a shit. That I can accept, and respect.


Belief in God demands faith -- the antithesis of reason.

True. This applies to any god.

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 02:10 AM
Hardly exemplary behaviour of such an all-powerful, omnipotent and lofty fellow. Oops!

:D

I can just see Him, perched in the firmament above this little blue planet looking down, as he reflects on all of the distinctly primitive/passionate and ungodly that man has committed in His name, fighting back a sardonic grin: "Oops...".

Ewergrin
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 02:22 AM
:D

I can just see Him, perched in the firmament above this little blue planet looking down, as he reflects on all of the distinctly primitive/passionate and ungodly that man has committed in His name, fighting back a sardonic grin: "Oops...".


Monty Python sketch soon to follow... ;)

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 02:38 AM
Monty Python sketch soon to follow... ;)

"And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had done, surveying all that His hand had created -- having besmirched the mind of the Smart Monkey -- and said 'Oh shit...'."

Siegmund
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:08 AM
Absolutely not. People cannot even agree on the meaning of the concept of "God," much less prove that whatever it is they mean by that concept actually exists.

Jack
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 10:03 AM
Define 'God'.

The idea of first cause is refuted by infinite regression.

Libertad_Alex
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 12:21 PM
Can The Existence of God be Proven?Yes.


If so how.
With science.

Sksob
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 04:48 AM
I vote no, because technically, Science only disproves theories in order to seek a law or truth.

Persoanlly though, science cannot prove everything. I find it odd that the order of events described by Creationists mimic those subscribed to by Atheists and Evolutionists. I believe the Big Bang theory is nonsense. It violates the principles that govern it. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. In that case, the matter/energy needed to create everything as we know it in the universe cannot simply have just existed. The odds of it all being bound up in to a ball and just exploding 13 some billion years ago is rediculous. Thinking that somehow this is all a freak accident and we are no more than a continuation of chemical interractions is also rediculous. Order does not derive from chaos.

Sometiems I think that those who do not believe in a higher power, no matter what we call him/her/it, are just unable to accept the fact their life has meaning and that there exists a being greater and more important than themselves.

The Blond Beast
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 06:15 AM
I believe the Big Bang theory is nonsense. It violates the principles that govern it. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. In that case, the matter/energy needed to create everything as we know it in the universe cannot simply have just existed. The odds of it all being bound up in to a ball and just exploding 13 some billion years ago is rediculous.

The three pillars of the Big Bang are the measured predictions of nucleosynthesis (from first principles -- elemental proportions of primordial gas bodies), observed and measured Hubble (accelerated) expansion, and the very accurately measured cosmic microwave background radiation (also predicted from first principles -- photon decoupling). Suffice it to say, if a hypothesis has been strengthened by the results of three independent tests, this suggest there might be some validity to that hypothesis. The Big Bang is certainly not nonsense -- to ignore what has been deduced and observed would be not be reasonable.

Also, the laws of physics did not exist prior to the existence of space and time. Consequently, there is no point in invoking the conversation of energy to disprove the Big Bang. Our current, accepted laws of physics ceased to exist at the (putative) singularity and any attempt to describe those laws that did hold sway is entirely supposition.

TisaAnne
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 07:18 AM
Sometiems I think that those who do not believe in a higher power, no matter what we call him/her/it, are just unable to accept the fact their life has meaning and that there exists a being greater and more important than themselves.I completely agree.

The universe is something so beautiful and intricately complex that a scientific explanation for it's existence does not satisfy me. I cannot believe that our existence has come about by chance, some fluke of nature...I appreciate the earth and it's creatures far too much to say, "this was a natural accident, and nothing more."

I don't believe in God because I have proof, or because of religion or faith... I believe in God because I see life as something so incredibly amazing and wonderful that there has to be something more than atoms and molecules and science...To see a perfect sunset or a smiling child is enough "proof" for me to know that something greater lies just beyond our grasp.

Believing in science's answer to life is easy, even mediocre...But believing in something that you cannot see or feel with your fingertips is probably one of the hardest things there is.

Stríbog
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 08:40 AM
Yes.

With science.

You're not a very good Communist...

Northern Paladin
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 07:43 PM
Define 'God'.

The idea of first cause is refuted by infinite regression.

Infinite regression can not be applied to a finite Universe.

Infinity is just an abstract idea that exists only in our minds. In reality nothing in the Universe is infinite because the Universe itself did not always exist but had a beginning.

According to Science the Universe began at the Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. The mere fact that the Universe has a beginning and is expanding proves that it is not infinite.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 07:49 PM
I vote no, because technically, Science only disproves theories in order to seek a law or truth.

Persoanlly though, science cannot prove everything. I find it odd that the order of events described by Creationists mimic those subscribed to by Atheists and Evolutionists. I believe the Big Bang theory is nonsense. It violates the principles that govern it. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. In that case, the matter/energy needed to create everything as we know it in the universe cannot simply have just existed. The odds of it all being bound up in to a ball and just exploding 13 some billion years ago is rediculous. Thinking that somehow this is all a freak accident and we are no more than a continuation of chemical interractions is also rediculous. Order does not derive from chaos.

Sometiems I think that those who do not believe in a higher power, no matter what we call him/her/it, are just unable to accept the fact their life has meaning and that there exists a being greater and more important than themselves.

The fact matter/energy can not be generated out of nothing testifies that God exists.

Tyrant
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 08:55 PM
What kind of "spiritual preservation" could an organization like this possibly achieve without a divine order to the "spirits" you seek to preserve?

And this atomistic perspective is pure dehumanizing trash. Why would you even believe in a country if it wasn't destined towards something higher and holy? Social policies? Economic prosperity? The same principles that we despise Jews for dedicating their lives to?

I can't imagine dedicating my life to something temporal and contingent like a political territory if it wasn't destined to strive for higher goals.

Ewergrin
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 09:24 PM
The fact matter/energy can not be generated out of nothing testifies that God exists.

Based on that theory, who created God? ;)

Stríbog
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 09:43 PM
Infinite regression can not be applied to a finite Universe.

Infinity is just an abstract idea that exists only in our minds. In reality nothing in the Universe is infinite because the Universe itself did not always exist but had a beginning.

According to Science the Universe began at the Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. The mere fact that the Universe has a beginning and is expanding proves that it is not infinite.

Against what exactly is it expanding? Until we are closer to answering this, we should not smugly presume that the universe is finite.

Stríbog
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 09:46 PM
What kind of "spiritual preservation" could an organization like this possibly achieve without a divine order to the "spirits" you seek to preserve?

And this atomistic perspective is pure dehumanizing trash. Why would you even believe in a country if it wasn't destined towards something higher and holy? Social policies? Economic prosperity? The same principles that we despise Jews for dedicating their lives to?

I can't imagine dedicating my life to something temporal and contingent like a political territory if it wasn't destined to strive for higher goals.

The higher goal is the evolution of one's folk towards a grander plane of existence. No one here is advocating solipsistic theories of success.

The Blond Beast
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 10:33 PM
I can't imagine dedicating my life to something temporal and contingent like a political territory if it wasn't destined to strive for higher goals.

Such are the vagaries of delusion and ignorance as motivated by fear. ;)

Tyrant
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 11:11 PM
The Blond Beast:

Yea, right... Because Odin, Zeus, Marduk, and Ramses taught men to live frightened lives.

And please don't tell me you automatically associate 'spiritual' with 'Jesus-loving.'

Stribog:

That's not a goal; that's a process. We can't just say, "Our main mission is to keep evolving towards a greater plane of existence," without recognizing what that plane consists of, and how to actually achieve it.

And 'evolution' will require a more concise definition for me to fully understand you.

Communist
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 12:01 AM
No it cannot.

The Blond Beast
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 01:34 AM
Yea, right... Because Odin, Zeus, Marduk, and Ramses taught men to live frightened lives.

And please don't tell me you automatically associate 'spiritual' with 'Jesus-loving.'

It's profound ignorance and a glistening fear of the unknown that drives men to the spiritual (think of something that you can't understand, and if you're simple enough, you'll always find your answer in the panacea of "God(s)").

It's simple: anything "spiritual" is a coping mechanism. You find life not to your satisfaction -- all life is finite and ultimately succumbs -- so you invent something vague and intangible (merely a concept which incapable of being disproven and therefore is not amenable to reason) that serves as an idyllic goal or purpose which will vindicate your earthly suffering. Naturally, this makes your life -- abounding in negativity (death and hardship...) -- only a precursor to what you want to believe is something more ideal and timeless, but which could never be obtained on earth.

Once one accepts the fact that humans are just evolved primates with advanced conceptual abilities, all of this "spirituality" becomes simply risible. Humans once had an ecological niche to fill, but having used our intelligence to take us out of nature's cycle, we have made ourselves feel devoid of a purpose and have thus had to invent one.

A reasonable man accepts the fact that he is a primitive beast with a conceptual mind; a spiritual man is really just a primitive beast -- who refuses to admit that he's a primitive beast -- with a conceptual mind and way too much time on his hands...

nemo
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 02:15 AM
it wont be proven because he does not exist

God exists! you just have not found him, you better start looking harder before your time runs out. :fpope:

Tryggvi
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 04:03 AM
The existence of any arbitrarily defined god cannot be proved. It is also not possible to disprove the existence of any arbitrarily defined god. However, it is possible to disprove the existence of certain particularly defined gods, e. g. the Christian or the Jewish god. The latter definitely do not exist.

Tyrant
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 05:20 AM
The Blond Beast:

It's profound ignorance and a glistening fear of the unknown that drives men to the spiritual (think of something that you can't understand, and if you're simple enough, you'll always find your answer in the panacea of "God(s)").

First of all, the greatest leaders in European history were the most devoutly religious, men whose breast knew no fear.

Second of all, by what standards do you therefore gauge a man? By what standard do you gauge righteousness and evil? Acceptable from intolerable?

It's simple: anything "spiritual is a coping mechanism.

Not only the mentality of the world's most deceptive Jew, but also his very own terminology.

You find life not to your satisfaction -- all life is finite and ultimately succumbs -- so you invent something vague and intangible (merely a concept which incapable of being disproven and therefore is not amenable to reason) that serves as an idyllic goal or purpose which will vindicate your earthly suffering. Naturally, this makes your life -- abounding in negativity (death and hardship...) -- only a precursor to what you want to believe is something more ideal and timeless, but which could never be obtained on earth.

I find life without religion, without a supreme force to dedicate my every breath to, not to my satisfaction. And this current existence is not a precursor to any kind of otherworldy Heaven or Hell, but in fact one plane of several forms of consciousness.

Pretty ballsy and general statements considering you have no idea what kind of religious background I speak from.

Once one accepts the fact that humans are just evolved primates with advanced conceptual abilities, all of this "spirituality" becomes simply risible. Humans once had an ecological niche to fill, but having used our intelligence to take us out of nature's cycle, we have made ourselves feel devoid of a purpose and have thus had to invent one.

First of all, evolution is not a fact, but a theory.

Second of all, your accusations justify the actions of the Jews. If there is no ultimate and suprahuman standard by which to judge others' actions, Ayn Rand opportunism festers in the human mind. The lack of consequence prevalent in Darwin worshippers perfectly keeps the Jews in a moral state of righteousness simply by their victory. It is therefore best, by the standard you have put forth, to join with the Jews in their puppet-like charade of racial mixing, materialism, relativity, infantile sexuality, and deprivation of homeland. The way of the Jew is therefore no better than the way of the Samurai, the Templar, or the Teutonic Knight; after all, the Jews seem to be winning quite proficiently.

Third of all, principles like Honor, Loyalty, Nobility, Courage, Discipline, and Fortitude are not invented purposes, but timeless truths consistent throughout all admirable cultures. To say that we invented these divine concepts is like saying we invented gravity. We obviously didn't invent it; it had always been there, awaiting our discovery of it. By the same token, all civilizations, isolated from one another, discovered these principles and saw that they were good.

Fourth of all, our intelligence has not taken us out of nature's cycle. We as physical bodies will always remain in the chthonic simplicities of natural impulses and elements. It is our intelligence that lets us recognize our potential to ascend beyond it, while still having our physical feet planted in the ground. That's a significant difference.

A reasonable man accepts the fact that he is a primitive beast with a conceptual mind; a spiritual man is really just a primitive beast -- who refuses to admit that he's a primitive beast -- with a conceptual mind and way too much time on his hands...

Allow me to clarify the half-truth you spoke. I will admit that a reasonable man accepts the fact that he is a primitive beast with a conceptual mind, but his stubbornness to remain a primitive beast nullifies the possibilities of that conceptual mind. A spiritual man realizes that, fundamentally, he is a primitive beast, but just as a tool serves a purpose impossible to imagine simply by studying the shape, weight, and design of its structure, so can a spiritual man ascend beyond the observable utilities of his body - and thus ascend beyond beasthood.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 06:38 AM
What kind of religious backround do you speak from?

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 08:11 AM
Yes, God has been proven not to exist. There is no emperical means of proving god exists, so he doesn't. The problem is in proving a negative, so if the question is: Can it be proven that God doesn't exist? That answer is no, since you can't prove negative evidence.

