If no one knows for sure, why believe? Anyway, I wouldn't be true to myself and I couldn't live a life I believe wasn't true (if that makes any sense)

To be honest, Heaven accounts for about 0.001% of my motivation for keeping my faith. Like I said in the first Heaven thread, I don't have a clue what Heaven's going to be like. I just figure it's going to be good and satisfying. A fitting end to a life of devotion and service and perserverance towards God. When I go to my happy place, I have a hard time using Heaven for that, because I have a fairly good hunch that I could never imagine what it's actually going to be like.

So what does motivate me? Hope motivates me. Hope that when life gets tough, I've got a way out that doesn't leave me pushin' up daisies. A lot of times, I'm so down I can't be reasoned with, so God has to do something to give me hope and restore my confidence. I suppose one practical way God has helped me in life lately is that one time earlier in the semester, I was late to class and missed a quiz that couldn't be made up. There was like nothing I could do to make this class on time. Traffic was a nightmare's nightmare and I left in time to make it. I was coming from work and was scheduled to work until 6 (which was when the class started, too), but my boss let me leave early enough to get there on time, even though it left him undermanned. Even with that sacrifice, I didn't make it on time and missed the quiz. So I just kind of let this roll off my back, not really understanding why I had to be punished for something I couldn't avoid. Then last week, the teacher announces that a lot of people have had incidents where they weren't able to make class in time for quizzes, so she was going to create an optional quiz for us to take. Okay, God's signature wasn't on that, but I'm not one to discount that. It's that kind of stuff that makes me hold to my beliefs.



The Marxist view of religion stems from an ignorance of authentic religious experience. I think it even stems from an ignorance of what the religion actually believes in its purest form, too.



Haha I tried reciting the Lord's Prayer the other night when I was picking up that blind date, hoping that I wouldn't let my disgust over having to go out with her ruin the evening for her. It was all I could do to remember even half of it. I prayed that I could still be a gentleman, but be doped up on "spiritual morphene" through the night so I wouldn't know what I was doing while I was out with her. Sure enough...it worked. I was a gentleman, I was conversational as much as I could be (she talked about herself a lot) and the night was over before I really knew it or puked.

I'd agree, though. Worship does seem pretty repetitive and formulaic for stuff that's supposedly genuine and inspirational. I mean, some people say that the more you do say something, the more you believe it, but I think worship is the exception. Most Christians I know of believe that there are more forms of worship besides music. My question is...why aren't we exploring those on Sunday mornings? Why aren't we doing something different that people aren't used to, just so it will make them think more deliberately about their faith and present Christianity in a new way? (Of course there's people like my grandma who would probably be scared of that and would rail against it until kingdom comes.)



Yeah, I know what you mean. I've had a hard time personalizing Christ's death myself. To me, it just seems like any other death. No. It's not like any other death. I took the deaths of my grandparents a LOT harder than I take Christ's death. I still do. I wish my grandparents were still here and it hurts not to have them here to cheer me on and encourage me and love me. With Jesus, I don't miss him. The church reason for that would be that because Christ isn't dead. Honestly, I don't think it phases me because I'm not as close to Jesus as I was to my grandparents. Jesus is abstract. Pa, Pop, and Nana weren't abstract. They were real people that held me as a baby, fed me, gave me birthday and Christmas presents, and took me fishing. What's Jesus done for me that can compare to that? He died for me. But that was so long ago that I wasn't able to see it. I wasn't able to hang around Jerusalem in 30 AD or be mature enough to understand that he was actually taking a real noose off my neck and putting it around his. I never saw the noose, I never saw death looming over the horizon, I never saw him save me from that, and I don't lie about actually feeling that.

The best way I've been able to internalize Christ's death is to think that it was the threshold of my life in God as it is today. Christ's death made the need for a guy like me, at this point in history, to be born and do whatever God shows me I need to do. I've taken great joy from that and it's astounding to me, when I think about all the things that have needed to fall into place in order for this to happen. If it weren't for the death, God wouldn't just come up to me and tell me to be a filmmaker. I'd just live a life without a dream to fulfill (or with a dream I couldn't fulfill). This is what I've pieced together from sugar packets and a little bit of Bible reading and a few of the sermons I've heard over the years. If you want to know why it's impossible for me to be a filmmaker without Christ dying, I could tell you, but it would take a while and i'm even a little rusty on which passages actually say that. You're probably better off asking another person who would know and use me as an example. But if you really want to hear it from me, then I'll see what I can do, but I'm stretched for time for the rest of the week. I've got a big test on Friday, a birthday tomorrow, and I have to work about 18 hours this weekend between Thursday and Saturday night.

Religion sucks.

See: Human conflict in the history of the world.

Drizzt, dude, I am lmao at you.

See my response here.



I can't speak for other religions or faiths (i.e., yes, I agree with you concerning Catholicism), but, in my opinion, religion shouldn't be about the Church, but about the Person. Your beliefs should be dictated by you, not by an organization.

Yeah. I mean there could be a god or something like that but because I dont know I am not going to jump to conclusions.

