27
   

Is there proof God exists?

 
 
Xenoche
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 11:54 pm
@Diest TKO,
Awesome post TKO, my thoughts exactly.
0 Replies
 
Kenson
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 12:28 am
@Diest TKO,
Ooooooooh yes, "In short: God in unnecessary in an understanding of the universe."

But, 'God' is necessary, if you are searching for a pemanent or everlasting or strong faith!
Francis
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 12:57 am
@Kenson,
Maybe, but is faith necessary?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 12:58 am
@Kenson,
Kenson wrote:

Ooooooooh yes, "In short: God in unnecessary in an understanding of the universe."

But, 'God' is necessary, if you are searching for a pemanent or everlasting or strong faith!

I'll confidently say that the quest for a understanding of the universe is a far more enlightened quest than the quest for any faith be it permanent, everlasting, strong or otherwise.

T
K
O
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 01:26 am
One of the reasons for the circular nature of this thread is the lack of agreement on what constitutes proof.

Another problem arises from a failure to define the nature of the entity being called 'god'.

For the moment, let us refer to the Hebrew word for God as represented by the tetragrammaton, YHWH. Translated as Yahweh or Jehovah, it means "He who causes to become".

Were we to extend this definition to the outworking of this thread, we should be considering manifestations of intelligent causality, not simply in the physical universe, but also within the logical constructs of space and time. 'Natural' and 'Supernatural' may not be sufficient when considering the possibility that causality itself may have been created or that time may not be linear.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 02:01 am
@neologist,
Neologist,

I'm not going back to check, but I'm pretty certain that I have stated the circularity of this and similar threads rests on the assumption that we understand what "existence" means. All the other problem areas you raised like "causality" and "proof" are predicated on that assumption.

It is interesting for example that from Heideigger's point of view "existence" (Existenz) can only be applied to humanity (Dasein) who evoke "being" in what they temporally perceive as "the universe". In other words, there is no "substance" physical or metaphysical which has "being" other than that which humanity requires in the praxis of living.
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 02:22 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I'll confidently say that the quest for a understanding of the universe is a far more enlightened quest than the quest for any faith be it permanent, everlasting, strong or otherwise.

T
K
O

Well that's a very unilateral way to view the purposefulness of one's time on earth.
Why could it not be just as important for a person to pursue a quest for faith in oneself, his or her own abilities and strengths, faith and belief in the people around him or her, faith in a lasting partnership, faith in a personal credo?

What if you're not particularly interested in understanding the entire universe? Maybe that's not a burning need or desire for a particular person. Maybe some people just want to understand and find a way to live in their own particular patch of of the universe which they find to be their particular reality.

I think day to day living takes faith in something.
Throwing away belief and faith in exchange for knowledge seems unnecessary to me. Some people can acknowledge the need for both in their lives.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 04:43 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Quote:
I'll confidently say that the quest for a understanding of the universe is a far more enlightened quest than the quest for any faith be it permanent, everlasting, strong or otherwise.

T
K
O

Well that's a very unilateral way to view the purposefulness of one's time on earth.

Sure.

aidan wrote:

Why could it not be just as important for a person to pursue a quest for faith in oneself, his or her own abilities and strengths, faith and belief in the people around him or her, faith in a lasting partnership, faith in a personal credo?

You're now convoluting the topic. Do you want to talk about "purposefulness" or "importance?" I used neither term, but you've used both now. Examine the statement I made.

aidan wrote:

What if you're not particularly interested in understanding the entire universe?

They're probably not that interesting.

I'm not going to say that anyone does understand it all, but the desire to know and quest to find out as much as possible is enlightened. It is much more enlightened than accepting in faith that the world as planned, designed and operated.

aidan wrote:

Maybe that's not a burning need or desire for a particular person.

I never said it was a requisite of life. I said it was more enlightened to seek out an understanding of the universe than to seek out faith.

aidan wrote:

Maybe some people just want to understand and find a way to live in their own particular patch of of the universe which they find to be their particular reality.

Even that task is better accomplished by investigating the universe. You're going to find a better way to "live in [your] own particular patch" if the universe is better understood by humanity.

aidan wrote:

I think day to day living takes faith in something.

But not faith in a god. My faith in things substantive is just as good, probably better in fact.

aidan wrote:

Throwing away belief and faith in exchange for knowledge seems unnecessary to me.

I never said knowing was necessary. I said a god was not necessary in understanding the universe.