The Blond Beast
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 08:19 AM
First of all, the greatest leaders in European history were the most devoutly religious, men whose breast knew no fear.

Indeed, delusion tends to embolden.


Second of all, by what standards do you therefore gauge a man? By what standard do you gauge righteousness and evil? Acceptable from intolerable?

Generally, I would deem that which occurs is accordance with nature as more "acceptable" than that which does not. Alas, the differentiation of right and wrong remains arbitrary.


Not only the mentality of the world's most deceptive Jew, but also his very own terminology.

Ah yes, invoking the Jewish "boogeyman" -- the surefire sign of a lost debate. ;)


I find life without religion, without a supreme force to dedicate my every breath to, not to my satisfaction.

Yet another martyr to nail to the cross...


And this current existence is not a precursor to any kind of otherworldy Heaven or Hell, but in fact one plane of several forms of consciousness.

Do you have any basis for saying this -- as though it were an absolute -- other than your abstract thought? Didn't think so...


Pretty ballsy and general statements considering you have no idea what kind of religious background I speak from.

Is your religion one of Judaism's bastards? ;)

Though it really doesn't matter, as all religions find their origins in ignorance -- a plague common to all men.


First of all, evolution is not a fact, but a theory.

A theory, yes, but one with a lot of weight -- DNA, the fossil record (...) -- behind it. The outright denial of these things would certainly not be reasonable, now would it?

Hopefully you will not be so preposterous so as to espouse creationism...


It is therefore best, by the standard you have put forth, to join with the Jews in their puppet-like charade of racial mixing, materialism, relativity, infantile sexuality, and deprivation of homeland.

Since when has racial preservation been tied to the validity of the metaphysical? Suffice it to say, racial preservation is more natural -- i.e. aesthetic, gregarian, and perpetuation tendencies -- than supernatural.


Third of all, principles like Honor, Loyalty, Nobility, Courage, Discipline, and Fortitude are not invented purposes, but timeless truths consistent throughout all admirable cultures.

Many of these "divine" principles are synonymous with or derivatives of "strength", which just so happens to serve as the arbiter of selection in the animal world -- markedly so amongst primates. ;)


By the same token, all civilizations, isolated from one another, discovered these principles and saw that they were good.

Instinct, not the "divine", has always brought these "principles" to the fore.


Fourth of all, our intelligence has not taken us out of nature's cycle. We as physical bodies will always remain in the chthonic simplicities of natural impulses and elements.

Our intelligence has taken us out of nature's cycle, as we -- the zenith species -- no longer concern ourselves with the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation: we eat what we want when we want; we reproduce as we please; and we have domesticated the wolf. The fact some peoples of the world have not even mastered these demands alludes to the inherent atavism of man...


It is our intelligence that lets us recognize our potential to ascend beyond it, while still having our physical feet planted in the ground.

Indeed, conceptual abilities have undoubtedly allowed men to entertain the baseless and absurd.


I will admit that a reasonable man accepts the fact that he is a primitive beast with a conceptual mind, but his stubbornness to remain a primitive beast nullifies the possibilities of that conceptual mind.

A man recognizing his nature does not necessitate the absence of progress: intelligence has been selected for, and so it will achieve.


A spiritual man realizes that, fundamentally, he is a primitive beast, but can ascend beyond the observable utilities of his body - and thus ascend beyond beasthood.

Indeed, this is what the spiritual man would like to believe; despite his tendency to calm himself in obeisance, his primitive rage still finds him wishing ill will against those with whom he disagrees. ;)

Stríbog
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 09:37 AM
First of all, the greatest leaders in European history were the most devoutly religious, men whose breast knew no fear.

As Mencken pointed out, belief in Santa Claus makes children more obedient. This doesn't mean he exists.

Tyrant
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 07:29 AM
The Blond Beast:

Indeed, delusion tends to embolden.

Religion emboldens men. And you think it's because they like fooling themselves?

So the very foundation of every respectable nation, from Ramses the Great to Julian the Apostate, should be disregarded because it was based on a religious knowledge fundamental to the very existence of all worthy Empires - a knowledge that you have yet to reconnect with?

Generally, I would deem that which occurs is accordance with nature as more "acceptable" than that which does not. Alas, the differentiation of right and wrong remains arbitrary.

You improperly define 'nature.' Nature is a feminizing principle. What is 'natural' is what is 'automatic.' Natural action, to me, is taking the path of least resistance. An African tribe with wisdom observed thus by Carl Jung: "When I steal other men's wives, it is good. When they steal my wives, it is bad" is fundamentally 'natural', but far from admirable.

What makes once civilization fundamentally better is going beyond natural impulses and instincts for the sake of alignment with higher principles true to all traditional civilizations (thus necessitating the acceptance of an ultimate "good" and an ultimate "evil."

Ah yes, invoking the Jewish "boogeyman" -- the surefire sign of a lost debate.

I was referring specifically to Sigmund Freud, who on all but one count was horrendously incorrect, yet still manages to have a significant number of followers in his psychological school - women included.

Yet another martyr to nail to the cross...

Hardly a martyr.

Do you have any basis for saying this -- as though it were an absolute -- other than your abstract thought? Didn't think so...

First of all, answering your own questions is hardly a useful debate technique, least of all on the internet.

Second of all, every religion other than the Judeo-Christian axis admits the existence of several different forms of consciousness, from an analysis of the Nine Worlds of Midgard to the Platonic Chakras to the Hindu planes of consciousness.

Interestingly enough, not one of these arcane and primordial civilizations point to the existence of a beastly origin, as you put forth as undeniable fact, but instead points to higher origin, of being descended from gods.

Scientific fact provides positively no proof of the transmutation of species, but only speculates on it based on civilizations whose traditions involved burial - thus ignoring those that incinerated their dead.

Is your religion one of Judaism's bastards? ;)

Though it really doesn't matter, as all religions find their origins in ignorance -- a plague common to all men.

To answer your question, no. To address your accusation, name anything any religion has done to express or cultivate ignorance.

A theory, yes, but one with a lot of weight -- DNA, the fossil record (...) -- behind it. The outright denial of these things would certainly not be reasonable, now would it?

Denying that these things exist would be preposterous, I agree. To admit that this does anything to nullify religious validity would be equally preposterous.

Hopefully you will not be so preposterous so as to espouse creationism...

Depends on what you mean by creationism.

Since when has racial preservation been tied to the validity of the metaphysical?

Since race has been tied to destiny.

Suffice it to say, racial preservation is more natural -- i.e. aesthetic, gregarian, and perpetuation tendencies -- than supernatural.

I think ten seconds on any street corner anywhere in America shows you otherwise.

Many of these "divine principles are synonymous with or derivatives of "strength", which just so happens to serve as the arbiter of selection in the animal world -- markedly so amongst primates. ;)

So does strength by numbers. Doesn't make democracy a good political system, or popularity a determinant of what is ultimately best.

Instinct, not the "divine", has always brought these "principles" to the fore.

You're using too many different words interchangeably. Instinct simply says "Survive!" Natural impulse, urge, and drive says, "Survive by running from foes!" Courage and nobility says, "Survive by conquering your foes!" Which is better?

Our intelligence has taken us out of nature's cycle, as we -- the zenith species -- no longer concern ourselves with the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation: we eat what we want when we want; we reproduce as we please; and we have domesticated the wolf.

First of all, just because we remove ourselves from the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation doesn't mean that we no longer need to eat, reproduce, or conquer.

Second of all, you're saying that us eating what we want when we want, reproducing as we please, and domesticating wolves is a good thing. I say that eating what we want when we want turns us into a planet of gluttonous slobs. Reproducing as we please turns us into overpopulated insects and breeding grounds for venereal disease. Domesticating the wolf separates us from the fighting spirit we should have as both animals and humans.

Indeed, conceptual abilities have undoubtedly allowed men to entertain the baseless and absurd.

Just because something is not limited to the five senses our brains can interpret does not make anything beyond those five senses "baseless and absurd."

A man recognizing his nature does not necessitate the absence of progress: intelligence has been selected for, and so it will achieve.

You think both nature and progress are good, when our 'natures' and this 'progress' have separated man from the traditional values that make Indo-Europeans gods amongst beasts.

Indeed, this is what the spiritual man would like to believe; despite his tendency to calm himself in obeisance, his primitive rage still finds him wishing ill will against those with whom he disagrees. ;)

Spiritual man achieves this ascension. You automatically believe religion is some kind of macrocosmic lullaby that quells any fears people have concerning shadows. In truth, religion is the metaphysical origins of the righteousness of stalwart tenacity and conquest. Religion is the voice and spirit to all I've ever truly known and fought for.

This hypnotism archetype you've covered the whole of 'religion' is an irresponsible rejection of the muse of anything originating from northern lands.

Stribog:

As Mencken pointed out, belief in Santa Claus makes children more obedient. This doesn't mean he exists.

First of all, Santa Claus did exist at a certain point in time, but his name was actually Saint Nicholas.

Second of all, Santa Claus in the common marketing figure is a symbol - a metaphor for the virtue of acting in righteousness even when you believe no one is watching.

Northern Paladin:

I speak from many different religious understandings - Paganism, the Cult of Prince Siddartha-Buddha, Akhnaton's Religion of the Disk, the Ars Regia, Hinduism, and the like. The easiest way to explain my beliefs is an understanding of Tradition. Taking into account Carl Jung's ideas of archetypal expression, Joseph Campbell's analyses of religious synchronicity, and philosophy in the vein of Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, and Savitri Devi, it can best be explained as an admiration of Empire, of Rite, of Aristocracy, of the rejection of the Modern world - all summed up in the word 'Tradition.'

Thank you for asking after my remark about BB not knowing the religious background from which I come.

The Blond Beast
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Religion emboldens men. And you think it's because they like fooling themselves?

Religion (erroneously) provides the delusional with what they perceive as "directive".


So the very foundation of every respectable nation, from Ramses the Great to Julian the Apostate, should be disregarded because it was based on a religious knowledge fundamental to the very existence of all worthy Empires - a knowledge that you have yet to reconnect with?

Simply because a religion has been useful in having served a (manufactured) purpose for some people doesn't vindicate its "truths". Admit that much...


An African tribe with wisdom observed thus by Carl Jung: "When I steal other men's wives, it is good. When they steal my wives, it is bad" is fundamentally 'natural', but far from admirable.

Admirable? It's simply absurd to censor nature (instinct) and necessity...


What makes once civilization fundamentally better is going beyond natural impulses and instincts for the sake of alignment with higher principles true to all traditional civilizations (thus necessitating the acceptance of an ultimate "good" and an ultimate "evil.")

So you find it preferable fight for an unattainable goal as motivated by overt ignorance and falsification? You exalt religion simply because you feel it has been the motive behind conquest? Surely the same could be said exclusively of the manifestations of strength...




Do you have any basis for saying this -- as though it were an absolute -- other than your abstract thought? Didn't think so...
Second of all, every religion other than the Judeo-Christian axis admits the existence of several different forms of consciousness, from an analysis of the Nine Worlds of Midgard to the Platonic Chakras to the Hindu planes of consciousness.


It doesn't matter in the least whether people in the past have believed in higher consciousness -- you, ultimately, remain unable to validate such a belief or to justify its perpetuation other than the fact that it has been useful to some in the past...


Interestingly enough, not one of these arcane and primordial civilizations point to the existence of a beastly origin, as you put forth as undeniable fact, but instead points to higher origin, of being descended from gods.

Of course these arcane and primordial civilizations did not suggest man's beastly origins -- they had no knowledge of genetics, paleontology, or primatology. :eyes


Scientific fact provides positively no proof of the transmutation of species, but only speculates on it based on civilizations whose traditions involved burial - thus ignoring those that incinerated their dead.

So you have entirely ignored the strong implications of the irrefutable fact that humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps...


To address your accusation, name anything any religion has done to express or cultivate ignorance.

I stated that religions finds their origins in ignorance, not that they necessarily promote ignorance.

Although, the perfect example was the Catholic Church's refusal to even tolerate (let alone accept) heliocentrism. There can be no greater contradiction of Christianity's stated intentions than the Church's willingness to murder in the name of maintaining ignorant dogmatism.

Most faiths abhor enlightenment, as knowledge can only sew seeds of doubt in any faith's adherents...




A theory, yes, but one with a lot of weight -- DNA, the fossil record (...) -- behind it. The outright denial of these things would certainly not be reasonable, now would it?
Denying that these things exist would be preposterous, I agree. To admit that this does anything to nullify religious validity would be equally preposterous.

The fact that the theory of evolution is tangible and supportable -- amenable to reason -- certainly makes it more realistic and acceptable than the arbitrary belief in the intangible vagaries of conceptual thought.




Since when has racial preservation been tied to the validity of the metaphysical?
Since race has been tied to destiny.

Since when has "destiny" involved only the metaphysical and not a finite supremacy on earth?



[quote=The Blond Beast]Suffice it to say, racial preservation is more natural -- i.e. aesthetic, gregarian, and perpetuation tendencies -- than supernatural. [quote=Tyrant]
I think ten seconds on any street corner anywhere in America shows you otherwise.