Keep in mind its not just theists that cause conflicts. Even aethists like Hitler took the Darwinian theory too far to support their "super race" idea.

Actually Hitler was a catholic.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. Oops.

I don't believe in God as a safety net, I am actually very religious. I am just saying, why not find something to believe in? I just cant see anything better to believe in. An atheist gave me the comment, "it just isnt logical for there to be an almighty God." Well it isnt logical that we are here in the first place either.

Oh man, sorry about that guys, never knew that

First, before reading this, know that I have INCREDIBLY limited knowledge of religions, and everything like that.

I'm going to start first by going wayyy back to Gnostica's original post (the one which started this thread)

This assuming there is a god...

How can god give us free will, and then plan things to where if we don't believe in him, and follow his beliefs, etc... we go to hell... it takes away the free will part of it... it's putting pressure on us to believe in him and his ways, because if we don't we're going to go to hell. Sure we can still make our own decisions, but if that decision could send us to heaven or hell, where's the free part of it? There's that pressure that may make us make a decision we normally wouldn't just so we don't go to hell, which I don't doubt a number of people have done.

To me, free will is being able to make a decision without any outside pressure from the source of being able to have the 'luxury' of free will.

Make sense?

Now...

As far as the creation of people, and the creation of god... think about creating a thread compared to the creation of the earth... The one who posts the thread is god, the thread is the earth... was the 'god' of the thread not created? How can something exist if it was never created? Everything has to be created at some point to exist, does it not?

I completely agree with quesadilla_red... if no one knows for sure god exists, why believe? Just to use him as a 'safety net'? That's not being true to yourself... which to me kind of eliminates free will, or at least the free will aspect of that decision.

--------

To me religion is far more than a 'scape goat' that people use to explain things that we don't understand, or don't have any evidence of, instead of ignoring it, waiting for an explanation.

I was reading the thread and remember someone saying that the rules get changed a lot... I've noticed that myself, and it bothers me about religion, because how can you just up and change something that was strongly believed beforehand, like being able to eat meat on Fridays... how do you change that?

Another thing I don't get is the Trinity... The belief that god is "The father," "The son,' and "The holy spirit"

How can that possibly be?

How can those three things make up one God... and how can you say that Jesus is the son of god, if he is one of the three things that makes up god... that would imply that god didn't exist before Jesus himself existed... but then wouldn't that eliminate the possibility of Jesus being the son of god?

----------

I know religion is about having faith, and not questioning it, but how can someone believe in something that just doesn't make sense? I don't see how that can make sense to anyone?

All-in-all, to me, it just sounds like it's something made up to keep people from doing bad things, and to help people find some kind of articial support, and belief...

But that's just me...

Like I said, I know very little about religion and the like, but based on what I do know, that's my opinion of it all.

"He" gives you free will to choose to do good or evil, and well in the end I guess we will find out what its all for.

Hell is where everyone is destined to go when they're born. You, me, Sally-Sue down the street, Bill the Hobo, and George Bush. We have all inherited the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, and, consequently, can not enter Heaven with the stain of sin upon ourselves. God has provided a way for us to avoid Hell, and it's our choice to take this offer or refuse it.

To me, free will is being able to make a decision without any outside pressure from the source of being able to have the 'luxury' of free will.



So you find it more plausible that inanimate matter has always existed, as opposed to a sentient force?



Why does it eliminate the free will? I have freely chosen to be a Christian.



Such as?



That's an example of the Church being placed over the Person.



It simply is.



Who's said religion is about not questioning it? As for it not making sense, who's to say that the fact that God does not follow the rules of logic means that He can not exist?

So then you're telling me that god is going to punish everyone who doesn't follow his... 'path'? Let alone punish them for something someone else did many many many years ago, presuming it actually did happen? Sounds like he's holding a bit of a grudge, don't you think? Which I couldn't believe being the good person I keep hearing that he was/is.

But then if he's punishing people for something Adam and Eve did, why not just bundle the sins of every single person that has ever existed, does exist, and ever will exist?

Here's a question... have you ever been upset because you can't do something because someone screwed up a few years prior, ruining it for everyone else? (Example: Not being able to bring a PDA to school because people were using it to cheat)?

Is that not the same principle? If it isn't, explain to me why it isn't.



I guess I failed to cover that, my apologies... but I think it's no more or less plausible than the idea that a god has always existed... Neither are possible, there has to be a beginning to everything... how it started, I don't know, and I personally don't really care, how does it benefit human kind to know how the universe started? I suppose I can understand knowing how the planet started, so you could predict if another mass was going to turn into another planet, possibly one humans could live on... but why the universe?

It can't be explained how the universe started, and instead of just accepting that fact, people are saying that the universe was created by god... at least that's how I see it.



As I said in what you quoted... I think it just defeats the free will aspect of that particular situation... Believing it exists just as a 'safety net' and not being what you actually believe, is basically giving in to what others say, that you will go to hell, if it exists, or whatever, and didn't really make the decision based on your own decisions, you made the decision because you were afraid of going to hell, so you found a safety net.


