11
   

Man created the gods, why do we believe God created man?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 05:39 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
It's a bad analogy, because in the examples you give, other people are trying to reach conclusions about my personal experience, but in the example under discussion, we are trying to reach a conclusion about the origin and nature of the universe.


But you see, I have no problem with your conclusion about the origin and nature of the universe. I have no problem with the big bang theory and I have no problem with evolution or any other scientific theories. These may or may not turn out to be the way they are currently believed to be, but I don't have any problem with the concepts in themselves. But it is the God whom I have experienced that makes me able to believe that it was him who formed the matter of which the universe is made. Do you have a better theory about where all the stuff that makes up the universe came from?

And it is the God whom I have experienced who would have formed the components of the universe in such a way that a 'big bang' would occur. He lit the fuse so to speak. Do you have a better theory about how all that came to pass?

And since such things are easy for me to believe due to that of God which he has allowed me to experience, I don't have any problem whatsoever in seeing Evolution coexisting peacefully side by side or within a larger concept of intelligent design.

For me there is no conflict between God and science for I am confident that God is the author of all that we understand as science.

I also think that all of us are going to be really surprised about some of this stuff when we are privy to know how it all came about.

The analogy I used was purely to illustrate that there is much that we all believe that we cannot prove to anybody else. We have all experienced all kinds of things that we cannot prove to anybody else that we have experienced them.

I do find it rather remarkable that out of all those things that we have experienced but cannot prove that we have experienced, it is usually mostly the professed experience of God that some go way out of their way to dispute or discredit. I have long concluded that the reason for that is that a concept of God is terrifying to some who have never experienced Him.

When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 06:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Its the same old story. We don't understand thunder, so it must be Thor the god of thunder. We dont understand what causes rain, and water is vital for life, therefore we sacrifice to the Rain God. Everything we dont understand or where there is a gap in our knowledge is explained by reference to some supernatural being. We do not fully understand the origin of the Universe, but compared with the Boshongo people we have made significant progress. Throughout that journey of discovery gods and supernatural entities have been discarded in favour of rationality and natural phenomena. Doesn't that give us a clue as to what is really going on?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 09:17 am
Brandon writes
Quote:
When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.


I haven't asked you or anybody else to accept my theory. I have only provided the reason that I hold it. It is irrational for you to presume that I have not experienced what I say that I have experienced when you have no way to dispute that other than the fact that you do not wish to believe it.

Further, when you add my testimony to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of others, it becomes quite irrational to not at least consider the possibility that what is being testified to exists. You know that if he testimony was about anything other than God/supernatural, you would not be so quick to reject it out of hand purely because the people could provide you with no material evidence.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 11:18 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Brandon writes
Quote:
When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.


I haven't asked you or anybody else to accept my theory. I have only provided the reason that I hold it. It is irrational for you to presume that I have not experienced what I say that I have experienced when you have no way to dispute that other than the fact that you do not wish to believe it.

Further, when you add my testimony to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of others, it becomes quite irrational to not at least consider the possibility that what is being testified to exists. You know that if he testimony was about anything other than God/supernatural, you would not be so quick to reject it out of hand purely because the people could provide you with no material evidence.

My personal tendencies really have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of your model of the universe. As I said, one could justify any theory whatever based on, "it was revealed to me personally," including false theories. The only rational basis on which I can determine the nature of the universe is observation of characteristics of the universe. Why do you suppose it is that you cannot provide any external characteristic of the universe whatever that points toward the existence of a God?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 05:53 pm
@Brandon9000,
What would you say was the No. 1 characteristic of the universe you have observed Brandon? The one most important to you personally I mean.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 06:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Brandon writes
Quote:
When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.


I haven't asked you or anybody else to accept my theory. I have only provided the reason that I hold it. It is irrational for you to presume that I have not experienced what I say that I have experienced when you have no way to dispute that other than the fact that you do not wish to believe it.