Simply because miscegenation occurs doesn't necessitate that others don't seek to secure their own blood and those among their own which they have deemed beautiful.


You're using too many different words interchangeably. Instinct simply says "Survive!" Natural impulse, urge, and drive says, "Survive by running from foes!" Courage and nobility says, "Survive by conquering your foes!"

You have just validated my point -- you are using too many words -- as there is no difference between "instinct" and "natural impulse". :lol

All you have affirmed is the immutability of strength as the means for self-preservation -- the timelessness of instinct.


First of all, just because we remove ourselves from the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation doesn't mean that we no longer need to eat, reproduce, or conquer.

As I stated before, it's obvious that we do so now at whim.


Second of all, you're saying that us eating what we want when we want, reproducing as we please, and domesticating wolves is a good thing.

Again, I was obviously stressing that these things are diharmonious with man formerly having a natural niche.


I say that eating what we want when we want turns us into a planet of gluttonous slobs. Reproducing as we please turns us into overpopulated insects and breeding grounds for venereal disease. Domesticating the wolf separates us from the fighting spirit we should have as both animals and humans.

The undisciplined, gluttonous slobs and the profligate breeders are just as pathetic and irredeemable as the insular, willingly self-deluded religious sycophants who live in the abstract.


Just because something is not limited to the five senses our brains can interpret does not make anything beyond those five senses "baseless and absurd."

Something that has no form, that is not amenable to the senses, nature, and experience -- to reason -- is baseless; and the belief in such a flight of fancy is absurd.


First of all, Santa Claus did exist at a certain point in time, but his name was actually Saint Nicholas.

So Sait Nicholas cruised around in a sleigh driven by reindeer?

Stribog is obviously referring to the fact that because something is utterly fantastic, yet serves a useful purpose -- like all religion -- doesn't necessitate any inherent truth to the artifice.


I speak from many different religious understandings - Paganism, the Cult of Prince Siddartha-Buddha, Akhnaton's Religion of the Disk, the Ars Regia, Hinduism, and the like.

Ah yes, belief in the extinct, the false and the flimsy...

Stríbog
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Religion emboldens men.

So does psychosis.

Tyrant
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004, 06:05 AM
The Blond Beast:

Religion (erroneously) provides the delusional with what they perceive as "directive".

And the actions of great men will echo across generations because of their directive. You, with apparent disdain for the principle of "direction," won't.

Simply because a religion has been useful in having served a (manufactured) purpose for some people doesn't vindicate its "truths". Admit that much...

What you say is true. Manufactured purposes, however, are not our concerns here. The construction of Empires and Nations, the leadership of the Volk, the perpetuation of spiritual enlightenment - these are not 'manufactured' purposes, but destinies accepted a priori amongst the greatest men in history.

Admirable? It's simply absurd to censor nature (instinct) and necessity...

I never said 'reject everything natural because it's natural.' I said 'Don't do natural things as an end in and of itself.' It's simply absurd to say that having sex for the sake of sex is more admirable than having sex to raise a family, or eating for the sake of eating is more admirable than eating to nourish the body in its daily tasks.

So you find it preferable fight for an unattainable goal as motivated by overt ignorance and falsification? You exalt religion simply because you feel it has been the motive behind conquest? Surely the same could be said exclusively of the manifestations of strength...

I find it preferable to fight for an unattainable goal motivated by the knowledge and realization of truths foreign to the modern world, bereft of metaphysical consciousness. And religion is not the motive behind conquest, but the reason for principal Conquest. Religion - as an affirmation of life, strength, and tradition - is why men seek to conquer. And yes, the same could be said exclusively of the manifestations of strength - and that ultimately becomes the deciding factor in a one-on-one conflict - but that, as I mentioned before, does not make that conquest fundamentally better than another. Stalin killing more people than Hitler does not make Communism better than National Socialism.

It doesn't matter in the least whether people in the past believed in higher consciousness -- you, ultimately, remain unable to validate such a belief or to justify its perpetuation other than the fact that it has been useful to some in the past...

People in the past didn't merely believe in higher consciousness - it was a fundamental characteristic and aspiration of their every waking breath.

As far as validation of the belief in higher consciousness, consider this:

1. Your perception of the archaic man in question puts him at an intellectual handicap in comparison with our level of 'superior' knowledge, thus crippling his conceptual capacities.

It is therefore very difficult to imagine, therefore, that the primitive man would be anything except atomistically oriented. It is most likely, from a speculative point of view, that men were mere observers of cause and effect. Can you imagine trying to convince a man who only truly knows his five senses, who observes causality and calls it reality, that in order to cease tornados, hurricanes, and lightning storms, to invoke and appease giant men with absurd deformations and characteristics that these men cannot see before them?

But the consider this:

2. Every single civilization, no matter how primitive or basic, as far back as history can be traced, attests to some kind of tradition dealing with man's relationship to the elements and virtues around him and concludes abstract origins.

This points to an autonomous understanding of forces beyond those five senses, and a compulsion to follow a series of rites and rituals to correlate a relationship with these unseen forces - forces that, as the atomistic, primitive caveman that he is accused of being, has no evidential reason to acknowledge.

These compulsions, consistent across culture, time, and circumstance, cannot have existed for so long, only now beginning to dissolve in the present and modernized era of the past half-millennium, unless their ultimate spiritual thirsts were appropriately quenched by the vitality of higher consciousness.

Of course these arcane and primordial civilizations did not suggest man's beastly origins -- they had no knowledge of genetics, paleontology, or primatology.

Never mind the fact that they had knowledge of agrictulture, astrology, chemistry, physics, architecture, physical discipline, and supreme fortitude that has YET to be matched; simply because they don't worship Darwin, Watson, Crick, or Newton, means they are, indeed, incorrect and worthless and inferior to the common age of drive-through pharmacies and cell phones.

So you have entirely ignored the strong implications of the irrefutable fact that humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps...

1. Chimp DNA has yet to be mapped out.
2. Our DNA is more similar to rats than chimps.
3. Chimps still exist as chimps and, unless I missed something and Planet of the Apes was actually a documentary, chimps are remaining chimps.
4. Even accepting that we do share 98% of our DNA with chimps, similarities between two different species in DNA still does not prove that one came from the other - especially in light of point number 3.

I stated that religions finds their origins in ignorance, not that they necessarily promote ignorance.

Although, the perfect example was the Catholic Church's refusal to even tolerate (let alone accept) heliocentrism. There can be no greater contradiction of Christianity's stated intentions than the Church's willingness to murder in the name of maintaining ignorant dogmatism.

Let's get one thing straight before we continue: I am not now, nor ever will be, a Christian. Christianity is the abhorrence of Tradition, and I therefore reject it furiously.

To address the point, however, heliocentrism was, at the point of its vehement opposition by the church, a sketchy and hole-filled conspiracy theory at best, simply because there was no proof of it. I can hardly imagine Catholics today refusing that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the planet is round.

Most faiths abhor enlightenment, as knowledge can only sew seeds of doubt in any faith's adherents...

Name any faith that abhors enlightenment aside from Christianity - a false religion in all circumstances.

The fact that the theory of evolution is tangible and supportable -- amenable to reason -- certainly makes it more realistic and acceptable than the arbitrary belief in the intangible vagaries of conceptual thought.

I just realized that you forgot to point out whether or not you meant micro- or macroevolution every time you talked about evolutionary theory. Because there are fantastically abundant resources to support the former, but scarcely anything beyond science-worshipping faith prepositions in the latter.

Besides, like I said before: just because you have yet to experience it does not make it any less real.

Since when has "destiny" involved only the metaphysical and not a finite supremacy on earth?

Since when did I say that Destiny involved only the metaphysical? Destiny involves the metaphysical guidance manifested in physical leadership. Significant difference.

Simply because miscegenation occurs doesn't necessitate hat others don't seek to secure their own blood and those among their own which they have deemed beautiful.

You didn't go to that street corner, did you?

You have just validated my point -- you are using too many words -- as there is no difference between "instinct" and "natural impulse." :lol

First of all, that's not true.

Second of all, how does your twisting my words around to fit your insistence on making 'instinct' and 'natural impulse' synonymous prove your point?

All you have affirmed is the immutability of strength as the means for self-preservation -- the timelessness of instinct.

With the example of "Survive!" perhaps. Let's try another. Instinct simply says "Conquer!" Natural impulse, urge, and drive says "Conquer by subterfuge, deception, and least harm to yourself!" Courage and nobility says, "Conquer with honor to achieve glory!"

Starting to understand the difference?

As I stated before, it's obvious that we do so now at whim.

And, therefore, we have not taken ourselves out of the natural cycle.

Again, I was obviously stressing that these things are diharmonious with man formerly having a natural niche.

...

The undisciplined, gluttonous slobs and the profligate breeders are just as pathetic and irredeemable as the insular, willingly self-deluded religious sycophants who live in the abstract.

Are you Catholic?

Something that has no form, that is not amenable to the senses, nature, and experience -- to reason -- is baseless; and the belief in such a flight of fancy is absurd.

Religious consciousness is most certainly amenable to experience, since that is the fundamental origin of religion. Besides, does that mean that honesty is baseless and absurd simply because it has no form, and is not amenable to the senses or nature? And loyalty? And nationalism? None of these things have form or sensual stimulation. Do you agree that these things, in fact, exist?

So Sait Nicholas cruised around in a sleigh driven by reindeer?

That was a fancified allegory to Thorburn (or Freyja, perhaps).

Stribog is obviously referring to the fact that because something is utterly fantastic, yet serves a useful purpose -- like all religion -- doesn't necessitate any inherent truth to the artifice.

So a German WWII poster indicating a happy family of seven children, which can be considered utterly fantastic in the modern age, yet serves a useful purpose -- the connection to family and culture -- does not necessitate any inherent truth to the artifice of Family?

Ah yes, belief in the extinct, the false and the flimsy...

Are you a Catholic altar-boy?

Stribog:

Religion emboldens men.

So does psychosis.

Not true. Psychosis does not allow men to understand or interpret reality. This is hardly characteristic of someone who is 'bold.'

Stríbog
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004, 06:46 AM
And the actions of great men will echo across generations because of their directive. You, with apparent disdain for the principle of "direction," won't.

Blond Beast doesn't lack direction, he is just wise enough not to get it from musty, tattered rags of faith, relics of a time when men could conceive of little else.



Never mind the fact that they had knowledge of agrictulture, astrology, chemistry, physics, architecture, physical discipline, and supreme fortitude that has YET to be matched; simply because they don't worship Darwin, Watson, Crick, or Newton, means they are, indeed, incorrect and worthless and inferior to the common age of drive-through pharmacies and cell phones.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.



2. Our DNA is more similar to rats than chimps.

LMAO, care to substantiate this?



3. Chimps still exist as chimps and, unless I missed something and Planet of the Apes was actually a documentary, chimps are remaining chimps.

4. Even accepting that we do share 98% of our DNA with chimps, similarities between two different species in DNA still does not prove that one came from the other - especially in light of point number 3.


Have you ever read a basic biology textbook? Or do you avoid their
blasphemous teachings?

Chimpanzees are not our ancestors, they are our closest living kin, descended from a common ancestor.



Name any faith that abhors enlightenment aside from Christianity - a false religion in all circumstances.

Judaism... Islam... Hinduism... various paganisms...

Wasn't Socrates killed for impiety towards the Gods?



I just realized that you forgot to point out whether or not you meant micro- or macroevolution every time you talked about evolutionary theory. Because there are fantastically abundant resources to support the former, but scarcely anything beyond science-worshipping faith prepositions in the latter.

Yeah. Scarcely anything except conservation of protein structure and function as well as homologous skeletal morphology, not to mention gill slits, dorsal nerve chords and other morphogenetic and embryological data. You probably haven't heard the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," have you?



Not true. Psychosis does not allow men to understand or interpret reality

Apparently neither does religion.

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004, 10:29 AM
Are you a Catholic altar-boy?

No, Hindu, I am not Catholic. If you have been unable to adduce that I am overtly agnostic, your comprehension is frightfully selective or you're glaringly obtuse -- then again, both tend to dovetail in the "spiritual" man. ;)

Go forth Vishnu, and when the dust settles, an even more enlightened mankind will look back on your dogmatism and contentious irrationality and have a difficult time differentiating it from lunacy:


"It simply beggars belief that this foolish sycophant thought he could ride willed ignorance towards a 'higher consciousness'!"

:P

Tyrant
Wednesday, October 6th, 2004, 05:35 AM
I think we've done enough straying from the fundamental point, since I believe that the only affirmation or rejection of religious consciousness is experience.

Now that I feel I understand the mechanics of your thought processes a little more clearly, let me ask you this question, fundamental to the separation of minds:

What enlightenment do you believe modern man has now that makes him superior to archaic man?

Tyrant
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 12:06 AM
Stribog:

Blond Beast doesn't lack direction, he is just wise enough not to get it from musty, tattered rags of faith, relics of a time when men could conceive of little else.

The portion of the quote you didn't bold following this statement proves that they could conceive of much more than modern man.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Inappropriate use.

LMAO, care to substantiate this?

Scientists do biological, chemical, and genetic testing on rats instead of chimps because of this very fact.