Like I said earlier, an example would be saying that god created the universe because it can't be explained in any other way...

If that's not the reason they do it, then was it actually god that created the computer? Was it god that created the carpet you walk on, or the hardwood floor you walk on? Or how about the TV you watch? No? How do you know? Because a company made it, or a person designed it... you don't think god created them, because there's documentation that people created them, but since there's no documentation of how the universe was created, we just assume it was a god.


Care to explain that, it makes no sense... isn't the example you quoted actually an example of the person being placed over the church, because a person had to decide to change the rules of what was once believed by the religion and the people that follow it.


I fail to see that as a logical explanation...

That's like being told that someone is replacing your parents..

"We are Mr. and Mrs. Foster, we're here to replace your parents."

"But they haven't died or anything?"

"So?"

"It's just how it's going to be?"

"Why?"

"It just, simply is."

Would you not fight that? Is that not, basically, the same principle? Being told to accept something just because "it simply is"... isn't that pretty much like not having free will.. because you are just believing it because someone told you "it just is" instead of thinking about it, forming your own opinion, even if it contradicts what you were told?




No one said that, that I can recall... but the way I've always understood faith (of any kind) is that you believe something without having any doubts, or questioning how true that something is or isn't.

And if god hasn't been proven to exist, how is it fact that god does not follow the rules of logic?

It is because of the Original Sin that we sin. Lie, lust for, steal, murder, you name it - if there were no Original Sin, there would be no sin. Every single human being born will sin, no matter what. It's actually speculated by theologists that Jesus' birth was immaculate because the father passes on the Original Sin.



I'm not sure what you're asking here. What do you mean by "bundle the sins"?



It's not, because, as I said before, it is because of Original Sin that we are prone to sin - no one is perfect, and the best man may fall seven times a day (or sayeth the Bible). Sin is going to happen, despite what we do to try and avoid it.



Neither are logically possible, and, in the face of equally plausible situations, with no empirical evidence leaning toward one way another, we all make a decision.



It's wholly in the interest of the pursuit of knowledge.



Some, yes. Others, like myself, believe that such phenomena can be described through science, but that God has established the rules and set in motion the events that cause such phenomena.



Okay, I see your point.



See my response to your example.



My mistake. I mean that, in such a case, it's the organization's priorities being placed over the people, and the people placing the organization over themselves.

I'm going to drop this portion of the argument, and let a Catholic take it up.



I never really considered the "tri-existence" of the Trinity to be vitally important, but I've yet to hear an argument that says they exist in a different way.

I suppose that the key thing here is that you have to believe in the existence of God, Jesus (as the Son of God), and the Holy Spirit.



You can still have faith without blindly following something. Questioning your religion can even re-affirm your faith.



Matter can not exist in two places at once. God can. That trait alone means He exists outside of logic.

The possibility of a being existing outside of the laws of nature and in a plain of existance that humans may never fully comprehend is a logical theory. It's one thing to form an opinion, but when you close your mind to logical possibilities, you've abandoned reason.



Not necessarily. Theoretically, a "supernatural" being could use natural laws to create, thus it's quite possible to discover much of a creators methods by scientific means alone.



Anyone who claims that they know it's not the case is suffering delusions. There is much that science has yet to explain, and it seems as if you're under the false impression that science has already explained away the biblical creation as nonsense.

There are many reasons to believe in a religion, and the need for an afterlife is only one of them. You can't possibly be serious in your generalization.



I belong to no organized religion, yet I find your statement to be humorous. You spout opinion as if it were fact. No, I don't know why religion was "created" and neither do you. What do you say to those of us who believe in a creator yet belong to no religion? Religion, in my opinion, is insignificant. I realize that the thread contains the word "religion", but it seems to me that it should say "belief in one or more creators". In other words, it's easier to bash religions than to focus on the real argument.



What do you say to those that believe in god who come from familys full of athiests? I guess you'd then blame it on the teachers, or the neighbors. The fact is that there are many people who believe in god(s) that didn't grow up in religious familys.



You're not answering his question. He's asking you one of the oldest philosophical questions known to man. How did something come from nothing? Mass is something. It seems to me that scientists have their own "supernatural" beliefs to deal with.



A logical explanation awaits you a few paragraphs back.



But that would make too much sense, and it would be less convenient for non-believers. They might actually have to discuss the facts. *GASP*



As a believer in god(s), I always find it humorous that the religious choose to spout off about what I believe to be "blind faith" when there are perfectly logical reasons to believe in god(s). Faith should be based on reason, and for many of us, it is. If ones faith isn't based on reason, it's far easier to be destroyed.



If one doesn't know for sure, they can't believe.



I'm not a Christian, and I have no church, so I suppose I'm forced to agree. I honestly think that your opinions are rather open for a Christian, and I don't mean that to be offensive.



There's absolutely nothing wrong with remaining neutral until one has enough evidence to form an opinion, or maybe even faith. I would argue that it's better to be neutral than to shut off your mind to all of the possibilities.