Throwing away faith may seem like a waste to you, but to me it seems as valuable as putting a dirty napkin in your pocket. Sometimes it's appropriate to discard certain things.

aidan wrote:

Some people can acknowledge the need for both in their lives.

What "acknowledge" and "need" imply in this statement are poor premises to base a conclusion on.

I've not commented on need. We do not need to be enlightened either. We only want it.

T
K
O
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 09:29 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Neologist,

I'm not going back to check, but I'm pretty certain that I have stated the circularity of this and similar threads rests on the assumption that we understand what "existence" means. All the other problem areas you raised like "causality" and "proof" are predicated on that assumption.

It is interesting for example that from Heideigger's point of view "existence" (Existenz) can only be applied to humanity (Dasein) who evoke "being" in what they temporally perceive as "the universe". In other words, there is no "substance" physical or metaphysical which has "being" other than that which humanity requires in the praxis of living.
I believe you have, fresco. Cogito assures us only of our own existence.
We assume the existence of others, whether tangible or intangible.
However, we go about our daily lives predicated on that assumption.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 09:56 am
@neologist,
According to Heidegger, cogito assures us of nothing of the kind. We are "thrown" into a social world such that solipsism is axiomatically perverse. "Thinking" is predicated on the social currency "language" .

"Language speaks the man !" is a celebrated aphorism of his.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 10:10 am
@fresco,
I suppose my point of view is skewed.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 10:36 am
@Kenson,
In which case, Abraham did not hear "god" telling him to kill Isaac. So, Abraham was a dangerous, potentially murderous lunatic. See just how wonderful scripture is?

Why should i agree with John and Paul, given that there is no substantiation for any of their claims?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 11:47 am
@neologist,
Quote:
I suppose my point of view is skewed.


All points of view are "enframed" in an evolving social context. The mistake is to assume there are "absolutes" against which we can determine "objective truth". In essence "truth" is negotiated as "that which works for us."
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 12:32 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
aidan wrote:

Quote:
I'll confidently say that the quest for a understanding of the universe is a far more enlightened quest than the quest for any faith be it permanent, everlasting, strong or otherwise.

T
K
O
Well that's a very unilateral way to view the purposefulness of one's time on earth.
Diest said:
Sure.

Your response is self-explanatory then. And that's fine - it's just that I have a hard time feeling satisfied with a unilateral view of almost anything...but if you do, you do.
That's at least one way in which our modus operandi in terms of thinking about things differs and probably explains how we reach different conclusions.

Quote:
You're now convoluting the topic. Do you want to talk about "purposefulness" or "importance?" I used neither term, but you've used both now. Examine the statement I made.

I don't know if I'm convoluting so much as making the subject meaningful to me, and I do know that I am a purpose driven and solution oriented person. It would be important to me to feel purposeful and productive during my time on earth - but maybe I'm projecting that onto others who have other agendas for their own time on earth. I can acknowledge that.

Quote:
They're probably not that interesting.

Laughing Laughing and on another thread this week, I read that you younger generation were less judgmental....whatever.
So if someone's not interested in the specific subject that you happen to be interested in "they're probably not that interesting...'
Hey- okay!

Quote:
I never said it was a requisite of life. I said it was more enlightened to seek out an understanding of the universe than to seek out faith.

In your particular opinion. Granted.
Quote:
Even that task is better accomplished by investigating the universe. You're going to find a better way to "live in [your] own particular patch" if the universe is better understood by humanity.

Again, in your opinion. My own opinion is that you might find a better way 'to live in your own particular patch' if you understand your next door neighbor at least as well as you understand the big bang theory.

Quote:
But not faith in a god. My faith in things substantive is just as good, probably better in fact.

So people who have faith in god can not also have faith in things 'substantive'?
Again, what unilateral thinking.

Quote:
I've not commented on need. We do not need to be enlightened either. We only want it.

You may feel it's optional in your life, or a 'want'. I feel it's necessary in my life- definitely a 'need'.

But then I can acknowledge we all have different wants and needs. Unfortunately others who think they know what's best for all seem to be able to delineate and categorize for one and all.
But isn't that what Christians are accused of doing all the time?


-
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 01:30 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Your response is self-explanatory then. And that's fine - it's just that I have a hard time feeling satisfied with a unilateral view of almost anything...but if you do, you do.

Sometimes a duck is a duck. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something in this world is one way that all things are that way. That would be a false model.

aidan wrote:

That's at least one way in which our modus operandi in terms of thinking about things differs and probably explains how we reach different conclusions.