Have you ever read a basic biology textbook? Or do you avoid their blasphemous teachings?

Yes, but I also notice the holes in the flawed sciences.

Chimpanzees are not our ancestors, they are our closest living kin, descended from a common ancestor.

Which we have yet to find.

Judaism... Islam... Hinduism... various paganisms...

Lots of accusations, still no evidence. Show me the doctrines that indicate they abhor enlightenment.

Wasn't Socrates killed for impiety towards the Gods?

By people.

Just because the politics of the day led to his condemnation doesn't discount the validity of the religion. Just because Hitler and Mussolini were killed, and are currently disparaged for defiling Europe, doesn't mean they actually did so.

Yeah. Scarcely anything except conservation of protein structure and function as well as homologous skeletal morphology, not to mention gill slits, dorsal nerve chords and other morphogenetic and embryological data.

Evidence of microevolution, not macroevolution.

You probably haven't heard the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," have you?

From the second link on the google search "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ontogeny.htm)

Now say you're sorry.

Apparently neither does religion.

A gay aside with no supportive claims.

The fact that discoveries are just being made in the past ten years that ancient tribal civilizations have already been saying since they were discovered by the Western world.

The inner chambers of the Pyramids point outwards towards significant constellations 4,000 years before the invention of the telescope.

The Dogon tribe of West Africa have a religion that worships a star (Sirius B) that is impossible to see without a telescope.

Scientists describing the expansion and contraction of the universe are describing the "Inhalation of Brahma," and reaffirming the destiny of the universe as told by millennia of Hindi scholars.

The recently discovered Ekpyrotic Theory (http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/) of the creation of the universe recounts exactly what creationist mythology has stated since time immemorial.

The social dynamics of the caste system are described in the same way as one superior element in the hierarchy of life acts upon the inferior, leading from the cellular organelles (Untouchables) to the will of a being (Brahmans).

Don't tell me religion cannot adequately interpret reality when they interpret it more effectively (and, apparently, more quickly) than science can.

The Blond Beast
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 12:42 AM
The inner chambers of the Pyramids point outwards towards significant constellations 4,000 years before the invention of the telescope.

The three main pyramids at Giza are aligned with the belt of Orion -- a clearly visible constellation. Of course, all constellations are visible, making the necessity of the telescope of no consequence.

This kind of confusion is probably similar to the "guest star" in Taurus as recorded in 1054 by Chinese observers. Unfortunately, this "guest star" is what we today call a "supernova", which is only visible for a short period of time -- light for a short period of time where there was once was none! To these primitives, considering most stars to be immutable in brightness and location, such prominence could easily be interpreted as the divine... ;)


The Dogon tribe of West Africa have a religion that worships a star (Sirius B) that is impossible to see without a telescope.

This just in: given the immensity of the Universe, point your finger towards the sky in any direction and state that there exists an unseen star of any character (color/size, companions...) -- you'll always be correct.


Scientists describing the expansion and contraction of the universe are describing the "Inhalation of Brahma," and reaffirming the destiny of the universe as told by millennia of Hindi scholars.

A nice little metaphor for "cycle"...

Alas, the universe has been proven to be expanding at an accelerating rate, a rate that suggests that the Universe will die a death of ice. Don't expect "inhalation" anytime soon... ;)


The recently discovered Ekpyrotic Theory (http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/) of the creation of the universe recounts exactly what creationist mythology has stated since time immemorial.

The very nascent Ekpyrotic Theory proves nothing -- it is simply another postulated mechanism of the initiation of the Universe involving branes instead of a singularity. It certainly doesn't vindicate archaic creationist mythology.


Don't tell me religion cannot adequately interpret reality when they interpret it more effectively (and, apparently, more quickly) than science can.

Considering all your above "proofs" are patently flimsy, yes, religion does tend to interpret things more quickly, but consistently fails to shed significant light on reality/truth.

Stríbog
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 02:17 AM
2. Our DNA is more similar to rats than chimps.

Scientists do biological, chemical, and genetic testing on rats instead of chimps because of this very fact.

I am a scientist, and I can tell you that scientists do work on rats because they are small and can be packed in large numbers into cages, because they are inexpensive to breed, feed and shelter, because they reach sexual maturity in 11 weeks instead of 6 to 10 years, and because gestation is 21 days instead of 8 to 9 months. Perhaps you are seriously suggesting that chimpanzees could be easily bred, fed, housed, and adequately cared for in labs, and that scientists should just "wait it out" when conducting genetic studies? How much do you think it would cost to feed a chimpanzee and provide it with adequate housing while waiting for 10 years to conduct each crossbreeding? There are, of course, also ethical issues present when working with chimps that are comparable to those of working with humans.


Chimpanzees are not our ancestors, they are our closest living kin, descended from a common ancestor.

Which we have yet to find.

It's a big world; 99.9% of the species that have lived are extinct. Considering we have only been looking in a few places for a paltry 130 years, it's not surprising that we haven't found THE missing link; we have, however, found several direct and indirect ancestors.


Lots of accusations, still no evidence. Show me the doctrines that indicate they abhor enlightenment.

Millenia of historal notations should suffice.



Wasn't Socrates killed for impiety towards the Gods?

By people.


What, Zeus and Ares weren't around to kill him? :P I thought you were the theist here?


Just because the politics of the day led to his condemnation doesn't discount the validity of the religion. Just because Hitler and Mussolini were killed, and are currently disparaged for defiling Europe, doesn't mean they actually did so.

You should be prepared to accept that if history is wrong in some cases, it could be wrong in any or all cases, including the ones supporting your arguments.



Evidence of microevolution, not macroevolution.

When whales and humans have the exacts same bones in their fins and hands, how is that microevolution? I would think whales and humans evolving from a common ancestor would be macroevolution, since it's hardly something one can compare to dog-breeding. And how exactly are vestigial gill slits dating back to our time as amphibians supportive of microevolution?



From the second link on the google search "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ontogeny.htm)

Now say you're sorry.


ROFL "By David N. Menton (C) copyright 1991
Missouri Association for Creation, Inc."

We doan' need no sahnce in these hyar parts! Sahnce contradicts Gawd's Truth in the Bahbul!



Don't tell me religion cannot adequately interpret reality when they interpret it more effectively (and, apparently, more quickly) than science can.

Like when religion says the Sun moves around the Earth?

The Blond Beast
Thursday, October 7th, 2004, 02:43 AM
From the second link on the google search "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Now say you're sorry.

ROFL "By David N. Menton (C) copyright 1991
Missouri Association for Creation, Inc."

Tyrant really is an objective, rational student of truth. :lol

Tyrant
Friday, October 8th, 2004, 05:17 AM
Blond Beast:

The three main pyramids at Giza are aligned with the belt of Orion -- a clearly visible constellation. Of course, all constellations are visible, making the necessity of the telescope of no consequence.

Not to mention Plough and Ursa major. Also, I forgot to mention that the walls of the pyramids face exactly North, South, East, and West - from the perspective of a globe, not as an estimation from the path of the sun - at a time when the world was accepted as flat.

This just in: given the immensity of the Universe, point your finger towards the sky in any direction and state that there exists an unseen star of any character (color/size, companions...) -- you'll always be correct.

Pointing to the same star each time lessens the probability of you being correct.

A nice little metaphor for "cycle"...

Hinduism stated that the world existed in cycles long before scientists did. Ever hear of the "Kali Yuga"?

Alas, the universe has been proven to be expanding at an accelerating rate, a rate that suggests that the Universe will die a death of ice. Don't expect "inhalation" anytime soon... ;)

If it's accelerating, doesn't that indicate an added energy?

The very nascent Ekpyrotic Theory proves nothing -- it is simply another postulated mechanism of the initiation of the Universe involving branes instead of a singularity. It certainly doesn't vindicate archaic creationist mythology.

It's based on the same metaphysical proponents as quantum theory, which fundamentally proves nothing unless you live in the Ivory Tower. I'm just pointing out how scientists are forming cosmic and eschatological postulates concerning what we've already known.

Please address the question I posted before.

Stribog:

I am a scientist, and I can tell you that scientists do work on rats because they are small and can be packed in large numbers into cages, because they are inexpensive to breed, feed and shelter, because they reach sexual maturity in 11 weeks instead of 6 to 10 years, and because gestation is 21 days instead of 8 to 9 months. Perhaps you are seriously suggesting that chimpanzees could be easily bred, fed, housed, and adequately cared for in labs, and that scientists should just "wait it out" when conducting genetic studies? How much do you think it would cost to feed a chimpanzee and provide it with adequate housing while waiting for 10 years to conduct each crossbreeding? There are, of course, also ethical issues present when working with chimps that are comparable to those of working with humans.

Upon reexamining my research, I find that I was in the wrong concerning the comparability of rats to chimpanzees. However, this does not make a common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans acceptable beyond refutation.

It's a big world; 99.9% of the species that have lived are extinct. Considering we have only been looking in a few places for a paltry 130 years, it's not surprising that we haven't found THE missing link; we have, however, found several direct and indirect ancestors.

Like?

Millenia of historical notations should suffice.

Of which you've still named not one.

What, Zeus and Ares weren't around to kill him? :P I thought you were the theist here?

The fact that a mob commanded Socrates' death doesn't mean that the genuine religious values of Graeco-Roman paganism are any less valid.

You should be prepared to accept that if history is wrong in some cases, it could be wrong in any or all cases, including the ones supporting your arguments.

I can tell the difference between an example that is flawed because it is inherently wrong, and an example that is flawed only due to the circumstances in which it arose.

When whales and humans have the exacts same bones in their fins and hands, how is that microevolution? I would think whales and humans evolving from a common ancestor would be macroevolution, since it's hardly something one can compare to dog-breeding. And how exactly are vestigial gill slits dating back to our time as amphibians supportive of microevolution?

How are these indicative of evolution at all? Did we evolve from the same ancestors as whales or chimpanzees? What's the connection?

ROFL "By David N. Menton (C) copyright 1991
Missouri Association for Creation, Inc."

We doan' need no sahnce in these hyar parts! Sahnce contradicts Gawd's Truth in the Bahbul!

Did I not say that it was the second link I clicked on? Here's more:

From the University of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontology website: (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html)

The "law of recapitulation" has been discredited since the beginning of the twentieth century. Experimental morphologists and biologists have shown that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between phylogeny and ontogeny. Although a strong form of recapitulation is not correct, phylogeny and ontogeny are intertwined, and many biologists are beginning to both explore and understand the basis for this connection.

The proponent of this postulate, Ernst Haeckel, stated that man's evolutionary development started from fish to chicken to dog to man.

Not to mention 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' was based on a series of drawings proven to be doctored by Haeckel, according to Michael Richardson's scientific review (and no, Richardson is not a Bible Thumper).

Like when religion says the Sun moves around the Earth?

Asshole, I said the Christian Church doesn't count because it's a religion without genuine spiritual consciousness. Any truly traditional civilization viewed the earth as contingent and feminine, while the Sun was revered as masculine and superior.

Maybe you can answer the question I directed towards Blond Beast: What is it about modern man that makes him fundamentally superior to archaic man?

Tyrant
Monday, October 11th, 2004, 09:50 PM
I like it how people love arguing simple points and ignore fundamental ones.

What is it about modern man that makes him superior to archaic man?

Johnson
Tuesday, October 26th, 2004, 12:20 PM
No. If it could, it would have been by now. It should also be noted that the theory (keyword) of natural selection can not be entirely proven, an example being that it does not accurately explain Monotremes. Faith is not constricted to theology, but secularism as well. Not to say that faith in scientific method is 'religious,' of course.

SineNomine
Friday, December 7th, 2007, 04:16 AM
What proof of God is there to begin with?

Rhydderch
Saturday, December 8th, 2007, 03:03 AM
What proof of God is there to begin with?Spiritual proof. Those who are spiritually blind can't "see" it.

SineNomine
Saturday, December 8th, 2007, 03:56 AM
Spiritual proof. Those who are spiritually blind can't "see" it.
How does one attain this proof?

Oswiu
Saturday, December 8th, 2007, 12:56 PM
And what's going on in God's mind when he creates people who are blind to Him?

Carl
Saturday, December 8th, 2007, 07:22 PM
And what's going on in God's mind when he creates people who are blind to Him?

,,, but it seems that one man's light is another man's darkness ... how can one resolve the nature of a hidden truth? :D

Rhydderch
Monday, December 10th, 2007, 03:29 AM
How does one attain this proof?It's when God opens someone's eyes. Blindness is wilful and sinful; fallen man rejects God, but God can bring someone to see his sin in it's horror; and if he calls on God for mercy, God is willing to forgive him, to reverse that nature of blindness and rejection of God.

And the individual takes hold of the mercy of God when he trusts in it for himself. Because trusting in it is a reversal of the rejection of God, who is the essence of holiness and mercy.

So, to have the eyes opened is to be forgiven, and have the evil nature reversed.


And what's going on in God's mind when he creates people who are blind to Him?He doesn't; He created man "upright", in perfection, in the "image" of Himself, in other words their nature reflected His own holiness, they were in perfect harmony with it.