Ignore religion for a few moments, and think about it in terms of a creator. Is it not possible for god(s) to put creation into motion and then take a backseat?

I'm always confused as to why so many people only seem to think in terms of the Christian point of view. The belief in god(s) has quite possibly been around since the beginning of humankind.



Now you're thinking. However, the answer is no. I'll quote what I stated earlier in the discussion.



You're thinking in terms of the natural laws that humans abide by. Start thinking about the possibility of a being that can exist outside of our natural laws. Whether or not some people want to call it "magic" doesn't take away from the fact that it is one of many possibilties.



It's comforting to find someone that can break it down to the real point. Everyone seems to ignore this line of questioning, despite the fact that this is what is important.



That is one theory, but the point is, this is where science fails us. As far as we can see, everything has a beginning...cause and effect. However, science has been unable to explain where this "inanimate matter" (as someone called it above), comes from, but the belief in god(s) does explain it, whether you believe that explanation or not.

/me wonders what the post count is..?

Mmnneheheehehee!

I was about to post about how this is one of the most intelligent religious debates I've seen.... and then I saw Emon's post

I always enjoy these posts until it gets to the whole 'quote-respond-quote-respond' type posts. Then I get angry and tired at reading them.

Just thought I'd throw the idea out there that the concept of heaven does not sound appealing to all of us, nor logical. So taht's another thought. too tired to elaborate now though

My take on religion: G-d is not man, man is not g-d, therefore Christianity is false because a man (Christ) cannot be g-d. I hold by this (Judaism):

1 g-d exists
2 g-d is one and unique
3 g-d is incorporeal
4 g-d is eternal
5 Prayer is to be directed to g-d alone and to no other
6 The words of the prophets are true
7 Moses's prophecy is better than any other prophet's
8 The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses
9 There will be no other Torah (also contradicts xtianity)
10 g-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men
11 g-d will reward the good and punish the wicked
12 The Messiah will come
13 The dead will be resurrected

Jesus is supposed to be a manifestation of God in a human form...at least that's what I learned. But he's also a man and he's also God. Damn trinitridal paradoxes.

You're more orthadox I take it?

I go to a yeshiva and keep kosher and the like. And yeah, that kind of paradox that you mentioned I don't see in judaism or islam as much as xtianity.

MentatMM:

Mass and energy are equivalent via E = mc^2

I don't pretend to know all about the creation of the universe, but that one's pretty easy :p A little bit of Mass creates a LOT of energy.

The thing I like about the Big Bang Theory is that it does leave scope for debate among scientists, creationists, and those that fall under both categories. I myself am not sure what 'sparked' the Big Bang: perhaps the universe was once formed, contracted upon itself, formed a singularity and exploded once more, in a never ending cycle of creation and destruction. Maybe there was a devine creator, maybe it's just one of those things we'll never know.

It's interesting reading, from a scientific and a spiritual point of view if you ask me.

Oh, and gravity is caused (as far as MR Hawkings is concerned) by the bending of spacetime by all objects, but is only significant in large / massive objects such as planets, stars, and the like. Imagine spacetime like a stretched sheet of springy fabric, and putting a bowling ball in the middle. It sinks. You then roll a tennis ball towards it, aiming to pass the bowling ball, and it is 'attracted' to it, by the slope of the warping of the sheet, and the tennis ball will curve around the bowling balll, and 'fall' in towards it until they are touching.

That's the action of gravity, although there are of course people looking for the postulated 'graviton' particles, but I know embarrassingly little about physics at the ickle level, so I'll stick out in the Newtonian world

But yeah, astrophysics for beginners is done for now, come back next week for the use of e = mc^2 in the making of atomic bombs via fission! :p

*Disclaimer: All this stuff is part what I was taught, part what I have learned myself through reading, and as such, I may be wrong, but hey, Einstein and Hawking ahve been wrong, so it's ok for me!

It's not logical though. I could say I had a dragon in my garage but i'm not going to let you into my garage. Is it logical to believe that i'm telling the truth?



That makes no sense at all. To a god like being all forces under its control would be natural.



No, but we're getting there slowly. We've already explained how life formed on earth and we're understanding the universe more and more all the time.




So you're selectively religious? Take some "word of god" over other equally weighted "word of god". That makes even less sense than following a single faith.




Yes. Prisioners are a prime example. They "find god" in prision. The reason why is obvious. To give them hope, they feel guilty of what they've done and somehow clutch at a god to forgive them and it makes them feel better about themselves.




Did you read my post on the first page?
As I said back there, creationism and science face the same problem. Something coming from nothing. Let my ask you this, why add another step in the beginning of the universe? I mean you could have

Emptyness -> God comes from nowhere -> God creates universe

or you could have

Emptyness -> Universe comes from nowhere.

It seems to me, belieiving in god just masks the true problem. Something comes from nothing whatever you believe in. It seems to me, that a being such as god coming from nowhere would need a lot more energy than the energy needed to create the universe.




