peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 04:30 pm
@kroshanghar,
your english is fine Smile Better than mine Smile Yes well it just seems like a more logical point of view. I mean strip away the mystical parts of the major world religions. And they all basicly state That same princible. Smile
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 06:46 pm
@kroshanghar,
It's only "hard" if your conditioning has made your concept of your place in the world dependent on it. If you had been born to Tibetan buddhists, or Japanese shintoists you wouldn't have that difficulty. Concepts of "self" are acquired through socialization in particular communities whose structure is sometimes maintained by a theistic tradition. All concepts are products of communicative needs of communities which manifest through a common language. We think with sets of sociolinguistic spectacles acquired in childhood. The "intelligent" human is the one recognizes the arbitrary nature of spectacle design and that takes intellectual courage.

There is no "central core" common to theistic religion other than the concept of "purposefulness" and that is merely a manifestation of the human pre-occupation with "planning". "Brotherly love" is the psychological palliative preached to counter our natural tribalism (as primates) which is amplified by religious differences.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 07:40 pm
@fresco,
After 15 minutes of dictionary searching Smile I got to say that sounds good to me Smile
But im not positive though ^^ To make sure I understand what you said, Can you put it in layman terms for me Smile Thank you Smile
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 12:33 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
1. Socialization-> language-> ability to think and plan.
2. Socialization-> "self" as a social agent...an actor in relation to others.
3. Societies reflect the tribalism of primates.
4. Religion can serve societies....
(a) as supportive of the power structure of male dominated societies and as an authority over planning concerns about sexual contact and display.
(b) as an authority for defining the tribe boundaries as those who think like us.
(c) as an authority over the purpose of living and dying.
(d) as psychological protection against the thought of being insignificant.
5. Religion is embedded in the language and therefore in the concept of "self" (as in 2)
6. In short, religion is how many thinking animals attempt to deal with their animal instincts.
7. "God's Love" and "Brotherly Love" are the psychological myths which disguise the sociological facts about religion.
8. All concerns about creation and complexity reflect the limits of human planning abilities within the human creation of "the time dimension".
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 03:47 am
@kroshanghar,
kroshanghar wrote:
maybe have important role in beliving in god
but it doesnt mean god is a creature of human mind


As far as I can tell, the concept of god is man made. I see no other inclination that god is other than that. I'm still waiting for your proff, I mean proof.

kroshanghar wrote:
we can say "we dont know"
but it is so hard absoloutly to say "there is no god"


Hard absolutely to say there is no god? No actually it is quite easy to say there is no god. Just like I am pretty positive that goblins and fairies don't exist, god doesn't exist. The only difference here, is that a theist will often try to come up with unsupportable reasons why goblins and fairies are to be treated different than the concept of god. However; they are exactly the same and should be treated the same. Otherwise you are just showing that you "want" god to be real instead of actually using any sort of logical argument.

My example is the invisible car. I tell you that I know about an invisible car. You start asking me questions about the invisible car. But I can't tell you what color it is, what model it is, or how many seats it has, or if can even drive down the street. So you then ask me, if I can't explain any of it's traits how is it that I know that there is an invisible car? It leads to the actual conclusion that I am just wanting an invisible car to be true and have no basis in reality for believing an invisible car is actually real.

So when you say, "so hard absoloutly to say "there is no god"" then what I see is that you are wanting god to be real and not using any logical reasoning to get there. On top of that you have said there is proof of god yet have provided none so far so I am still waiting for your proof.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 06:10 am
@fresco,
Aha yes see now thats what I thought you said Yes Smile I Agree (Religion) Is the foundantion for the morals that we have in society. Its life as we know it. Lol I cannot imagine another one! Smile So im not gona argue 'The sociedy that we live in' As being good or bad. I have nothing else to compare it with. Smile Now What I can tell you is this. If someone came home from a battlefield were most of his or her friends had died. And this battle was with swords, and clubs And hand to hand combat. You probaly say hey im alive and we won because that was Gods will. Books of valueble True wisdow get ruined when that happens. So thats why my topic did not say 'Proff of Religion' Smile See what I mean. Religion and God are not the same. Smile
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:01 am
@Krumple,
Hehe see now youre looking for proff of a God that fits your personal description. Smile I did give you proof of a God that fits mine Smile
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:25 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
peter jeffrey cobb wrote:

Hehe see now youre looking for proff of a God that fits your personal description. Smile I did give you proof of a God that fits mine Smile


Exactly, you are claiming there is an invisible car...
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:52 am
@Krumple,
Ok You are an educated person. What do you call the mass before the big bang? Eric? joe? Marry? Heck call it what ever you want to. Lets call it Eric for now. And when Eric expanded evreything that we know of came to exist. So are you saying that Eric is a fairy tale? Or is is it something you can taste, touch, smell? Hmm to my understanding that is proff that 'Eric' Exist. Am I making sense?
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 04:38 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Why not call the things that we do not understand what they are? "Things that we do not understand." Is there any thing wrong with saying I do not know the answer to the things that I do not know?