Next question? :)

Taras Bulba
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 12:34 AM
What proof of God is there to begin with?

Normally I hate these types of discussions; since I hate metaphysics. Like Kierkegaard, my main issue is not what Christianity is, but what is it to become a Christian.

Anyways, St. Thomas Aquinas famously presented five proofs for such. They're outlined below:


1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-B2--00.HTM

Janus
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 02:53 AM
Bad proof. An alternate for the first three points is the notion of cyclic universe for instance. Forth one and fifth one is evolution :D

There will never be any prove or disprove for God and that's one of the few things I firmly believe in. If there was a prove for God believe would be worthless anyways.

Gefjon
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 05:29 AM
If ya don't believe in God, obviously there's no proof.

Kadu
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 05:35 AM
Another possible question is "Is there any proof that God doesn't exist?", can we affirm that God doesn't exist?

Aeternitas
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 05:44 AM
Anyways, St. Thomas Aquinas famously presented five proofs for such. They're outlined below:


1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-B2--00.HTM (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jcu. edu%2Fphilosophy%2Fgensler%2FRE%2FR-B2--00.HTM)
While I find the first parts of St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments pretty good, his proof in its whole isn't really valid proof IMO. He fails to prove that "God" is behind the things in motion, that "God" is the cause of things and so on. Why "God" and not the Devil, Mohammed, Buddha, the Gods of the Roman pantheon, the Fairy Queen, Santa, or the guy next door even? Yes surely there must be a cause to explain all these things but who is to say it is a spiritual force/being? He expected us sinful heretics to just take his word that it's "God"? :P

Soten
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 06:16 AM
While I find the first parts of St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments pretty good, his proof in its whole isn't really valid proof IMO. He fails to prove that "God" is behind the things in motion, that "God" is the cause of things and so on. Why "God" and not the Devil, Mohammed, Buddha, the Gods of the Roman pantheon, the Fairy Queen, Santa, or the guy next door even? Yes surely there must be a cause to explain all these things but who is to say it is a spiritual force/being? He expected us sinful heretics to just take his word that it's "God"? :P

The first parts of Aquinas' "proof" are logically sound I think. As far as it being "God" and not Larry the Plumber who is these things, there is a catch. This being that Aquinas is describing and proving exists is the First Mover, the First Cause, a Necessary Being, the Greatest Being, and the Intelligent Designer. Aquinas refers to this being as God because that is what our perception of what a God is. If Mohammed was all of these things, Mohammed would be God. If your next door neighbor was all these things he/she would be God. The proof doesn't say anything about this God being the God of the Christians, or the God that rested on the seventh day, or the God that became incarnate in Christ. It only says there is a powerful being that has all these characteristics. And by having these characteristics its an entity that we could refer to as a God.

Loddfafner
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 06:35 AM
The world exists because it can. That is all, and that is enough.

SineNomine
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 04:10 PM
Another possible question is "Is there any proof that God doesn't exist?", can we affirm that God doesn't exist?
Proofs are the responsibility of the person making a positive assertion. I do not need to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist to say there is no reason to believe that she does.

Kadu
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 04:52 PM
I do not need to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist to say there is no reason to believe that she does.

We have proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, i don't know if you are aware:D but while you were asleep your parents removed your teeth from your pillow.
In other words it's lame to compare Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy to God!:p

Taras Bulba
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 05:10 PM
While I find the first parts of St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments pretty good, his proof in its whole isn't really valid proof IMO. He fails to prove that "God" is behind the things in motion, that "God" is the cause of things and so on. Why "God" and not the Devil, Mohammed, Buddha, the Gods of the Roman pantheon, the Fairy Queen, Santa, or the guy next door even? Yes surely there must be a cause to explain all these things but who is to say it is a spiritual force/being? He expected us sinful heretics to just take his word that it's "God"? :p

I should remind you that these are just brief summaries of his arguments. He goes into considerable detail within Part One of the Summa Theologica (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newa dvent.org%2Fsumma%2F1002.htm), concerning the existence and essence of god.

I believe Soten has already dealt with many aspects of your argument. What's interesting is that your arguments bear strong resemblence to some of the criticisms levelled at Pascal's wager.

One thing should be noted about both Aquinas' proofs and Pascal's wager; they don't definatively proof their case as their authors may have originally intended; nevertheless they still provoke us into some serious thought on the issue.

It's impossible to prove God's existence with absolute certainity, but Aquinas certainly does show that one can reasonably conclude that a God does exist. Pascal also made this point; that one can never fully convince an atheist of God's existence, but you can show that there is indeed merit to belief in one.

I'll also remind the gallery that Aquinas' proofs have received considerable criticism within Christian circles.

My own position to similar to that of Kierkegaard:

"To stand on one leg and prove God's existence is a very different thing from going on one's knees and thanking Him."

Kierkegaard also noted that discussions about God's existence tend to make great comedies. I also agree on that account; since both sides tend to miss the truth that staring them in the face.


Proofs are the responsibility of the person making a positive assertion.

In normal circumstances yes, but God's existence is not your typical issue.



In other words it's lame to compare Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy to God! :PThat's true. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both supposed to be entities that operate within the natural world, and thus viable to standard proof. God by contrast, is supposed to be a supernatural entity that operates outside the natural world, and is far more complex than either Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

Next World
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 05:17 PM
I'm just going to copy my postings from another forum. I don't know if the context in which the debate on this forum originally spawned from, but I think whether or not I am referring to a Christian God or a God in general is beside the point. This is about whether or not there is a God, rather than whether or not he feels certain things or did certain things or is male. Anything new is outside of quotations. Some of the following may seem irrelevant. I'm leaving out sections of the thread which I know are entirely irrelevant.


An overview of my beliefs about "God":

By Nature, I am cosmotheistic, and as a result, I've accepted to a degree, henotheism. I believe that all "Gods" which are truly believed in do exist, because energy was forged into giving them existence. Obviously, some "Gods" would be bigger than others at this point, such as Allah, because Allah has a lot of people who truly believe in him, and pray to him six times per day. Other Gods with not as many followers would exist, but they wouldn't be as large or powerful. For example, Isis probably had more power back in the days of her conception, but it wound down as people moved away from belief in her, and now very few people actually believe in and worship her, most of her "followers" are fat gothic chicks who think they can cast spells if they yell "Isis" a few times, but it's not a genuine belief, so it doesn't contribute as much to her existence.

With that said, I believe that Gods exist, some of them to a degree that is astronomical, some to a degree which is simply nominal.

I, within myself, don't worship any "God", I worship very little, but Earth Nature is probably the closest to what I do worship. I do sustain a respect for and relationship with a god-force, which I do have a name for, but most people just call "the universe" or "energy".

I don't really pray, I set plans and make intentions (Someone tells a higher power what to do? Oh, the heresy!).

A lot of people don't like my religious views because they think they are too self-righteous, but I'm just a ball of energy, like everything else, so in my line of thinking, that makes me just as righteous as a brewing storm, or an ant colony. A lot of people also hate the fact that I don't give my god-force a body or face, but I don't really have a reason to. I probably wouldn't deal with my god-force if it were an actual God with a face, then I'd have created an authority figure to answer to, and I certainly don't need another one. :rolleyes:


Responding to whether or not one truly "believes" there is a "God", or whether one simply desires for there to be a "God":

I'm not sure this applies to me, considering that I believe is just a more spiritual approach to Science. There is a difference between knowing and believing. I know that "God" cannot be proven or disproved, I know that the extent of Energy I believe in cannot be proven or disproved (although, they have done more to prove themselves, considering that literally everything is made of energy, and the laws I believe in have been repeated throughout history as fact by people who actually went places and did things).

Sometimes I want to believe in Heaven. I used to believe in Heaven. Sometimes I want to believe in Hell. I used to believe in hell, much longer ago. I believe in non-specific reincarnation. Meaning that our next form isn't all ready decided, isn't necessarily something we view as "living", but usually is. I do believe there is some sort of spiritual "ranking", where those who have created more positive energy about themselves get to be something they would find to be "better", whether it's grains of sand, a Whale, or another human being, and those who create a more negative energy about themselves wind up being insects or chickens or fruiting plants.

However, I think the way my belief in reincarnation is different, is because it really looks at the soul as energy that has just been given a Nature (+/-). So when a human "soul" reincarnates into a human, it either becomes several humans, the human body and the human soul, or the human soul and various other things, like rocks and cats and seedpods, because there isn't as much matter or non-physical energy in a baby as in an adult. The way I see things, that would also explain the theories of "soul-splitting" (one person reincarnating into several), and the ideas that when individuals reincarnate from human to human, they keep some of the same physical features (It's theorized that this is a "choice", I think it is more that the energy is all ready used to a certain formation and just applies itself to a new unit.).

Sure, a lot of people are religious because they want to believe in Heaven, and that there is some goal and purpose and judgement at the end of life. I mean, you've got to believe in something to keep you alive.

Then again, a lot of people calling themselves Atheists want to disbelieve in Heaven and Hell and God, because they find such concepts oppressive and limiting and are honestly afraid of not being in control of every fraction of their life, and are afraid of post-mortem judgement. I know some of them do believe in God, though, they're just scared to admit it, because they don't want to be let down, and they don't want to find out that they aren't how God wants them to be. A lot of people claim to be Atheists for reasons of emotional security. They say that God simply doesn't exist, because they don't want him to. Oh, if only things worked that way....




I now recall why people get rid of their religion forums. I almost forgot.

I have stated all ready what "God" is to me. I, like Lida, believe in what is commonly called a "Cosmotheistic" theory. I, however, look at it from the standpoint that is associated with science, although even before I needed "intelligent reasons to believe", I was elementally cosmotheistic. The idea is that the concept of God and the concept of energy are interchangeable. "Has always been, will always be, cannot be created or destroyed, creates everything and dictates everything..." So on. Same stuff, different name. I don't tell people what I call my "God", personally. Once something is given a name it all turns to poop. That is why I reassure myself constantly that the way others view "God" does not effect what happens to me. Because people have been building off of the "God" thing for so long that there is an energy that takes the name "God" and is pretty PO'd at this point I think, given all that has been said about him.

Everything is made of "God" if "God = Energy".
Matter = elements = molecules = protons, neutrons, electrons = quarks = energy.
Matter = Energy
Energy = Energy
Energy + Matter = Energy
Energy + Matter = "God"

The question is--why are quarks/energy here? How did they get here? Well, because they're quarks and energy, of course! :confused:

The reason that energy takes different forms, like matter, and then matter takes different forms, like carbon, and then carbon takes different forms, like humans, and then humans take different forms, like members of the White race is because energy is influenced to be a certain way (+/-). From there on, any arrangement and movement of energy creates different things that we recognize and usually give a name to. How are all of these thousand and billions and octillions and aidgaishdfidfhasfdnhillions of combinations just spontaneously occurring? Well, I suppose because they want to, right? I don't see how believing that "God" started the universe is any more ridiculous than believing that the universe started itself. Especially given the fact that "thinking creatures" start everything we know, from cars to rebellions. I would consider Nature to be a thinking creature. But then again, Nature is a pretty big part of "God" on Earth.

I certainly do believe in evolution. I sometimes do believe in evolution with divine assistance (as in we got up to the highest past-human and then something else, be it Aliens or "God" put the finishing touches on or bred with us), but not usually. As far as the "missing link" between the lowest human and the highest ape, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we ground their bones to make our cave-paint. Lord knows that the first few hundred of every new stage of evolution were probably killed off for being freaks with the "wrong" number of toes or not enough hair or something like that. "New species" are being discovered constantly. The missing link isn't so much missing as it is unfound.

As far as the owls with the butterfly spots, I do think that is an "act" of "God", but it was prompted by the butterflies. Butterflies aren't geniuses, I figure, but they probably know the same few things every animal knows: Animal Y will try to eat me, I will not try to eat it, it will not try to have sex with me, I will not try to have sex with it. Animal X will not try to eat me, I will not try to eat it, it will not try to have sex with me, and I will not try to have sex with it. Animal X will try to eat Animal Y, Animal Y will not try to eat Animal X, Animal X and Animal Y will not try to have sex with one another. An animal can identify its prey, its predators, and its partners. If it couldn't, its species wouldn't have survived this long, or it, as an individual, is retarded (or watches MTV). I doubt that enough owls managed to mutate with butterfly spots on their necks to form a specific species with butterfly spots on their necks, without some sort of "ethereal" assistance. The butterfly recognizes the owl as a safe organism. The butterfly/owl safety association adjusts energy and over time influences owls and butterflies to allow for better safety from one to the other (more owls with butterfly spots born, and alive long enough to reproduce, or owls with butterfly spot genes passing them on more regularly). I think a better place to look at this is with the stick and leaf bugs. Allegedly, they both were once the same kind of bug. Evolving from a bug which looks like a bug to a bug that looks JUST like a piece of plant is very, very, very unlikely. Unless of course the bugs realized "things that look like this do not get eaten by the same things which try to eat me" and essentially wanted to look like leaves and sticks. I'm not saying a beetle would just lay a bunch of stick bugs, obviously not, but I think that the intentions which all species use to influence energy have severely aided evolution.