Uh, which paragraph are you referring to? I cant see anywhere where you've answered that.



You can remove all believers from religion, it still makes no sense. You can ignore the fact that it's the centre of a lot of violence but it still makes no sense to believe in an all powerful god.



There are no logical reasons to believe in god. Believing in god is and always will be blind faith. Imagine if the bible never made it to europe? Would the western world still believe in a god? Possibly, but I somehow doubt it would have as big of a following.





Then, nobody knows for sure therefore nobody can believe.



Yes. It does. Saying god created everything but god was never created makes absolutly no sense at all. Assuming everything has to be created but then applying different rules to one part is illogical. Why is it then that god can have existed forever but the universe cannot?

Secondly, creationism isnt a theory. At least in the sceientific sense of the word.

How does an atheist view healing? I believe Jesus and the apostles healed people. I believe people today are still being healed.

My best friends father spent thousands of dollars in medical bills and back equipment and was ultimately healed in church. He couldn't work, and spent a lot of time in bed because of how bad his back was.

He was also completely deaf in one ear, and was healed of that.

How does an atheist view that sort of thing? Why was he able to airsoft with me and my friend a few weekends ago, when a few months ago he couldn't walk and was half deaf?

I'm just wondering what the view on that is.

Again, logic implies rationality. Religion is an irrational thing, based heavily on emotion rather than logic. So, if you live your life solely by logic, no, it isn't logical to believe that you're telling the truth.



I agree. But who's to say that a god is bound to those laws that were created?



It still does not rule out the possibility of God.



And what of the formerly-Jewish woman who attends my church? Her family has all but divorced her from them for converting to Christianity. Was she looking for hope?

And what of the former Catholics? There are some Catholic families who can become as adamant about staying true to the faith as the women above's. Were they, too, looking for hope?



But something would have to set in motion the events that caused the Big Bang. You're saying that protons, neutrons, and electrons just popped into existence, which violates one of the very most basic principles of physics in that matter can not be destroyed or created.

Furthermore, what proof is there that God would need energy to be created? What proof is there that God would be bound by the laws of physics He created? It's not logical for something to be bound by physical laws before they were created.



Why not?



But it did make it to Europe. What if a hunter on a dinosaur safari stepped on a butterfly, forever changing the course of humanity? We can discuss endless hypothetical situations, but, in the end, it's all speculation without any base.



If God created the universe, then the laws of the universe were not yet in effect. Thus, His ability to exist forever is quite possible, if incomprehensible. Why would God need energy to be created? Why could He just be?



I exist. George Foreman VIII does not. Does that mean it's more logical to assume that I have existed forever?



So, because it's more complicated, it can't possibly be true.



If God took on the form of a man once to fight with Jacob, why can't He do so again?

• Genesis 32:28
  Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.
• Genesis 32:30
  So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Exactly. How can you base your beliefs of how the universe came into being from emotions? You're basing your entire beliefs on feelings. I could feel very strongly that i've picked the right lottery numbers. Chanes are, however, I havent. I could have strong faith in my favourite football team. Does it mean they're going to win?



That's a good point. But if there are no laws then god has nothing to exist in. If it's not bound by laws then anything could happen. A million other gods could suddenly come from nowhere, or possibly the universe could suddenly come into being.



No, but it means god isnt needed to explain things.




But both these people already believe in god. They already have the hope, it's just a matter of them believing in slightly different events. A lot of people believe in their faith because that's how they've been brought up.




The same could be said for the universe. When the big bang happend these laws came into existance. Before the universe did these laws exist? Who's to say there arent many universes with different laws?





Yes. Seen as George Foreman VIII does not exist now it's impossible for him to exist forever but since you havent existed since the dawn of time nor can you. I was trying to say that we have evidence the universe eixsts but none god eixts so it's much more plausable the universe can eixst forever because it does exist.




Why explain things with supernatrual forces when you can explain them with natural forces? If we can explain things with natual forces we dont need to use supernatural forces.



"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

I'm not saying that the creation of the universe can't be described scientifically, but that doing so does not eliminate that the events were set in motion by God.



Perhaps He has the will to simply prevent other gods from being created. Speculation of the specifics of His nature and whatever laws (if such exist) bind him is, again, pure speculation.



Of course not. Science should not include using God to explain something. It should come to conclusions based on evidence and observation. But there's no reason that it can't believed that "F=ma" because God made it so. Science is used to explain the how and why; religion is explain the Who.



The change from devout Catholic to Protestant is a huge one - in the case of my church, it's complete forsaking all belief in the infallibility of the organization, practices (the Rosary, confession, emphasis on communion, the idea of saints and the post-Jesus virginity of Mary).

For a Jew? Forsaking of her entire religion. All the practices, all the beliefs. The Jewish God is different from the Christian God, and the Jewish religion is different from the Christian religion.



It's entirely possible, yes, that multiple universes exist. I choose, however, to believe differently.



But if the Big Bang is true, then this universe has not existed forever. It's collapsed and exploded upon itself over and over again.