You could make up names for these things if you like, I do not see a problem with that but it does seem to make it easier if we all can relate!
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 09:18 pm
@reasoning logic,
Well sure theres nothing wrong with. But my description of God fits most religions,,,,, well the most basic parts of it. If you apply the mass before the Big Bang as Being God. Then you have a sensible non mystic defenition to it. And then you can say from God evreything came Smile Does that make sense?
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 09:27 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
I do somewhat see where you are coming from but why call something god that we do not understand, "lets just say that one day we are able to understand very well what you speak of, "then what shall we call it?

Would we then call us god?
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Feb, 2011 01:21 am
@reasoning logic,
True. But isnt thinking of yourself as Cell of Gods body makes you fell good? So heck why not. Lets feel good about our self till that day comes Smile
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2011 04:50 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Quote:
But isnt thinking of yourself as Cell of Gods body makes you fell good?


Very typical response, just because it makes you feel good it should be accepted as logical or factual. No that is absurd. We wouldn't have any of the technology that we currently have with that line of reasoning.

The thing you miss as I have pointed out before. When we didn't understand how lightning worked, theists jumped to conclude that it was some god manifesting itself. They did that sort of thing all the time. Another example is before we understood what caused diseases, theists would claim that diseases were caused by demons. Your whole attempt to call the "mass" before the big bang god is exactly the same thing. This is the last ditch effort to try and squeeze in the concept of god, not because it is factual but because you simply can not accept reality without needing to fill it with some sort of god concept. You need this idea so much that you can't see how absurd it is.

You are taking the thing that we don't even know anything about and trying to change it's definition to something even more vague and misleading. Why do that? We don't even know what the big bang was to begin with and you want to slap some overly bloated concept onto it because it makes you feel good. Unacceptable let alone the furthest from scientific that you could get.

It is incredibly funny how you use the argument that the big bang was the start because an infinite god would have to start some where. You can't see how silly that is? What the hell was this god doing before the big bang then? Just hanging out doing absolutely nothing for eternity? I bet here is where you say time doesn't exist for god so god was doing god stuff during the that time before the big bang. But I would once again have to point out how silly of a comment that would be to talk about "doing" something without time. It is a contradiction in terms. You can't "do" anything without time. If time were to stop, you couldn't do anything, think anything, or even know that it were stopped. But god is not bound by temporal phenomena right? Just plain silly...

Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2011 06:16 am
@Krumple,
The more I study the functions and order of the Universe, earth and life therein, the more I believe it illogical to cast aside the possibility of conscious design. To cast poppycock over the theory that some kind of intelligence caused the universe to be, rather than it merely popping into existence with no reasonable cause, sounds as scientifically enforced as the "god works in mysterious ways" christiantypes.

You make jest at the idea of anything operating outside of time, which I accept is your view but I am not sure I understand your stance. If you can help me to grasp what you mean, I would appreciate it.
Is time infinite?
Is it impossible for anything to occur if not bound by the law of time?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2011 06:41 am
@Smileyrius,
Smileyrius wrote:
The more I study the functions and order of the Universe, earth and life therein, the more I believe it illogical to cast aside the possibility of conscious design.


That is how you interpret it. I don't. I have studied human anatomy pretty extensively. If some "intelligent" being were behind the creation of the human body then in my opinion that "designer" was a horrible craftsman. The human body is riddled with very simple flaws that can out right terminate it's own life because of the poor design. It doesn't stop there, I can see other aspects of our known universe to have wildly destructive consequences for what seems to be no purpose. So from my perspective if the universe has some "intelligent" design behind it, than in my opinion that intelligence is not very intelligent.

Smileyrius wrote:
rather than it merely popping into existence with no reasonable cause, sounds as scientifically enforced as the "god works in mysterious ways" christiantypes.


The further we go into quantum physics the more we come to the conclusion that yes "virtual particles" pop into existence and then immediately destroy themselves and what remains is what we consider to be the known matter. You know how this idea was discovered. Trying to explain why mayonnaise was not runny like it should be. Of course you have to have a firm understanding of quantum physics and electrodynamics has shown time and time again that reality is more bizarre than we thought.

But I am probably just wasting my time because I get the impression that you want a solution that is really no solution at all. You want a god to be real so you stop at that and don't question or go any further. But what you have tried to supply as proof, to me is absolutely lacking let alone proof.