Then again, I'm a loony nutjob who believes in something she'll casually call "God" while amongst other people, because she thinks what she calls it is her personal business and that she sounds like a total prick when she says she believes "in the Universe" or "in energy" and doesn't want to bother explaining to people that it's the same thing with a different name.

We think (believe/know), therefore, it is. Just the same, when we don't think (believe/know), it isn't. Or in most cases, some of us think, and some of us don't think, so it is or isn't to a greater or lesser degree after you do a bit of math.

I'm content with science. I'm discontent with science's belief that it knows and can know and prove everything. It cannot. Even if the "Big Bang Theory" (a bit funny when you say it to yourself... this wad off stuff blew apart and expanded to become big wads of stuff) is the truth--how did that compressed matter get there? Either you believe that everything has happened because it just did, or because it was planned that way by some force. I prefer to believe that what does happen does because it is planned by various forces (I have staked my claim to part of the future, I don't know about you guys.), so I'm inclined to want to call the great big everything "God", in public, rather than simply "energy", because energy has been given a very limited definition. I used to say that I believed in energy how people believe in their Gods. I got a bit sick of trying to explain to people that I don't have a shrine set up to Duracell in my room.

Sorry for the "doubletalk" or whatever, but until Science comes up with a better reason for everything being there than "Well--we think--it just... was.", I'm going to like the idea of God much, much more. I suppose that makes me immature, like a child who believes that "because I [parent/God] said so" is a better argument than "Well... uh... I guess... or... we don't know.".

I'm starting to realize that the "because I'm your mother" argument is a lot more valid than actual reasons. Maybe it's that way with God, too.

But if you'd like to disprove God and shed better light on the beginnings of time and the "why" of it all, I'd LOVE to hear it.


Musings about why "God" would allow people to be non-believers:

Maybe, if there were such a God, he would enjoy to watch us fight and argue about his existence without having any real way to prove or disprove it, I think. More so than to watch us all be content with our knowledge of his presence. War games and "world creator" stuff for the computer and video game systems wouldn't be so adored if it weren't for all of the wildcards. Ignorance of God/no God/sort of God is a wildcard in life. Life isn't a perfect thing, but if it were perfect, it wouldn't be nearly as fun to watch.

Sort of like how a lot of kids will stop fighting when a parent enters the room. If nobody questioned God, how uninteresting would things be... no more holy wars... all that good stuff... out the window.

I know if I were an omnipotent God, I'd want people who didn't believe in me. Somebody's got to be a loser in order for it all to be fun.

Parts of my views in the following quote aren’t exactly the same any longer, but they aren’t really pertinent to the discussion.

What does Christianity have to do with God? :rolleyes:

When science proves that energy is a thinking body and can decide and conduct itself in solidarity and "choose" to change its charge and arrangement without the influence of thinking bodies (animals, Nature, other such things we "recognize" and having some sort of mind, if not a brain), then there will be no need for God, only a desire for God. Because then, science, in all its great arrogance, will have finally given God the right name, and after this happens, the only people who speak of God by the current name will either be schizophrenic, or the same kind of people who call flight attendants "stewards" and "stewardesses", still, or hold open doors for other people.

It cannot be argued against that we are, as a people, a large creative force, and in a human definition, one of the few classes of things with actual creative thought. However, despite the fact that we are some of the few intentionally creative entities on the planet, we are not, have never been, and more than likely never will be the only entities that create. We take in our hands formed and recognizable energy, and we create using such things. This can be seen at lower levels of the evolutionary rung, such as with beavers. This can also be seen above us, with Nature's creation of Natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, and other storms are a good example). We are, however, not "immune" to the way other creatures (and our own) do create (through intention/desire/a need for survival, other single-tracked things). So, although we did not physically create the malice many races hold towards ours, it is something we have to deal with. Just the same, even if nobody ever stood up and arranged q-tips and rubber bands into "God" (although I'm sure it has happened), we still have to deal with, in some way or other, with the non-physical "Gods" and what they do with the powers and energy bestowed upon them by mainly our people, and maybe even the ones innately present.



I think Christianity is a great big hoax, for sure, though, I've never really thought any different. Although, as with most things, I think that all of the energy that aspects of Christianity have drawn to themselves has manifested. Belief is the creator, and so on. I think a good example of this, is when people are "proven" to have the stigmata of Christ, it appears in their hands, rather than their wrists. Because even though Science has "proven" that Christ would have had to have been nailed to the cross at a point in his wrists in order to survive on the cross as long as he did, people still believe that he was nailed through his hands, either because they believe that Jesus could perform miracles and his death showed signs of ahuman miracle, or because they just haven't heard the arguments against it, yet. Then of course, there's the idea that he died before making the march, and above that, the idea that he never existed (I believe he was an accumulation of people written down in a cultural "etiquette" book, as most cultures have one. Jesus was "the hero" and just reflected different ideas and people.). Yet still, people get the stigmata, always at the same point in their hands, and always for a prescribed time period. I highly doubt it is a "skin condition", too, like at least one person I know tries to say it is. :rolleyes:

If believing that "God" stands behind one and all that one does helps people to manifest, then I suggest it. Theoretically, we all can survive without eating once we have reached a certain stage in development. However, the people who go without eating for years, only consuming energy directly from the sun, more often than not have a "God" entity to thank.

Of course, thinking that you, yourself, are God could have the same effect, but that usually makes other people uncomfortable. I view myself as a small part of God, and all of the other energy in the universe which I have the power and ability to influence, that is what I truly view as God.


Energy is everything. I all ready explained that. Even matter is composed of Energy. So, you and I, as Lida said, are made of God. Just like everything else. God is just energy with a thought quality. Science never proved energy to have the ability to think, which is why God is a good idea.




Drawn out and poorly written? You bet. However, the main point is that unless science gives quarks the recognized ability to "think" and "choose" rather than be entirely random, the concept of "God" is intelligent. Maybe when aliens become factual, then the belief in God will be filtered out further. Can you really expect people to believe that something as limitless as energy randomized to be such a static set of entities? Yes, I know that there are quite a few things in the universe, but how is it that we are the only conceivably humanoid creatures on this planet? Has science proven that there are other planets that house humanoids of several sorts? Has science proven that there are any other sorts of humanoids currently living whatsoever?

If everything is random, you've got to admit, it's very peculiar and perhaps very lucky that we randomly managed to wind up in a somewhat desolate area of the universe on a planet where we are the only species of our direct caliber. There could be other places of the universe not quite like this, then again, there might not be, we might truly be alone. And just imagine how different everything would be if at some point along the way, a quark was off... (I do say, one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people-eaters could be running amuck if it weren't for that one quark's randomness falling in line with the course of the universe.).



So basically, I think what I'm trying to say, is that the proof is that there is no truly inclusve alternative.

Lyfing
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 06:35 PM
"God is dead"


The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals.

...


Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. The Christian God, with his arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative — a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past.

Nietzsche uses the metaphor of an open sea, which can be both exhilarating and terrifying. The people who eventually learn to create their lives anew will represent a new stage in human existence, the Übermensch —i.e. the personal archetype who, through the conquest of their own nihilism, themselves become a mythical hero. The 'death of God' is the motivation for Nietzsche's last (uncompleted) philosophical project, the 'revaluation of all values'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead



I will never be able to go with anything other than something along the lines of the above.

Later,

-Lyfing

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 07:03 PM
What proof of God is there to begin with?


The voice within your head.
I believe that God,or God's,reside within us all.
All we have to do is listen to our God's. :)

SineNomine
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 07:45 PM
In normal circumstances yes, but God's existence is not your typical issue.
Why is it not? I am open to logical proofs of the existence of God, but again these are positive proofs made by individuals asserting God's existence. Proving a negative is an entirely different case.


That's true. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both supposed to be entities that operate within the natural world, and thus viable to standard proof. God by contrast, is supposed to be a supernatural entity that operates outside the natural world, and is far more complex than either Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Too convenient for words.


We have proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, i don't know if you are aware:D but while you were asleep your parents removed your teeth from your pillow.
Humour aside, what proof do we have that she doesn't? I can assert that invisible goblins float around in the air. It is my task to prove it - simply saying "it exists because you can't prove otherwise!" is no proof at all.

PS: Just taking a small break from my posting repose, for those curious.

Elysium
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 07:49 PM
You don't need to prove that God exists but just fail to disprove God's existence.

There's no way you can really "prove" your point either way, however. It's more a contest of who's beliefs are more probable and logical.

Janus
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 07:51 PM
The difference between claims of goblins floating around in the air and the God hypothesis is that the former is just a random claim whereas the latter is a hypothetical answer on an existing question but again, it's called BELIEF and NOT TRUTH.

Silly people trying to find a logical and scientific answer on every question :D

Taras Bulba
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 08:26 PM
The difference between claims of goblins floating around in the air and the God hypothesis is that the former is just a random claim whereas the latter is a hypothetical answer on an existing question but again, it's called BELIEF and NOT TRUTH.



"Can any more foolish contradiction be imagined than this, to want to demonstrate that an individual human being is God? That an individual human being is God, that is, claims to be God, is indeed the offense in an eminent sense. But what is the offense, that which offends? That which conflicts with all (human) reason... Can one, then, make that which conflicts with all reason into the rational-actual? Certainly not, unless one wants to contradict oneself. One can "demonstrate" only that which contradicts with reason. The demonstrations for the divinity of Christ that Scripture sets forth -- his miracles, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension -- are indeed only for faith, that is, they are not "demonstrations." Neither do they want to demonstrate that all this is in complete harmony with reason; on the contrary, they want to demonstrate that it conflicts with reason and consequently is the object of faith."
--Søren Kierkegaard Practice in Christianity, No. 1, The Halt, p. 26

SineNomine
Sunday, December 16th, 2007, 11:03 PM
The difference between claims of goblins floating around in the air and the God hypothesis is that the former is just a random claim whereas the latter is a hypothetical answer on an existing question but again, it's called BELIEF and NOT TRUTH.
I can formulate any number of 'hypothetical answers' I want. Why should the notion of God be privileged in any way? In fact, as long as people claim that God does exist, they are burdened with providing proof for it. It is a simple concept, really.

Skarpherdin
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 02:04 AM
Santa is the altered Form of Wotan
the gods created us and they made the big bang

Amorsite
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Another possible question is "Is there any proof that God doesn't exist?", can we affirm that God doesn't exist?


To repeat a funny argument (pervitinist): can you affirm 100% for certain michael jackson is not an alien from mars?

The bottom line is: why should we bother wondering whether some god exists or not when there is no proof for it? How many other things are we supposed to wonder about as well then? Is it worth wasting our time thiking about it or worse living our lives according to such a belief when there is 0 proof for it?

Kadu
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 04:03 AM
To repeat a funny argument (pervitinist): can you affirm 100% for certain michael jackson is not an alien from mars?

Tooth fairy argument...



The bottom line is: why should we bother wondering whether some god exists or not when there is no proof for it? How many other things are we supposed to wonder about as well then? Is it worth wasting our time thiking about it or worse living our lives according to such a belief when there is 0 proof for it?

I'm not religious(i'm agnostic) but i see everyday signs that make me believe that God or somekind of Supreme Order made(and rules) our Universe. When i studied Biology i felt that, when i'm solving a mathematical equation or drawing a person(or something else).
Discovering the "nature" of Nature and the Universe led me to realize that all this, is the Work of someone and not just a coincidence.

Soldier of Wodann
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 04:05 AM
Normally I hate these types of discussions; since I hate metaphysics. Like Kierkegaard, my main issue is not what Christianity is, but what is it to become a Christian.

Anyways, St. Thomas Aquinas famously presented five proofs for such. They're outlined below:


1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-B2--00.HTM

These things imply that Humans can mentally understand the concept of nothingness or of things that defy the laws of nature, which we are 100% programmed to work under. There is no reason we should be able to know either way, but we can use our logic to discern likelihoods and possibilities, which are of course highly subjective (hence this debate).

That is all.

Rhydderch
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 04:11 AM
I do not need to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist to say there is no reason to believe that she does.True, but if one makes the positive assertion that such a thing doesn't exist, or for example that "there is no proof of God", then they have to provide evidence for their claim.

Also, both parties must be in agreement as to what evidence should be expected if the claim is true. Because one might say "I don't believe in such and such a thing, because there is no evidence", yet the evidence might be everywhere, he just doesn't realise it's evidence; or perhaps he's looking in the wrong place, even in the wrong dimension (such is the case with atheists who want physical evidence of God's existence).

Janus
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 01:36 PM
I can formulate any number of 'hypothetical answers' I want. Why should the notion of God be privileged in any way? In fact, as long as people claim that God does exist, they are burdened with providing proof for it. It is a simple concept, really.

Because the philosophical idea of a god is a rational possibility on one of the three classical questions of philosophy: where did we come from?

It's a philosophical idea however and religions are not philosophical. They are using a philosophical idea as a dogma to create a community so religion is much more a mundane phenomenon than a divine.

