Do you believe in God?

How so. Relative to what?



So your saying that it is more likely that 'something' came from 'nothing' than that a being created the something?

Relative to a supremely intelligent and complex being.

What is the chance that a bunch of elements spring up from nowhere? Answer: Greater than a bunch of matter springing up from nowhere and creating an infinitely complex being (God).



Then that being had to come from nothing.

It is much more likely that a disorganized mass came from nothing than an organized, complex, and intelligent one.

no, any reason to do so?



Actually, you can, and I have. If there is no evidence to disprove a claim, the claim cannot be shown to be false. It's not counterintuitive, this is not a logical fallacy (show me which fallacy!) it's a fairly simple claim.

Sure, if someone says "God exists" the burden of proof is on this person. Until they claim is verified, there is no reason to believe that God exists. I've admitted this so far.

However, I've also argued that for an atheist to claim 'there is no God', the atheist should provide some evidence just as the theist should provide evidence for his claim.

And this has been my point. Neither the theist nor the atheist, making such claims as "God exists" and "God does not exist", can hope to prove their claim to be true. Emprical evidence simply does not provide the atheist and the theist the opprotunity to prove these claims.



I'm begining to think you spent very little time reading my post before relying to it.

So... Why believe in God? Well, I believe in God because of personal experience. This experience is not sufficient for you to believe, but it is sufficient for me to believe.

You talk about God being illogical. The problem with these sorts of claims is, obviously, which God?

Are you suggesting that you have some way of determining the probabilities involved in that statement? Do you have any reason to think that we have "detected" a large portion of reality? How would you know that we had?

Who are you to say that the univerise is simple by any means? Especially relative to a being who you have no concept of?



I would guess none, since something cannot come from nothing.



We are not discussing God's origin, we are discussing our universes origin.



Again, we are not discussing God's origin, we our dicussing our universes origin. ]



Is that logical, or a violation of logic?



One word... Entropy.

Also, who says that our mass is disorganized?

I do. Perhaps the 'time' before the Big Bang was a state of complete organization, and we are in the process of becoming disorganized. Our mass is thus in more of a disorganized state than the 'original position'.

The answer to your question also depends on the description of God. For some, it is a divine power.... whereas it can also be just "you" who is God..... or a tree can be God, or any form of energy can be God....... I think this is a huge topic...... God can be a neural synapse as simply put; so it can just be a neuron firing..... So, I think the description of God is more important than it's existence. Even Atheism has a God on it's own because t still is a "system" of belief..... so any system can also be a "God".

I don't know if I believe in god because I've had such a shaky background with religion. I believe there's something out there but I'm not sure if it's God or not.

Yes, I believe in God.

Why? ..... Because, through successful meditation (silencing the mind chatter), one can go 'within' beneath the veils of ego personality and beneath the sensory input of all external appearances and eventually discover 'a light'.

The 'light' is powerful and creative and exists outside of the space/time continuum. The 'light' is conscious, living and 'real'. It (the 'light') does not quite 'fit' the theological definitions of 'God'. In fact, the 'light' is so utterly comprehensive that the word "God" is the only (type of) 'definition' that is not a limitation.

Once this 'light' is discovered then the dichomoty between 'evolution' and 'Intelligent Design' disintegrates into 'oneness' (a unity). In other words, 'Man' is 'the glove' and God is 'the hand'.

Its all much more exciting than the theologists say. It is filled with infinite possibilities and potentialities, and the only 'dilemma' is "To Be, or not To Be" (to choose) and then to choose 'what' "To Be".

Bottom line: When one strips away the 'beasty nature' and 'gets under' all of the sensory information and then proceeds futher to 'get under' the veils of ego/personality then they will find 'God'.

Summary: Anyone wishing to 'find God' is well advised to 'strip search' their psyche.

.

Religion really has nothing to do with God. Religion is a product of man, not God. Discovering God... that still light within is actually far from any sort of religion.

Great post Play_Dough. Couldn't have described it any better! Thank you!

God is a mindless fairy tale expressed by the weak who cannot accept the aimless relativity that is existence through their fragile minds.

Whether god experiences is irrelevant, but yes he does exist. We can choose whether we want God to exist or not. Hard to accept because most people think that the physical has greater potential than the fundamental, but to be quite honest, I couldn't care less about the physical nature of god. He is a created being who exists in the heart of humanity, yet the most transcendent part of reality.

I voted "No" for a lot of reasons. I *like* to think I'm open to suggestion and new ideas, but I am getting old and crass :rolleyes:

I've never taken the view that 'belief' was a conscious process. To me, belief is a scale I traverse wherein as the amount of evidence and reason grows so does my scale move towards 'knowledge'. In my mind, if I'm honest with myself, its' not a decision; moreso, a statement of assertion as to where I stand. Can belief be consciously imposed? I've read many intelligent, well-intentioned folks say it can. I don't see it.

But I've gotta tell ya, when I see what I perceive to be honest, heartfelt and powerful belief in some I am inspired! Despite my negative views on theism I still have, in my heart of hearts, a soft spot for those with strong conviction and perhaps secretly admire them for what I have not.