I fully acknowledge that, when trying to describe our universe, "because God made it that way" should not be the answer. We should investigate, observe, conclude, and formulate theories and laws based upon these investigations and observations. However, saying that God was responsible for them in no way inhibits the process.



Agreed. No man had seen God in His true form. They had seen Him as a man.

Ugh. I hate these stupid quoting contests. This is exactly the kind of thread that sparked me to draft Freelancer's Law.

Anyway, I'd like to respond to two things: Axis' question about faith healing, and Wolfy's stuff about everyone being inherently evil.

Axis, if you want my opinion, I think religious "healing" is a load of absolute crap. I've witnesses it do far more harm than good multiple times, because people substitute faith healing for the real medical help they need. I have never seen firsthand any evidence that it does any good, even though I've witnessed supposed "healing" many, many times.

Wolfy, your beliefs sound incredibly morbid, and I was wondering if you're aware of how morbid it all sounds to an outsider. Everyone deserves to go to hell when they're a baby? Sick, man. Sick. I try to be optimistic in that humans are inherently good. Guess you can't see that.

I think that the body can just to great things like that. I mean...just look at all the things the brain can do. A lot fo people give credit to faith, but to me I just view it all as life just an amazing thing.

Belief in a creator isn't based on one person, or even a group of people claiming that they exist. It's based on reason. Belief in a creator stems from one of the most ancient mysteries, which is how the universe was created, and who created it. One can argue all day long that belief in a creator stems from the need for heaven, or to control populations of people, but I think it's fair to assume that before those methods were used (assuming they were, and I don't necessarily disagree), that simple logic was the reason behind the belief in a creator, and I would argue that this is how religions were formed, in the first place. In other words, how religion was manipulated at a later time, is insignificant.



If you're saying that they would be natural to the creator, then I would agree. However, it's possible that much of what's natural to the creator would be supernatural to humans. The creator would have the big picture, and we wouldn't, thus we'd still live in a world, like we do now, where many of us believe that it's impossible for anything to exist outside of our laws of nature. We're limited to what we understand. It's illogical to assume that our laws are complete, and that there's no possibility to exist on another plain. We can believe that are laws are complete, and that there is no creator, but to pretend that we know, is only to live in denial.



We've explained how we believe life formed on earth. I don't necessarily disagree with these views and discoveries, but to not take into account the possibility that all we're doing is discovering the methods the creator used, results in an incomplete analysis. Science should explore all possibilites, even if they believe them to be unlikely, and sadly, many scientists are too consumed with their own bias, to view creation analytically.



I belong to no religion, but if it suits you, you could say that I have my own. My religion isn't based upon any word of any god. My beliefs are simple, and mostly come from observing nature, as well as most other things, and philosophy, much of which is my own. To me, religion is insignificant.



I do not argue against the fact that people often find religion through a need for hope or heaven. I'm simply stating the fact that many people don't. Since the dawn of mankind, people have believed in a creator for logical reasons. I'm an optimist, and I see evidence that there is hope, through simple observation. I don't pretend to know whether or not heaven or hell exist, but I see no evidence of the sort, and would only ask the creators forgiveness out of respect, for all that it has given us.



For me, it's not about adding an extra step, it's about coming as close to the truth as humanly possible. While the above equation could lead to a logical theory, I believe it to be more unlikely than a creator that has always existed. From my human understanding, there must have been something that created the creator, if there was once only emptiness.



That would be more supernatural, in my opinion, than the existence of an always-existing creator. However, if you believe in such a possibility, I'd be interested to hear more.



I believe that the creator didn't come from anywhere because it always existed. My equation would be more like the following.

Creator(s) -> Creator(s) create(s) universe.

To me, that is a sound theory. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but until someone can show me the error in such a theory, I'm destined to believe it, until something more logical comes along. I am open to that possibility, however unlikely I think it is.



I believe I've already stated a sound, logical, theory regarding the belief in a creator.

The bible was nowhere to be found in the Americas, before Columbus, yet somehow both the native North and South Americans had their own gods and religions. How about the Africans? The fact is that many civilizations, predating Christ by thousands of years, had their gods and religions, and many had huge followings.



It makes perfect sense. I've already explained this. I never claimed that everything has to be created, because I believe that the creator has always been. Science tells us that everything has to be created. However, you can't have it both ways. If you're willing to believe in the possibility of the universe always existing, you're in a sense, admitting that the possibility of a creator exists.



I'm not too familiar with creationist views, so I can't respond to that. My beliefs are based on logic and reason of the simplest kind. There had to have been something that created the universe, and I find it laughable that science believes that this something was an "inanimate object" as someone called it above (for lack of a better term).



So then you now admit to believing in the possibility of a creator? If you believe that something has always existed, why is it such a leap to believe that instead of the universe, it was a creator? I like the way you think.



The inability of humans being able to explain "supernatural forces" doesn't prove that supernatural forces don't exist.



Call it what you want, but until you can create a more logical explanation, I'll keep doing it.

I like how everyone is really starting to get to the heart of things, instead of focusing on religion.