Further, when you add my testimony to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of others, it becomes quite irrational to not at least consider the possibility that what is being testified to exists. You know that if he testimony was about anything other than God/supernatural, you would not be so quick to reject it out of hand purely because the people could provide you with no material evidence.

My personal tendencies really have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of your model of the universe. As I said, one could justify any theory whatever based on, "it was revealed to me personally," including false theories. The only rational basis on which I can determine the nature of the universe is observation of characteristics of the universe. Why do you suppose it is that you cannot provide any external characteristic of the universe whatever that points toward the existence of a God?


I point to the universe itself. Where did the stuff of the universe come from? Why is a Supreme Being as author and architect less logical than any other theory put out there? What evidence--what external characteristic--can you point to that suggests anything else provided the basic stuff of the universe as well as the time and space within which it functions?

Other than that I have presented no model of the universe whatsoever other than those which are already accepted as scientific theories. I have simply stated that I have experienced God; therefore I know he exists. There is no external evidence because God must be apparently be experienced in order to be known.

You have absolutely no external characteristic that points to dozens of things that you experienced today either. But I bet you are absolutely certain that you had the experience.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 01:18 am

If there was a God, and He was omnipotent and omniscient and omni-present and all of that stuff, why would he be bothered creating people like us?

And why did He create mosquitos?
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 02:24 am
@McTag,
He didn't...he created beautiful winged pixies who perched on your arm and put honey and cotton candy directly into your body painlessly.....Satan turned and perverted them into mosquitos.... obviously you're not a bible scholar....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 04:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Brandon writes
Quote:
When you say that God created the universe, no matter how he did it, you are making a very specific assertion about the universe, which is either correct or incorrect. You can use "personal experience" to justify absolutely any assertion whatsoever. It would be illogical for anyone to accept your assertion in the utter absence of evidence. I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God, and you appear to be able to give me none. In the absence of evidence, it would simply be stupid for me or anyone else to accept your theory. It seems odd to me that this being could exist and be responsible for the origin and operation of the universe, yet leave behind not one shred of evidence that he exists.


I haven't asked you or anybody else to accept my theory. I have only provided the reason that I hold it. It is irrational for you to presume that I have not experienced what I say that I have experienced when you have no way to dispute that other than the fact that you do not wish to believe it.

Further, when you add my testimony to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of others, it becomes quite irrational to not at least consider the possibility that what is being testified to exists. You know that if he testimony was about anything other than God/supernatural, you would not be so quick to reject it out of hand purely because the people could provide you with no material evidence.

My personal tendencies really have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of your model of the universe. As I said, one could justify any theory whatever based on, "it was revealed to me personally," including false theories. The only rational basis on which I can determine the nature of the universe is observation of characteristics of the universe. Why do you suppose it is that you cannot provide any external characteristic of the universe whatever that points toward the existence of a God?


I point to the universe itself. Where did the stuff of the universe come from?

Numerous explanations are possible. Today, scientists are ironing out the fine details of the Big Bang Theory. Of course, one can ask, "but where did that come from?" indefinitely. However, just because we don't know the scientific explanation for something such as what thunder is, is no reason to go with the supernatural. Up until this point, the explanations we have learned for how phenomena work have always been natural. I'll go with "scientific principles not yet discovered."

Foxfyre wrote:
Why is a Supreme Being as author and architect less logical than any other theory put out there?

It would be inconsistent with what we've learned up to this point, which is that natural phenomena have natural, scientific explanations. Of course, there could be a God, but I certainly won't accept that theory until some evidence suggests it's the correct one.

Foxfyre wrote:
What evidence--what external characteristic--can you point to that suggests anything else provided the basic stuff of the universe as well as the time and space within which it functions?

The Big Bang Theory, which, itself, has both theoretical and experimental support. But, to answer your next question, "Yes, but where did that come from?" I will only accept the God theory, or any theory, when someone starts showing me evidence which suggests it's the correct one. Got any?