Galloglaich
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 03:16 PM
Without getting into my personal beliefs, I think for the most part I side with the Kantian notion that anything that is beyond the boundaries of typical space/time perception will forever be beyond the realms of rational proof. That is not to say that those things do/do not exist, it's just that they are "improvable" in the empirical sense. That basically leaves us with the option of either disinterest/disbelief or something along the lines of Pascal's Wager;

You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

You live as though God does not exist.
If God exists, the text is unspecified, but it could be implied that you
go to limbo, purgatory, or hell: your loss is either null or infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

or, Kierkegaard’s “Leap to Faith” (in the face of the fact that proof of God’s existence is completely unknowable, you decide to believe anyway as a matter of Faith).

Regardless of your opinion, objective proof of God’s existence is still unattainable. I have my own subjective thoughts on the matter, but I do not think they would be able to “prove” anything either way; nor would anyone else’s.

As an aside, I’d like to point out that Aquinas’ “proofs” are thinly reworked and Christianized versions of Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”.

SineNomine
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 07:28 PM
Whilst it is true that certain things must be taken as axioms (and these are not arbitrary - indeed, they are necessary; no further knowledge can arise in their absence), this doesn't relieve Christians (or any other theist) of the task of proving their God's existence, or any God's for that matter, at least if they want to be taken seriously. My point is you cannot merely say to an atheist "God exists", and then in response to their demand for evidence say "Well you prove that He doesn't exist!" Indeed, if there are other more plausible explanations for the origins of the world, and if there is little reason to accept the existence of any particular deity (e.g. logical contradictions entailed in said deity's very traits), it is incumbent on the theist to put forward a proof of some sort. Any theist engaging in a philosophical argument must do so; if they're not interested in that, though, then there is no point in even debating them.

Gefjon
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 07:35 PM
As a Christian I never bother trying to convince folks of God's existence. There is no solid proof, usually the kind of proof atheists want, cause God is not a "solid" thing. We can't force faith on folks. Whether folks believe in Him or not is up to them.

Janus
Monday, December 17th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Any theist engaging in a philosophical argument must do so; if they're not interested in that, though, then there is no point in even debating them.

That's the point. There is no point in debating such things if you're not somebody without a particular opinion. There's no answer for us on that question so we can only decide on a lot of made up explanations. It's just a decision if you believe in God or not.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 02:01 AM
Regardless of your opinion, objective proof of God’s existence is still unattainable.Can you prove that claim? How do you know that objective proof of God's existence is unnattainable?

Or are you simply saying that you believe it's unnattainable, in other words that you have no reason to believe it's attainable?

Soldier of Wodann
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 06:32 AM
Can you prove that claim? How do you know that objective proof of God's existence is unnattainable?

Or are you simply saying that you believe it's unnattainable, in other words that you have no reason to believe it's attainable?

Perhaps he meant it is not humanly possible to obtain the aforementioned proof (which does not imply impossible, just impossible to us). In any case, you are using the same rebuttal everyone uses when you ask for proof of God. Its sort of cliche.

Soldier of Wodann
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 06:53 AM
Also, I wanted to address these points more specifically.




[QUOTE]
1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

Who is to say whatever was first moved was not actually touched by God, but did not act within the boundaries of natural law? Or is the first thing in this case to be synonymous with God? Is the qualifier for being God simply being the first mover? If that is the case, I don't think anyone here can really be atheist.


2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

Same as above.


3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

Nothing is contingent. Things move from one form to another, via atoms. The Atoms which make up ones body never truly "die", therefore they are not contingent. While "beings" do fail to exist, when one fails to exist it does not mean there is not another to replace it (I.E. its offspring..).


4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

"Greater" is an incredibly subjective idea, and not all "Great" things are related to others.


5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

Humans do not lack intelligence, therefore we can act to an end without direction.

Amorsite
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 07:20 AM
and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

Why must there be a "first mover"? The concept of nothingness is a human invention anyway. There is no proof that once nothing existed.

Some of his latter arguments are built on similar fallacies.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 08:25 AM
Perhaps he meant it is not humanly possible to obtain the aforementioned proof (which does not imply impossible, just impossible to us).My point applies to that as well; if he's saying it's definitely impossible to us, I'd like to know what his proof for that claim is.


In any case, you are using the same rebuttal everyone uses when you ask for proof of God. Its sort of cliche.I don't really care whether everyone uses it or not, it's a valid point regardless :)

I'm not sure that everyone does use though, mind you.

Galloglaich
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 08:33 AM
Can you prove that claim? How do you know that objective proof of God's existence is unnattainable?

Or are you simply saying that you believe it's unnattainable, in other words that you have no reason to believe it's attainable?

I don't know it's completely unattainable (I'm not God ;)). I think that something that is (by most people's conceptions) both immaterial and eternal is too far removed from the human sensory capacity to be objectively proven. If you conceive of God as something material and temporal, well then, that could be objectively proven. I also believe that the human sensory package may be in a state of evolution that could possibly be capable of such perception (if there is anything there to be perceived) someday, just that we are not capable at present.

If you have objective proof of God’s existence, or any reason to believe that it is humanly attainable, I would like to see it.

Talan
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 10:36 AM
Why must there be a "first mover"? The concept of nothingness is a human invention anyway. There is no proof that once nothing existed. Some of his latter arguments are built on similar fallacies.

Zu k'neged zu, literally "light running and returning". This is the important Kabbalistic concept of "what is below reflects that which is above". In Judeo-Christian theology it explains the "illogical" idea that man was made in the image of G-d, of Nothingness without end.


Nothing (with an uppercase "N"), the kabbalistic kind, means "more than everything,""all of being," "Eternity."

Rabbi Yehiel Michal explains that the holy ones of old would "yearn to make themselves one"(Hebrew: d'veikut ;Latin: unio mystica ) with the Holy One by likening themselves to Nothingness ( Ayin ). They understood that, were it not for the power of the Creator who continuously creates and sustains them each moment, they would be nothing (lowercase "n"), just as they were before the Creation. For indeed, there is nothing in the world except for God.

"Indeed,"he says, "it is the opposite of what everyone thinks. They all assume that when they do not merge with their Creator but instead cleave to the things and matters of this world, they amount to something [ yesh ] in their own eyes.

"They imagine they are important. But how,"he asks, "could anyone who might not wake up the next morning be all that important?"(On her way out of the testimonial banquet in her honor, she got run over by a truck!) As we read about the gourd tree in Jonah 4:10 (in the haftarah for Yom Kippur afternoon), "One night it's here, the next it's gone!"Or, as we read in Psalm 144:4, "their days pass away like a shadow"—even while they're alive, it's all a show of vanity. (Sure sounds like Yom Kippur to me.)

"In this way,"says Rabbi Yehiel Michal (making a linguistic joke), "if they think they're something , then they're nothing. On the other hand, if, because of their fusion with the Creator , cleaving with all their power, they think of themselves as Nothing, then they are very great indeed.

"They are like the branch of a tree that realizes it is part of one organic unity with its root. And the root, of course, is the One without End—the Ayn Sof, the One of Nothing. So, if the branch is one with the root and the root is the One of Nothing, then the branch too ceases to exist as an independent thing; it is Nothing.

"It is like a single drop of water fallen into the sea. It has returned to its source. It is one with the ocean. Now it's no longer possible to identify it as an independent thing in any way whatsoever."
Source (http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=16252)

exit
Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 03:18 PM
As a Christian I never bother trying to convince folks of God's existence. There is no solid proof, usually the kind of proof atheists want, cause God is not a "solid" thing. We can't force faith on folks. Whether folks believe in Him or not is up to them.


The Christian view, indeed, is that God doesn't need nor care to "prove" his existence to all men, but only to those who are worthy of him. It is man who must first prove his faith in several trials, which is what the sacraments are for. People somehow have this idea that they deserve rewards without doing the work. The only way that could prove the spirit is through it, therefore, all attempts to prove the existence of something supra-rational by reason is pointless.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, December 19th, 2007, 01:34 AM
I don't know it's completely unattainable (I'm not God ;)). I think that something that is (by most people's conceptions) both immaterial and eternal is too far removed from the human sensory capacity to be objectively proven.But God, and human beings, are spirits. Our bodies have material senses, but the soul is what perceives spiritual things. Now, according to the Bible, sin is what dulls the soul from perceiving God; it's a rejection of Him.

Without sin, our sense of God would be just as clear as our sense of material things. In fact, I believe that without spiritual sight, certainty about anything (including the material) is never absolutely complete.

So, just as you can't perceive light and colour if you shut it out, likewise you only perceive material things if you're spiritually shutting God out. The thing is, the nature of sin is such that people don't acknowledge they're shutting Him out. But if God changes their will, they realise that they had indeed been doing that.


If you have objective proof of God’s existence, or any reason to believe that it is humanly attainable, I would like to see it.I can't make you see it. You will only see it if you open your eyes, which in turn requires a change of the will; God can do that for you.

But this spiritual change of will is not something that can be imagined when one's will is entirely against God. This is the natural state of sinful mankind.

Taras Bulba
Monday, December 24th, 2007, 09:21 AM
Whilst it is true that certain things must be taken as axioms (and these are not arbitrary - indeed, they are necessary; no further knowledge can arise in their absence), this doesn't relieve Christians (or any other theist) of the task of proving their God's existence, or any God's for that matter,

Except that the very nature of God himself posists him outside the natural realm; so in essence his existence cannot be definatively proven nor disproven. You have to accept God's existence on faith; and of course when you do so you're making a wager with your soul(ala Pascal).



at least if they want to be taken seriously.

Taken seriously by whom exactly?



My point is you cannot merely say to an atheist "God exists", and then in response to their demand for evidence say "Well you prove that He doesn't exist!"

That certainly is a typical theistic copt-out, and it is indeed dishonest - since you can't prove a negative.



Indeed, if there are other more plausible explanations for the origins of the world, and if there is little reason to accept the existence of any particular deity (e.g. logical contradictions entailed in said deity's very traits), it is incumbent on the theist to put forward a proof of some sort.

It should be noted that spiritual truth is paradoxical and metaphoric by its very nature. So if you're truely disturbed by "logical contradictions", then it's clear you may not truely understand spiritual truth in the first place.



Any theist engaging in a philosophical argument must do so; if they're not interested in that, though, then there is no point in even debating them.

That pretty much is what it all boils down to: you either believe God exists or you don't. If you don't believe in him, then there's much more one can say to you - except go in peace, and may God have mercy on your wretched soul!

Flashinpon
Friday, January 25th, 2008, 05:53 AM
Except that the very nature of God himself posists him outside the natural realm; so in essence his existence cannot be definatively proven nor disproven. You have to accept God's existence on faith; and of course when you do so you're making a wager with your soul(ala Pascal).



Taken seriously by whom exactly?



That certainly is a typical theistic copt-out, and it is indeed dishonest - since you can't prove a negative.



It should be noted that spiritual truth is paradoxical and metaphoric by its very nature. So if you're truely disturbed by "logical contradictions", then it's clear you may not truely understand spiritual truth in the first place.



That pretty much is what it all boils down to: you either believe God exists or you don't. If you don't believe in him, then there's much more one can say to you - except go in peace, and may God have mercy on your wretched soul!

All I can say when I read posts like this can be summed up in one word: Negative! When the Bible says that man was created "In His Image", it doesn't mean God actually has fingers and toes and eyes as we know them; Men are similar in >nature< to God. Man's reason and intelligence are what puts him above the animals but "a little lower than the angels". What would the point and purpose be to these gifts if they were to lead us away from God? If God cannot be found through logic, I submit that He cannot be found at all.
It is the very fact that we are left to assume infinite cycles of cause-effect (logically impossible) or God that leaves God in the position of being the only logical answer. It is either God, or something logically unattainable (aka, chaos theory). I don't care to refute chaos theory, so long as its proponents realize that their beliefs fly in the face of logic, while belief in God is perfectly logical.

Mrs. Lyfing
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008, 09:56 PM
"God is dead"

Is he dead? Or does he live in heaven? Is there a heaven? Can I go if there is? When will I find out if there is or isn't a heaven? Or if there is a God? Does God love everyone? Does he love me? Who is God? Where did he come from? Is God Jesus? Or nothing of the sort? Are there many Gods? Or just one? Are there any Gods? Does God except all these religions and their ideas? Or just a few? Or just one? Why can't I feel secure in any of the ideas given to me? Why can't I even answer a question like, explain your faith? Your religion? Or even, what do you believe? Because like all these questions, I have no answers, I only have more questions. :)

Lyfing
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 03:46 AM
Is he dead? Or does he live in heaven? Is there a heaven? Can I go if there is? When will I find out if there is or isn't a heaven? Or if there is a God? Does God love everyone? Does he love me? Who is God? Where did he come from? Is God Jesus? Or nothing of the sort? Are there many Gods? Or just one? Are there any Gods? Does God except all these religions and their ideas? Or just a few? Or just one? Why can't I feel secure in any of the ideas given to me? Why can't I even answer a question like, explain your faith? Your religion? Or even, what do you believe? Because like all these questions, I have no answers, I only have more questions. :)

Yep..God is Dead. It seems to me (I believe) that morality ( like the ten commandments handed down from God, or in the sphere of the creativity of the Superman,..maybe Hamurrabi’s code ) can be roughly divided into two camps, those of the slaves and those of the nobles. Of the good and bad and what those good of the opposite side resentiment as evil. I came about this idea from Nietzsche. Basically what I’m saying is that there is good and there is bad, that is a noble notion, but when there becomes good, as in righteous, Jesus loves me, and evil as in, Your going to Hell, we have a problem.