You've swayed from discussing religion as a whole to simply creationism.



Yes, that's what i was saying. I was saying that for god supernatural forces would be natural ones. It's illogical to assume our laws are complete or incomplete. The fact is we will never know. If the multiverse theory is correct then different universes have different laws.



As stated previously in this thread, science ceases being science when you explain events using supernatual forces.




From observing nature the colculusion that there is a god is an uncommon one. Do you believe that god listens to your prayers or even really cares about what happens here on earth? Or did it just play a role in creation?



I find it strange that you can dismiss heaven and hell because of lack of evidence but firmly believe in a creator.




But if a creator has always existed when did he suddenly decide to create the universe? I mean *always* existing thats a lot of "time". If a creator exists outside of time, then it decices to create the universe, it creates time meaning the universe has always existed throughout time.

The problem with a creator, is by suggesting the idea of a creator you imply that everything must be created leading back to the where did god come from. Saying he "always" existed is flawed because "always" doesnt exist unitl it's created and you reach a catch 22. Due to the nature of the creator (creating everything) it must also create the plaine/dimension/whatever which it resides in. it must also create the supernatural forces which allow it to come into being it must then create the forces which allow our universe to be created.



That was just a demonstration of how both scenarios have the same problem.



But what about

Creators -> Creators -> Creators -> Creators --------> Created universe.

Again you're implying that everything must be created. Logically this is impossible due to the fact we're here today. With this scenario there is never a starting point because you can go back indefinatly. I have already addressed the problem with a creator which exists forever.




Yes, and thousands of years go they needed god to explain the existance of fire, or clouds.




I just addressed this further up this post.





I was hypothesizing the idea of a creator. I wasnt suddenly changing my views and suggesting the posiblility of the universe always existing. You are asking the same question i was "if A can exist forever why cant B".



No, but we will never know if they do so we have to try to explain things using natural forces.



We havent really got to the heart of things. We've just reached one of the few elements of religion which science has yet to explain :p

No it doesnt. But one day we may be able to fully explain the creation of the universe using science. Why would we need to add god in?





But again. These scientific principles could be different in other universes if they exist. Saying that is again speculation.




Indeed it is a large step but people can be convinced of many things. Hell the magician Derren Brown converted atheists to christianity by touching them in the name of magic, despite being an athiest himself. You probably diddnt see the show unless you're from the UK but he was showing how people can be misled, he did a few things, he pretended to be a preacher who could convert people by touch, a psychic and some other things. He had people convinced on every occasion. Even other theologists. He claimed to be using methods which other "experts" have been known to use.





But that is existing forever. In that scenario, the universe always exists in some form. This is pure speculation but maybe each time the laws are different each time it "bangs"




What if we said god was responsible for thunder and left it at that? Why shouldnt we find out what's really going on?



Well that depends how you interpret John 1:18.

screw religion, i like a sleep in on a sunday morning, why should i go to some damp old building every sunday because mel gibson said so?

I'm only going to address the points in this post that haven't broken down into simple circular arguments. If you feel that I should respond to any of the points I have bypassed, please feel free to say so.



I'm not saying that we should. We should go the full investigation of it, determining that it is caused by lightning superheating the air, creating a vacuum, and the sound is a result of the air rushing back into the vacuum. But there's no reason that it excludes the possibility that it happens because God made it happen that way.

Logic is more powerful than God.

If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic created God and logic is all-powerful and logic restrains God.

If there is no logical reason why God exists, then the Universe could exist for no logical reason, and so does not require a creator.

If God has logical thoughts, then logic is more powerful than God.
If God's thoughts behave according to no logic, then there are no absolutes. It would be possible for God to create a square circle - an all-powerful being that doesn't adhere to logic would be able to. To say that God doesn't obey logical rules is to say that the abilities of God are abilities that cannot logically exist. Just as much, any absolute is obsolete, and this makes a mockery of all your religion, afterlife, lives, thoughts, everything. It means that we are completely unable to predict anything of God, anything of 'good' or anything of 'evil'. It makes God worthless, and totally inaccessible to us.

God, although all-powerful, did not create logic - God requires logic in order to think or create.

An alternative is that logic is not a freestanding property, and that logic is an inherent part of God. God has properties such as "all-good" and "all-powerful", so perhaps "all-logical" as well.
But this is impossible, for the following reason. If God can contain a property of 'logical' then the following statement must be true: That the Universe, that requires no cause or creator, also can contain logic inherently. This means that if this defense is true the Universe doesn't need God in order for logic to exist anyway.

So, no, the proposal that God 'exists outside of logic' is untrue.

Some of you have gone on to say that the human mind itself is limited, and this appears certainly to put a firm stop to all intellectualisation, it certainly looks like an absolute argument-stopper, but it really opens up a whole load of more criticisms.

If the human mind is 'insufficient' for thinking the supernatural, then debating the existance of God is silly. It is the human mind, human thought and human mentality that has arrived at the concept of God in the first place.

To propose that God is 'beyond logic' is the admission that belief is beyond logic and that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible.