I can see myself viewing 'belief' that way. But right now I change my mind about so many things it's hard to believe anything and keep it within the unconscious scale.

I believe in the existence of the concept of god but not that it is necessarily a true one, many people forget that when considering a source you be the question "From whence did the source come, and from whence that?" It is an infinite line of questioning to ask the cause of a physical act, without specifiyng a point you never get a path to your answer. Further, if the nature of god is not physical or able to be put in terms that humans can understand(which is the only condition under which a creator can be useful, as if he held no answers that man could not of what use could he be but a hopeful hypothetical?) then what use is he to us anyway? We are persuaded to agnisticism in light of the few answers which god if he exists may hold, but we have no basis for action in his name for we cannot know his will for if we could we would be able to ourselfs will it and it would be human will not devine will! Do you see the problem? There can be no basis for knowledge nor action found in a god so it is really just a feeling of hope based in an unkowable abstraction!

In an attempt to find some justifable logic therein, I have inverted your statement, which, in fact, has nothing to do with belief in God so much as your intolerance of those who do believe in God, It would read thus:

"God is a mindful truth expressed by the strong who accept the purposeful absolute that is existence through their stable minds."

Here are the elements compared and contrasted:

-If mindless fairy tales exist, mindful Truths must also exist, without mindful Truths we have no basis by which to measure mindless fairy tales.
-If weakness exists, so too must strength.
-Alhough your description of the nature of relativity as 'aimless' seems more akin to literary irony, let us for the sake of argument, accept your statement, and propose that if aimless relativity exists so too must purposeful absolutes.
-We must accept that in your aimless theory of relativity, weak minds exist with as much certainty as stable minds.
-Although it is justifable to argue that non-existence is the inverse state of existence, and in all probability is the state of potentiality which validates an argument in favour of existence itself, it is notable that your statement attempts no discourse as to the possibility that existence may or may not be an absolute, I have therefore lead the inverse statement above away from this tangent. We agree, in this instance, that Existence exists as an absolute.
-As the subject of your principal argument, I cannot argue that God does or does not exist by way of stating the inverse of God, that would defeat the purpose of such an analysis. In other words to prove that something exists in contrast to the existence of God would suggest that God exists, and you clearly do not tolerate arguments in favour of God's existence.

However: you do accept that weakness and strength, fragility and stability exist as relative terms; that Mindful Truths exist; and finally that the Absolute has a purpose.

Would you care to elaborate on your beliefs concerning the nature of this absolute, mindful Truth with statements that illustrate the strength of your stable mind? Apparently, I am too fragile to do so for you.

Pythagorean,

I believe God is an idea, and an important one, but do not believe it is valid of reality. The reason i don't believe God is real is because the nature of such a being: creator of the heveans and the earth, contradicts the very nature of the reality we seem to inhabit. The cause and effect relations that bind everything together in a coherent whole are confounded by the existence of such a being - omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.

If there were such a thing, we could not know anything. The world could have been created anew ten seconds ago by such a being - along with all our memories of it apparently existing before then.

But I think i know the origin of the idea - and try to understand how it has effected the course of human evolution. My conclusion is that while initially beneficial, it is enormously detrimaental to continue in the course of this idea in contradiction of a more valid understanding of 'who made man?' and 'who made the world?'

This is because our conception of the nature of reality defines our identities and pruposes, rationalizes certain actions and prohibits others, and provides the context for a moral and ethical calculus played out everywhere from the everyday lives of individuals, within families and society - right through to big business and international affairs.

I believe that this context should be a valid as possible, for by adopting a valid understanding of reality we don't fool ourselves about who we are, do not pursue false purposes, or skew our moral and ethical sensibilities with fantastical ideation.

So i vote 'no' - and will accept that when i'm dead i cease to be if it means that humankind, thinking straight and acting in accord with valid knowledge of the reality they inhabit, continue to exist. I would rather belong to a species with a future than a heavenly choir, fawning at the hemline of an absentee landlord of a God, who imposed the trails and terrors of reality upon us when by a wave of his omnipotent hand they might be removed.

No, no and thrice no.

As you know, notions of God are vast and diverse. Admitting that God is an idea, what is so necessarily misguided about the idea of God?

God idea X is thought of as being literally the creator of heaven and earth. God idea Y is thought of as being figuratively the creator of heaven and earth. X certainly contradicts what science has to say about the development of heaven and earth, but Y does not contradict our scientific understanding.

If we expand this to the nature of God, where X is believed to be literally omniscient, et al, and Y is thought to be figuratively omniscient, et al, again the problem you present disappears. X certainly contradicts much of the apparent nature of reality, while Y does not pose any threat.

I dig your criticism, as the criticism is vicious to many notions of God, but the criticism does not always seem to stick. There are notions of God which elude the problem you present.



Well, I have to disagree with the problem here. We do not have to imagine some being who is literally omniscient, et al, for us to worry about the world and all of our memories coming into existence ten seconds ago. Even with God out of the picture, how can we honestly know that such a thing has not taken place?