Foxfyre wrote:
Other than that I have presented no model of the universe whatsoever other than those which are already accepted as scientific theories. I have simply stated that I have experienced God; therefore I know he exists. There is no external evidence because God must be apparently be experienced in order to be known.

You have absolutely no external characteristic that points to dozens of things that you experienced today either. But I bet you are absolutely certain that you had the experience.

The assertion, "a supreme supernatural being created and operates the universe" is on the table here, and my answer is simply that I am prepared to accept it at the point that someone can give me evidence that it's true, and not before. That's how any logical person ought to respond to any proposed explanation.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 05:01 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

What would you say was the No. 1 characteristic of the universe you have observed Brandon? The one most important to you personally I mean.

I don't see how what's important to me is relevant to a discussion of the mechanics of the universe, and I won't answer some screwy question just because you ask it, until you can explain it's relevance to the topic being debated.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 01:20 pm
@Brandon9000,
The topic as it is being debated has no relevance to anything as far as I can tell.

I liked "ironing out the fine details" thing though.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 05:57 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

The topic as it is being debated has no relevance to anything as far as I can tell.

I liked "ironing out the fine details" thing though.

It has relevance to the important question of whether it's reasonable to believe in God.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 08:11 am
@Brandon9000,
If you wish to think that's an important question you are perfectly at liberty to do so. I don't.

You have no way of distinguishing between a professed belief and a real belief. It's a psychological problem.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 12:25 pm
Brandon writes
Quote:
The assertion, "a supreme supernatural being created and operates the universe" is on the table here, and my answer is simply that I am prepared to accept it at the point that someone can give me evidence that it's true, and not before. That's how any logical person ought to respond to any proposed explanation.


No, that a supreme supernatural being created and operates the universe is not what is on the table here. The thread title/thesis doesn't address that at all. Whether it is plausible that a Supreme Being exists or is a product of human imagination is what is on the table.

To dismiss as valid a particular reported experience of hundreds of millions of people is not rational unless one dismisses any reported experience that one has not experienced himself/herself. One does not need to believe that the experience has been interpreted correctly, but to insist that there is no evidence for such experience when such a great cloud of witnesses has testified to it flies in the face of scientific principle.

Those who have experienced certain psychic phenomena are true believers. Those who have not sometimes believe and sometimes dismiss it as bunk. Those who have seen spiritual phenomena (i.e. ghosts, auras, et al) are true believers. Those who have not sometimes believe and some dismiss it as bunk. Those who have experienced 'flying saucers' or other seemingly other-worldly craft are true believers. Those who have not sometimes believe and some dismiss it as bunk. True scientists may be skeptical that the witnesses are interpreting all such experiences accurately, but no true scientist would presume that all such witnesses are delusional and/or that there is nothing at all behind all such reports.

Those who are color blind and those who are not cannot imagine how the other sees the world they see, but they can believe that each sees it differently. There is no adequate way to describe such an experience--one must have the experience to know--but no scientist would presume to dismiss the reality out of hand just because nobody can 'prove' it through anything other than personal testimony.

Those who have experienced God know that God (by whatever name) exists. From that experience it does not take a great leap of faith to believe that such a Being was the likely author of the universe and all that is in it and that belief does not require any specifics of how the Being did it if it did. Nobody who is rational would suggest that there is any proof of that. But neither would anyone who is being intellectually honest say that it is an irrational concept.

One way to experience what those who testify experience of God is to have the experience yourself. I believe anybody who wants it can have it. It would make a great scientific experiement, yes?





spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 12:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
No, that a supreme supernatural being created and operates the universe is not what is on the table here. The thread title/thesis doesn't address that at all. Whether it is plausible that a Supreme Being exists or is a product of human imagination is what is on the table.