Smileyrius wrote:
You make jest at the idea of anything operating outside of time, which I accept is your view but I am not sure I understand your stance.


I was using that as an example of an argument that I have heard from theists. They try to say that god operates outside of time and is therefore not restricted to time. But that makes absolutely no sense to me. You can't "do" anything outside of time. Time itself is what allows things to "do" to begin with. Without time nothing can happen.

Smileyrius wrote:
Is it impossible for anything to occur if not bound by the law of time?


Nothing can happen without time. Can something exist without time, sure probably, but it can't "do" anything or "change", but why? Because change itself is the definition of time. When something changes from one state to another it is due to time. Something was "A" then it became "B" that requires time.

The universe did not exist = "A"
The universe exists = "B"

For "A" to become "B" time is necessary. It is impossible for "A" to become "B" without time being present. Those who claim that it can happen, are butchering the definition of time. Therefore a god can not do or create anything if it existed in a dimension that does not have time. But that doesn't ever stop a theist from trying to assert that it can.

peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2011 07:04 am
@Krumple,
Ok Krumple you are right. You said "We wouldnt have any of the technology we have with this line of reasoning" Ok so lets look at what happens when theres techonlogy when youre view of God is distored or when of God as man, a book, the absense of, a statue. Ok so we are great right? Step back from youre human role just for a minute. I want you think of youre self as an alien species. Youre job is to survey the humans techonological advances. Here what I want you to tell me #1 What percentage of their income do they spend on wars. And #2 for the past 2,000 years What is the longest this world they live in was without a war. #3 What % of their budget are they stpending on futher colonization of other rock (planets) out there. #4 If you had to take a guess how easy would it be to destroy all their techonology (think about EMP events theyre quick and easy) Ok Krumple Ill be awaiting youre response. Please answer these question directly. And After words I want you to call them "Advancements in Technology" Smile Smile Smile
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2011 07:10 am
@reasoning logic,
Yes. Thats it. Now youree getting it. Smile We call it God so We can Unite. We know somewhere down the Dna line we have the same ancestor right? Yet we are willing to nuke, kill, cheat, steal, omng a few things to people that are realy our family. Just say it we are all conected right. Smile
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2011 07:18 am
@Krumple,
Now one more thing real quick Smile You still explaing that you think God should be some dude walking around making things go poof and magical make thing things appear and disapear and magical stuff. Lol quit being silly. Realy it doesnt matter if you call my undestanding of God Eric, joe, willam, or what ever right? So by what ever name you call it We can all agree that the mass before the Big Bang was responsible for expanding and of it it came evreything that we currently know of right? So does that it make you feel good that you own evrething to Eric joe or well Krumple what name did you give it let me ask?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2011 07:45 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Quote:
#1 What percentage of their income do they spend on wars.


Well what percentage of wars are based off religious progress? Pretty much all of them and these current ones are religiously motivated.

Quote:
#2 for the past 2,000 years What is the longest this world they live in was without a war.


What does this have to do with anything? So people are willing to create tools to kill each other. Science does more than create weapons for killing. But you won't acknowledge that because it contradicts the point you are trying to make. The fact that we can hundred story build buildings that don't fall down and also have bathrooms on the top floor without causing water pipes to burst is not because of guess work.

Quote:
3 What % of their budget are they stpending on futher colonization of other rock (planets) out there.


Irrelevant. Why is it even necessary to colonize other rocks anyways? I fail to see what your question even points to. Just because we are not currently spending money on trying to colonize another planet, that technology is some how flawed? Really? Is that your skewed perspective on technology?

Quote:
#4 If you had to take a guess how easy would it be to destroy all their techonology (think about EMP events theyre quick and easy)


Just because electronic devices can be destroyed or left interoperable because of an electrical impulse that makes technology less than advanced? What? That doesn't even make any sense. You seem to have this very simplistic view on what technology is.

In fact I don't even see what point you are even trying to make with your line of questioning. It seems as though you are trying to undermine technology yet at the same time you use and surround yourself in it every day and then take a big dump on it.

When I said my comment about the line of reasoning of a theist, I meant that to actually use the mindset that you have, we wouldn't have any technology at all. Because your mindset is so baseless that you couldn't actually have a logical outcome that would be useful at all. We would still be huddled up around a camp fire, no language, no clothes, no houses, no tools, nothing.
 

Related Topics

Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
believe in god! - Question by roammer
The existence of God - Question by jwagner
Are Gods Judgments righteous? - Discussion by Smileyrius
What did God do on Day 8? - Question by HesDeltanCaptain
What do you think about world? - Question by Joona
 
  1. Forums
  2. » proff of god?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 03:22:01