Just because I believe that a quest for a greater understanding of nature is far more enlightened than a quest for faith, and hence unilateral, does not mean that I think all things that are comparable are going to assume a similar unilateral relationship.

You're very quick to trend my statements into a conclusion about my MO. Don't get ahead of yourself.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
They're probably not that interesting.

Laughing Laughing and on another thread this week, I read that you younger generation were less judgmental....whatever.
So if someone's not interested in the specific subject that you happen to be interested in "they're probably not that interesting...'
Hey- okay!

To pretend this specific subject is not special is to ignore that this is the largest topic in the universe. This is not "Stan is boring because he's not into softball like I am."

Not being judgmental does not mean that people don't make judgments. It's better to say that they reserve judgments. In this case, I propose that someone who doesn't care about nature (the universe) is probably boring.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
I never said it was a requisite of life. I said it was more enlightened to seek out an understanding of the universe than to seek out faith.

In your particular opinion. Granted.

So you understand that I never said that it's required, yes? I ask, because I feel like I'm having to address a lot of false grievances centric around that detail.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Even that task is better accomplished by investigating the universe. You're going to find a better way to "live in [your] own particular patch" if the universe is better understood by humanity.

Again, in your opinion. My own opinion is that you might find a better way 'to live in your own particular patch' if you understand your next door neighbor at least as well as you understand the big bang theory.

A greater understanding of your neighbor is not the same as a pursuit of faith If I was to compare it against the faith, it would rank higher. If I was to compare it to an understanding of nature, it would fall equal or perhaps higher in enlightenment. I never said that understanding nature was the most enlightened thing someone could do, only that it is greater than a quest for faith (specifically a religious faith).

aidan wrote:

Quote:
But not faith in a god. My faith in things substantive is just as good, probably better in fact.

So people who have faith in god can not also have faith in things 'substantive'?
Again, what unilateral thinking.

I didn't say they couldn't. They can have faith in both. That doesn't make them equal. Faith in the substantive is more valuable (and reliable) than religious faith.

Put fewer words in my mouth and more marbles in yours. You propose a false dichotomy for what I'm saying. Argue against what I'm saying, not what I'm not saying.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
I've not commented on need. We do not need to be enlightened either. We only want it.

You may feel it's optional in your life, or a 'want'. I feel it's necessary in my life- definitely a 'need'.

This is easily testable. Without your faith would you die? Is yes, why do you think so? What you assume is a need is only one manifestation of a larger emotional and psychological want. You can fill that hole with faith in a good or with other concepts/feelings/ideas. Your professed need to fill that gap with faith in a god ignores that when fitting a round hole with a round peg, there may exist many round pegs. Your declaration that the peg must be green and not red does not make the green peg a need, it makes it a want.

aidan wrote:

But then I can acknowledge we all have different wants and needs. Unfortunately others who think they know what's best for all seem to be able to delineate and categorize for one and all.
But isn't that what Christians are accused of doing all the time?

We have different wants. We do not have different needs. Give me a need that you think is different than mine and it will reduce to a need we both have or a want that is specific to us.

T
K
O
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 03:02 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Sometimes a duck is a duck. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something in this world is one way that all things are that way. That would be a false model.

okay.
Quote:
Just because I believe that a quest for a greater understanding of nature is far more enlightened than a quest for faith, and hence unilateral, does not mean that I think all things that are comparable are going to assume a similar unilateral relationship.

But can you accept that your quest for a greater understanding of nature may lead you in a different, but not necessarily more enlightened, direction than my quest for an understanding of nature? And if you think your direction is more enlightened than the direction than I may take, even though different, why is that? Because you're an engineer and I'm not? Maybe I'm just as enlightened as you, but in different aspects of our individual realities. Can you accept that?
Quote:
You're very quick to trend my statements into a conclusion about my MO. Don't get ahead of yourself.

I didn't think I was, but okay.
Quote:
You're very quick to trend my statements into a conclusion about my MO. Don't get ahead of yourself.

okay.

Quote:
To pretend this specific subject is not special is to ignore that this is the largest topic in the universe.

To you. Can you accept that others may have other topics that are more important, such as the health and happiness of their loved ones and children (as a mother- I may think about different things than you do). Can you accept that? Or should I be thinking about the origin of the universe instead of helping my children find their way?

Quote:
In this case, I propose that someone who doesn't care about nature (the universe) is probably boring.