God or no God, if the world, everything in it, and our memories all materialized ten seconds ago, we would have absolutely no way of knowing.



I agree that many religious notions have been terribly destructive. This has always been true. To say that religion was initially beneficial is to ignore the fact that all of the troubles of religion (corruption of religious authority, for example) existed in those earliest of examples.

But again we have the problem of a hasty generalization. Some religious ideas are destructive, therefore all are destructive - the argument does not follow. Some notions of God are not valid, therefore all notions of God are not valid - the argument does not follow. Whatever components we place in this form of argument, the argument is still flawed.

We need a degree of sensitivity for the variety of religious notions, for the variety of God notions. Just like people. There are many terrible people out there, all people are capable of terrible things - but not all people are necessarily terrible.



And so I have to sympathize with your efforts. Too often, blind religious devotion causes suffering. And the mistakes involved should be rooted out and resolved. But you have not shown that all of the fish are bad, and it seems that we can conceive of some God notions that do not suffer from the flaws you so justly and honorably criticize.

One more thing, iconoclast. This world is full of many cultures, and they all swim in different waters. Religion is a major aspect of any culture. The best part is that my water isn't any better than your water - no culture can claim to have the best or most valid perception of reality. All cultures offer an equally valid perception. The problems, what you might call the invalid outlooks, are universal - fanaticism is destructive in all cultural contexts.
So, I think you're going about this in the wrong way. Trying to, essentially, invent the perfect cultural perspective is futile, so perhaps if we want to 'belong to a species with a future', we should begin to work on those troubles that cause harm to all cultures, like fanaticism.

"If there were such a thing, we could not know anything. The world could have been created anew ten seconds ago by such a being - along with all our memories of it apparently existing before then."

This is likely to be the most accurate description of reality! The entire Universe recreates itself every moment of its existence. Waves of energy (memory) travel across a field of space thus creating matter as this energy is transferred.

Is it so difficult to believe that Life's force is the transfer of Energy? And that this energy that is being transferred and fragmented and recombined is GOD??????? Here is a simple example: energy of the sun shines on Earth, the that energy is transformed through photosynthesis into nutrients that are transferred to a passing cow that eats the grass, we in turn may eat the Cow and transfer yet again the energy coming from the sun via the grass via the cow and into us. This would mean that believe it or not you and I are given life from the energy (Hmm, God?) that has been transferred from the beginning of it all until the day you eat your hamburger, even if you don't go to Sunday school.

Your description would be of a static Universe in which nothing moves and there can be no memory whatsoever, this does not correspond to our experience of reality and is a description of nothingness, which is also altogether another concept concerning the nature of God ...

Didymos Thomas,

Please explain to me the logical necessity of the distinction between literal and figurative omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Isn't this just a fudge to explain away the bizzare consequence of these absurd absolutist claims?

I still haven't looked up sufism but i maintain that there are no God notions not supernaturally characterized. It goes with the territory i'm afraid, in contradiction of sound and established scientific fact.

You ask: 'Even with God out of the picture, how can we honestly know that such a thing has not taken place?'

The milk I bought on Saturday has gone off. I remeber buying the milk - and now it has undergone a change that takes time to occur. This correlation between memory, natural processes and the evidence of the senses is the source of my reasonable knowledge that i have existed before now, at least since Saturday!

The point i'm trying to make is that if you assert the existence of this supernatural entity - God, then nothing is even as certain as that because it denies the cause and effect relations that bind everything together. If you're asking for certainty that will map the skeptical land your God seems to inahbit, i can't provide it, and that's the point. By asserting the existence of this supernatural entity - existing in contradiction of cause and effect, you deny the possibility of knowledge, and then everything is truly meaningless.

You argue: 'Some religious ideas are destructive, therefore all are destructive - the argument does not follow. Some notions of God are not valid, therefore all notions of God are not valid - the argument does not follow. Whatever components we place in this form of argument, the argument is still flawed.'

I don't think that religious notions are necessarily destructive - rather they are constructive of morally righteous, inward looking groups living in shared beleif. This is great if you're in one of those groups, and without such groups existing through pre-history we would still be hunting and gathering in the forest. But should someone come along who doesn't share those beliefs, they are ostrasized and demonized - perhaps ritually murdered as a heritic, or an infidel. And when one morally righteous inward looking group in this ever more crowded world rubs borders with another - all hell breaks loose.

'We need a degree of sensitivity for the variety of religious notions...'

No we don't. No right minded man or woman should tolerate these primtive, racist, irrational and false ideas. Teaching religion to children should be considered child abuse and the meme thus stamped out.

You go on to say: 'The problems, what you might call the invalid outlooks, are universal - fanaticism is destructive in all cultural contexts...so perhaps if we want to 'belong to a species with a future', we should begin to work on those troubles that cause harm to all cultures, like fanaticism.'

Don't try and palm off the problems with religion on the most devoted among you. You moderates provide these people with thier justifications - and then stand back in mock horror while secretly chalking one up for the home team.
Your moderation echoes hollow in my ear amidst the crackle of gunfire.