Some of you have made the claim that the 'unknown' is explanation for God.
There are x things that science doesn't explain and the concept of God explains them therefor God exists.
The 'unknown', new facts and new arguments, are just as likely to disprove any given theory as they are to prove it, and it is for this reason that this argument is unusable. In addition, it is certainly a historical trend that scientific evidence has always enroached upon supernatural belief and the exploration of the unknown is largely bad news for religion. Appealing to the unknown is only setting a timebomb for religion, because at such as that unknown is explained then it can no longer be used as an argument.


If God can make plans, think logically or exist, then logic is an over-arching power that encompasses God and gives reason for God's existance, which makes it impossible for God to be the creator of logic. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then there is no logical reason why the Universe exists and instead of assuming that the organisational force is 'God', it is simpler and more rational to assume that it is the Universe itself. Whether God exists for logical reasons or not, fundemental contradictions occur either way.
The only answer is that the creator-God cannot exist.

Mort, that was beautifully well put.

I think that the primary reason for religion popping up just about every where in early civilizations is a need to explain things that early man could not comprehend. Let's face it- we haven't always been as knowledgable about the world around us as we are today, and are less so than the people of tomorrow will be as well. There are a lot of things that people couldn't explain, and so a logical thing for people to do is try to explain it through story. Over time, this gets developed into the culture as people advance, things get built up, and eventually, the stories and explanations simply become what we call religion. As civilizations fade and merge, religions die off, combine to form new ones, etc. I don't think the fact that there are religions all over teh world testifies to there actually being a common god. Many civilizations have come up with writing systems, does that mean that some greater power instructed them all? I don't think so.

I think we're moving closer and closer to an age where religion will finally disappear, as we continue to understand more about how the universe works. I think it's only a matter of time.

There's a quote I like that I read in Jack McDevitt's book Eternity Road. I forget it exactly but it went something like:
The world began with religion and will end in philosophy.

I thought it was interesting and really made me think about how now with all our technology many don't seem to put the dedication in religion as they once did...

Look... this is the normal order of discovering reality: a child encounters an object. The child manipulates it, twists it around, drops it, drops it again but in a slightly different way, puts it into his mouth, etc... this is epistemology and the scientific method at its best. This is how all knowledge is obtained: we observe a phenomenon, and we question the **** out of it.

What religion does is the exact opposite: we observe a phenomenon, ask ourselves 'is it compatible with our specific religious dogma?', and if not reject it.

This could be a defendable stance if any kind of god had some sort of evidence going for it. But there's not. None.

Read the above again, then read this: This could be a defendable stance if any kind of god had some sort of evidence going for it. But there's not. None.

There's not a SINGLE reason why we should give the concept of god ANY credibility.

Your personal, subjective, biased, opinionated feelings don't matter at all in the search for reality. Somewhere across the globe some dude believes the exact opposite of what you believe, and is equally convinced that he's right and you're wrong. And it's not that you have evidence to prove that your god is right and his is wrong. You just ***KNOW***.

Guys here who have studied ethology know that lots of 'higher' species (wrong term) have a frame of time in which the organism is extremely sensitive to certain ideas and stimuli. A famous experiment by Lorenz shows this: when a few ducklings hatched, a sensitive period for attachment triggered, and because Lorenz was the first moving object they saw, they followed it around.



This mechanism exists in humans too (since we're just another animal species), but the sensitive time frame of attachment only opens at the age of four years, and lasts pretty long. You can tell whatever you want to child of that age, and it'll believe it.

How many of your parents acknowledged this and didn't indoctrinate you with the bs you believe today? Little Tommy is in an impressionable stage of life and we should put off telling him about Jesus the Christ our Savior® till he's intellectually mature. My guess is, not many.

I'm pretty glad of the stuff I was taught during my sensitive time frame: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on.

Religion lacks every single one of these virtues.

Also not that, conveniently, noone ever managed to answer this

If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence. (Dawkins)

The dude who says science is just another form of religion should go outside, in the real world, and get a ****ing clue.



Because believing something exists only when there's a reason to believe it is the standard stance. See first paragraph.



What 'free will'? Read the challenge above.

Read this, the letter Dawkins wrote to his daughter to warn her from the obvious bs religion tries to lay on all of us. This is the final paragraph, but you should read the whole letter:

What can we do about all of this? It's not easy for you to do anything because you are only 10. But you could try this. Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself, 'Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?' And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them, 'What kind of evidence is there for that?' And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say. Your loving Daddy.

Not only is there no evidence at all for any kind of religious belief, those very beliefs are also dangerous, violent, hateful, intolerant and enemy to peace. Belief in Bertrand Russell's postulated china teapot orbiting the sun does not trigger man's inhumanity to man. "Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first." Only religion has an unbroken record of inspiring ninety percent of all manmade evil for at least three thousand years.

Asking questions is NOT a temptation of Satan to break your belief; it's the only normal thing to do. You did it as a baby, so why not keep doing it?

It's turtles ALLLLLLLLL the way down!