Have you really no idea Foxy of how silly that sounds. If VIZ, our adult comic, put those words into the mouth of the Archbishop of Caterbury as the editors, who must all be celibates, are often wont to do, they would finish with-

"now--what's for dinner?"

You make it sound like a committee meeting at a Community Outreach Venture trying to decide whether to allow the hockey team to change in the netball changing room.

It's a mixed metaphor of the highest order.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 01:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
One way to experience what those who testify experience of God is to have the experience yourself. I believe anybody who wants it can have it. It would make a great scientific experiement, yes?


It's been done Foxy. All down the years and all over the place. Ceremonies.

Evolved combinations of sense distortions. Light, sound, fragrances, rhythm. Swelling organs, incense, crescendo and diminuendo. Or jungle jug bands in the moonlight with torches burning.

The Roman Catholic church has been selected in through its manipulation of these powerful forces. Mass in St Peter's on Easter Sunday sets the standard.
It's rich because it is successful. And the society it created is rich.

Nobody can touch it. Try Midnight Mass in a cathedral a bit popped up, which isn't difficult on Christmas Eve.

I've seen others. I think that it doesn't work with married men officiating. They can't pull it off properly. They can't look insanely jealous when marrying a comely, virginal wench on her big day. Nor be quite so cheerful at baptisms because the little monster is somebody else's. Married men have no dignity. You have to suspend your scientific training to think otherwise.

What you might try for a scientific experiment is a tour of cathedrals to study regional variations in the ceremonials and mark them for the Oceanic Feeling factor. If you can get a big enough slice of pork I might consider accompanying you to take notes when you're swaying from side to side.

Atheists have no chance. Hypnosists will tell you that you can only hypnotise someone who is receptive to being hypnotised. Some atheist teacher somewhere took it off them.





edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 01:42 pm
I had intended to leave a remark on this thread, but, Brandon is doing very well. I agree with all the statements I have read by him posted here. I have only gone over parts of this thread sporadically, but I don't seem to have missed anything of earth-shattering significance.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 02:32 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
One way to experience what those who testify experience of God is to have the experience yourself. I believe anybody who wants it can have it. It would make a great scientific experiement, yes?


It's been done Foxy. All down the years and all over the place. Ceremonies.

Evolved combinations of sense distortions. Light, sound, fragrances, rhythm. Swelling organs, incense, crescendo and diminuendo. Or jungle jug bands in the moonlight with torches burning.

The Roman Catholic church has been selected in through its manipulation of these powerful forces. Mass in St Peter's on Easter Sunday sets the standard.
It's rich because it is successful. And the society it created is rich.

Nobody can touch it. Try Midnight Mass in a cathedral a bit popped up, which isn't difficult on Christmas Eve.

I've seen others. I think that it doesn't work with married men officiating. They can't pull it off properly. They can't look insanely jealous when marrying a comely, virginal wench on her big day. Nor be quite so cheerful at baptisms because the little monster is somebody else's. Married men have no dignity. You have to suspend your scientific training to think otherwise.

What you might try for a scientific experiment is a tour of cathedrals to study regional variations in the ceremonials and mark them for the Oceanic Feeling factor. If you can get a big enough slice of pork I might consider accompanying you to take notes when you're swaying from side to side.

Atheists have no chance. Hypnosists will tell you that you can only hypnotise someone who is receptive to being hypnotised. Some atheist teacher somewhere took it off them.






jeez i wish you would just say what you think spendy. We have a smallish a2k gathering in embryonic form for monday. Walter and mrs W. Steve and mrs S. Mct and well probably one of his devoted groupies from the 70's. We will come to some definitive answer to this question, probably in the blue boar. If you wanna come down Spends, we'll all buy you a pint, just to see what happens.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 03:23 pm
@Steve 41oo,
Thanks for the invite Steve but I'm needed here to deal with aspects of the Credit Crunch.

What did you find difficult to follow?
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:18 am
@spendius,
absinthe
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 05:41:50