See, this is all about the creating..not in having a God that created everything, but of having Supermen that create. The emphasis on living your one life in this world right here and now..Building one’s treasures up on Earth NOT in Heaven. Nietzsche’s philosophy was a going away of absolutes..of my truth ( God’s word ) is your truth and if you don’t think so you are going to Hell, and a bringing of the Supermen ( with their will to power..not as in the Lord’s prayer of “thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven” ) who create as they see fit as the gods they are.

Now when it comes to heaven..what a notion I know. No one wants to die. That is as a sad a notion as I can think off. To have all I have gone in an instant, and having absolutely no way of knowing what is going to happen especially with all this talk of life not being the end.

If I’ve brave enough I’m going to Valhalla when I die in battle to take part in the Ragnarok under Odin. This is my what’s going to happen when I die “dream.” I’m going to be carried there by beautiful warrior maidens called Valkyrie, and while there I’m going to fight all day, in preparation for war, if I get my leg cut off it will grow back, at night I’m going to feast on the same pig that just keeps showing back up everyday and get drunk, and brag about how brave I am.

Now do I really think that is going to happen..? It’s on many levels.

I can go with this (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/odin/odin-9.htm)..

If we are to live again I have it figured we live again in our children because they act like we do and do the things that we do. The old saying goes that “Apples don’t fall far from trees.” Mr. McNallen of the AFA calls this Metagenetics (http://www.runestone.org/articles/metagenet1.htm)..?? (http://www.runestone.org/articles/metagenet2.htm). I tend to think that Rupert Sheldrake’s work on the morphogenetic fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field_(Rupert_Sheldrake)) goes along with it..maybe even Theosophical notions of the soul (http://www.theosophical.ca/TextBookTheos.htm#4).

It’s getting late now though, so maybe I’ll come up with more, do you have any questions..? Please ask..?

And then there is maybe this..a look at the gods..


Chapter 2:
The Nature of Divinity and Deity in &#193;satr&#250;
Polytheism: n. the doctrine of, or belief in, many gods or more gods than one.
&#193;satr&#250; is a polytheist religion which anthropomorphizes its deities. What this means, is that we believe in multiple, individual gods and goddesses that appear or have the attributes of human beings. One of the largest and most important concepts of religion is the nature of divinity and deity. Within the &#193;satr&#250; religion, there is a wide road of generally accepted ideas and philosophies of the nature of divinity and deity. Within the context of this chapter, I will discuss five major viewpoints.
The first idea of the divine and deity is the belief that the gods and goddesses are actual, living beings. These beings were created by the unfolding universe. In this thought they too grow, mature, gain wisdom, and die as does everything else in the universe. They are divine in the aspect of them having a longer life span, more power, greater intellect, and that they are our creators and ancestors. Our gods are only immortal in relation to our own life span. They are not omniscient, or all knowing. In this, our gods can understand us better in that they too must struggle to enforce their wills and desires within their own existences. In that, the differences between a god and a mortal is merely by degree. A god's fundamental nature is similar to mankind’s. The extreme position in this idea could encompass taking the lore as pure, actual fact. This is the thought of the strictest polytheists.
The second concept of divinity and deity which I will discuss is the idea of the gods being a manifestation of forces of nature. In this concept, the gods and goddesses of our folk are seen as being the personified greatness of the natural world. The myths and lore are symbolic teachings in which the forces of nature are personified into entities in order to help with understanding.
Although more pantheistic in nature, this is where the religious or philosophical belief adheres to the thought that it is the universe itself and all of the creation within it which are divine. In this strict case, divinity itself is not conscious, but a type of power which permeates, and is central, in all things. Often, the concept of pantheism is confused with polytheism, even amongst many learned persons. For the sake of this work, I am keeping in strict with definitions. In the light of accepting this concept, the myths and lore would be thought of as being highly symbolic.
9
The archetype is the third concept in which we will discuss. It is based strongly on the works of Professor Carl Gustav Jung, a Swiss psychologist who wrote many essays and works in the 1900's. In his works, an archetype was like a psychological "well" of conscious and unconscious memory in which new life, enthusiasm, and energy for the soul and willpower of the individual, group, or peoples could be found. In his famous essay, "Wotan" he writes;
"...We must go back to the age of myths, which did not explain everything in terms of man in his limited capacities, but sought the deeper cause in the psyche and its autonomous powers. Man's earliest intuitions personified these powers as gods and described them in the myths with great care and circumstantially according to their various characters. This could be done the more readily on account of the firmly established primordial types or images which are innate in the unconsciousness of many races, and exercise a direct influence upon them. Because the behavior of a race takes on its specific character from its underlying images, we can speak of an archetype, Wotan, as an autonomous psychic factor. Wotan produces effects in the collective life of a people and thereby reveals his own nature. For Wotan has a peculiar biology of his own, quite apart from the nature of man."
One should note that Jung’s use of the word, “race” was quite different than the modern usage. When Jung was writing, “race” denoted what we would consider being a specific ethnicity (i.e. the Irish race, the Roman race, or the race of the Franks).
There is a fourth concept of the nature of divinity and deity within &#193;satr&#250; in which I will explain as being the patterns of the evolution and deification of the self. In this concept it is the self which is divine, and the gods and goddesses are an internal function of every human being. In this concept and viewpoint, the gods and goddesses are a part of the self and are also patterns for which one is to emulate in order to gain in the evolution of the self.
The gods and goddesses in this thought exist as models for determining what is ideal and what is inferior in the human condition and psyche. In the gods, we are to see ourselves in both strengths and weaknesses. This is because the gods are, literally ourselves, in this philosophic concept. Myths and lore are believed to be codes for learning about ourselves and how to improve the self, in this concept of divinity and deity. In these thoughts, the gods, goddess, and other beings illustrate the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious forces of the self.
The fifth, and final, concept of divinity and deity in which I will discuss is the intricate combinations of the already explained concepts. In this thought pattern, the idea is that the nature of divinity and deity is not to be defined so strictly. It adheres to the philosophy that the nature of the divine is multi-natured to begin with. Within this concept, the idea that a deity could encompass existing as an actual conscious being, a manifestation of nature, an archetype, and as also a piece of every individual worshipper is acceptable in a vast array of degrees.
The myths and lore are accepted as spiritual truths in which some are to be taken literally, some symbolically, and some as teachings for the evolution and discovery of the self. Deities are not only internal, but also external. They are not only subjective, but also objective. The one thought process which must be foremost in accepting this philosophy of the nature of divinity and deity is, to accept the overriding idea that there is no such thing as contradiction.
10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2052042/Michael-Smith-Ways-of-the-Asatru

Later,
-Lyfing

Cuchulain
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 04:20 AM
Although there is no rational reason to believe in god, a purely rational individual would choose to believe in god it seems to me, given that by believing, one will either be rewarded or nothing will happen, and that by not believing, one will either be punished or nothing will happen. The problem with this though, is the notion that if there is a god he will know your motivations, and not accept your pragmatic decision making as true belief at all.

SineNomine
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 03:05 PM
That'd be Pascal's wager. :) Omniscience does kind of undermine the whole argument though.

Hrodnand
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 05:35 PM
I honestly don't want to offend anyone in the topic, but I think it's a bit silly to make a proof about a god. I think experiencing the godlike is something truly personal and it's not about facts that are proved to each other. If I would start to make proofs that the gods exist I think some of you would consider me quite foolish. The proofs are coming to an individual through experiences, through intense observation. Those who truly seek, sooner or later find what they have been looking for, and it's no need to make proofs, at least this is my opinion.

Janus
Monday, August 18th, 2008, 01:13 AM
There will never be a proof of God because the idea is that God created our universe and the world. As with science, we can observe the universe thanks to finding out about natural laws. However, God as the creator does not necessarily belong to this creation hence does not necessarily follow natural laws. If he is "outside" of the universe, there won't be any way to detect God. Therefore it is simply a matter of belief. You have a "free will" and can choose to believe in God or to believe in its non-existance. Both ideas seem equally convincing for me but I rather tend to believe in a God.

The Horned God
Monday, August 18th, 2008, 01:34 AM
"God" is a metaphor or a mental "place holder" for a mystery that goes beyond all categories of human understanding.

Fafner
Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 06:09 PM
What proof of God is there to begin with?

I think there is no solid proof about the existence of a god, otherwise there wouldn't be agnostics.

Lyfing
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008, 12:52 AM
There are many different ways of thinking in the world. To be different is to be special.

When it comes to religion and morality there are pretty much two sides. On the one side, there is that of the slave, of the sheep with their shepherd, and, on the other, that of the noble, of the “poet, artist, and philosopher.” The former is embodied in the Abrahamic religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions) where the participants are “God’s chosen people,” and the latter by those who are “themselves fashioners of images and coiners of ideas.”

“The Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want.”

Whether it be the Jews, the Christians, or the Muslims they all are, to their “One God”, the chosen. Either one follows the 10 Commandments, is saved by Jesus’ sacrifice of himself for Adam’s sin which pissed God off so bad he kicked us out of his Garden, or takes over planes and flies them into buildings, it makes no difference. It’s either their way or the HIGHWAY. I don’t know what the Jews do ( ? ), but the Christians are all high and mighty and if one ain’t in the Church they are going to burn in hell, and the Muslims have it so bad with whatever pillar called Jihad they blow themselves up.

Then, there is a way of looking at divinity other than, Our Father who art in Heaven, whose will, we pray be done, it has been done, by every polytheistic people everywhere as they come into contact with other culture’s ideas of divinity as they sought to find similarities, make connections, and ultimately express them very selves. In our own Germanic legacy there is the calling of Odin, Thor, and Tyr as Mercury, Hercules, and Mars by Tacitus. And, even Alexander the Great’s respect for the religions of all the folks he conquered heralding the Hellenistic Age.

Some dude named Joseph Campbell wrote books with names like The Hero with a Thousand Faces, and The Masks of God to get across the point above that there is another way of thinking about divinity other than just to “Fear the Lord thy God“. There is the closed minded way of my way or the Highway, and there is the open minded way of it’s just a Highway. This brings to mind a story about the search for the Holy Grail..that no one can find it by the same road.


A distinction must be drawn, through all our studies of mythology, between the attitudes toward divinities represented on one hand by the priest and his flock, and on the other by the creative poet, artist, or philosopher. The former tends to what I would call a positivistic reading of the imagery of his cult. Such a reading is fostered by the attitude of prayer, since in prayer it is extremely difficult to retain the balance between belief and disbelief that is proper to the contemplation of an image or idea of God. The poet, artist, and philosopher, on the other hand, being themselves fashioners of images and coiners of ideas, realize that all representation--whether in the visible matter of stone or in the mental matter of the word--is necessarily conditioned by the fallibility of the human organs. Overwhelmed by his own muse, a bad poet may imagine his visions to be supernatural facts and so fall into a posture of a prophet--whose utterance I would define as “poetry overdone,” over-interpreted; wherefore he becomes the founder of a cult and a generator of priests. But so also a gifted priest may find his super-natural beings losing body, deepening into void, changing form, even dissolving: whereupon he will possibly become either a prophet, or if more greatly favored, a creative poet.

The Masks of God: Volume III, Occidental Mythology page 518

I must say that I have it figured that there is such a thing called a “collective unconscious” and that it is here that deep “channels” are dug by the constant flowing of energies which take a life of themselves is those who posses them.

Of course I offer some of Jung’s famous Wotan quotes..


"[T]he gods are without doubt personifications of psychic forces..." (6) And when one is possessed by such a god there is not much one can do about it and in the case of Wotan we're talking about "a fundamental attribute of the German psyche." (7)
"Because the behaviour of a race takes on its specific character from its underlying images we can speak of an archetype "Wotan". As an autonomous psychic factor, Wotan produces effects in the collective life of a people and thereby reveals his own nature." (8) But we must remember, cautions Jung, that, "It has always been terrible to fall into the hands of a living god. Yahweh was no exception to this rule, and the Philistines, Edomites, Amorites, and the rest, who were outside the Yahweh experience, must certainly have found it exceedingly disagreeable. The Semitic experience of Allah was for a long time an extremely painful affair for the whole of Christendom. We who stand outside judge the Germans far too much as if they were responsible agents, but perhaps it would be nearer the truth to regard them also as victims." (9)


http://meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Analytical_psychology/jungs_shadow.htm

Sorry if this seems unconcluded..



141. Then began I to grow and gain in insight,
to wax eke in wisdom:
one verse led on to another verse,
one poem led on to the other poem.

142. Runes wilt thou find, and rightly read,
of wondrous weight,
of mighty magic,
which that dyed the dread god,
which that made the holy hosts,
and were etched by Othin,

Havamal, Hollander trans.

Thank You Mrs. Lyfing for stirring these thoughts in me head the other night..:fgift:

Later,
-Lyfing