Really - what if they care about and make music or art or literature....boring....jesus - god help you, that's all I can say - you must be very bored by most people you encounter then, unless you're in some rarified environment, and then so be it - good for you.

Quote:
A greater understanding of your neighbor is not the same as a pursuit of faith If I was to compare it against the faith, it would rank higher. If I was to compare it to an understanding of nature, it would fall equal or perhaps higher in enlightenment. I never said that understanding nature was the most enlightened thing someone could do, only that it is greater than a quest for faith (specifically a religious faith).

Well, I guess it all depends on how and what you view religion or spirituality to be about or what its intrinsic and eventual purpose might be.
I don't view religion or spirituality as something to help me in the future - I view it as something to help me NOW. But again, everyone has a different understanding.

Quote:
I didn't say they couldn't. They can have faith in both. That doesn't make them equal. Faith in the substantive is more valuable (and reliable) than religious faith.

But what if the spiritual (or religious, in your terminology) is what is most substantive in a persons' life? Is that not allowed, because you don't believe it's that important or relevant?

Quote:
Put fewer words in my mouth and more marbles in yours.

okay. I wasn't aware I was putting marbles in my mouth, but if you say so...

Quote:
This is easily testable. Without your faith would you die?

Maybe not, but I'd probably be like everyone else my age who are on drugs for depression.
Quote:
Is yes, why do you think so?

Because it is a source of my strength, hope, happiness and belief.
Quote:
What you assume is a need is only one manifestation of a larger emotional and psychological want.

Maybe, but you can't tell me how not to need or want it and you can't tell me how to fulfill it without pharmeceuticals- so don't even begin begin to believe that you can provide a substitute for belief. Why does it even bother you guys. Would you rather I be like the majority of other Americans (at least) who don't believe and medicate myself with drugs....what the hell is the difference to you?
Quote:
You can fill that hole with faith in a good or with other concepts/feelings/ideas. Your professed need to fill that gap with faith in a god ignores that when fitting a round hole with a round peg, there may exist many round pegs. Your declaration that the peg must be green and not red does not make the green peg a need, it makes it a want.

Says you, who doesn't even know me.


Quote:
We have different wants. We do not have different needs. Give me a need that you think is different than mine and it will reduce to a need we both have or a want that is specific to us.

I would never be so arrogant as I don't know you. I have no idea what you need.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 09:52 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Quote:
Just because I believe that a quest for a greater understanding of nature is far more enlightened than a quest for faith, and hence unilateral, does not mean that I think all things that are comparable are going to assume a similar unilateral relationship.

But can you accept that your quest for a greater understanding of nature may lead you in a different, but not necessarily more enlightened, direction than my quest for an understanding of nature? And if you think your direction is more enlightened than the direction than I may take, even though different, why is that? Because you're an engineer and I'm not? Maybe I'm just as enlightened as you, but in different aspects of our individual realities. Can you accept that?

No. "individual realities" is coping with cognitive dissonance.

Being an engineer is unrelated to having interest in the universe at large.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
You're very quick to trend my statements into a conclusion about my MO. Don't get ahead of yourself.

I didn't think I was, but okay.

You referenced my modus operandi did you not?

aidan wrote:

Quote:
To pretend this specific subject is not special is to ignore that this is the largest topic in the universe.

To you. Can you accept that others may have other topics that are more important, such as the health and happiness of their loved ones and children (as a mother- I may think about different things than you do). Can you accept that? Or should I be thinking about the origin of the universe instead of helping my children find their way?

I never said that people can't be interested in multiple topics or that even an understanding of the universe is the most enlightened thing one can try to understand.

You seem determined to have a meta-discussion about the discussion itself. I'm not sure what point there is in that, nor how it advances your argument.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
In this case, I propose that someone who doesn't care about nature (the universe) is probably boring.

Really - what if they care about and make music or art or literature....boring....jesus - god help you, that's all I can say - you must be very bored by most people you encounter then, unless you're in some rarified environment, and then so be it - good for you.

Funny you mention it. Yeah, I'm bored by many people. However, the Literary, artistic, and musical types I've met have typically cared about understanding the universe.

I've never stated that interest in anything means exclusive interest did I?

aidan wrote:

Quote:
A greater understanding of your neighbor is not the same as a pursuit of faith If I was to compare it against the faith, it would rank higher. If I was to compare it to an understanding of nature, it would fall equal or perhaps higher in enlightenment. I never said that understanding nature was the most enlightened thing someone could do, only that it is greater than a quest for faith (specifically a religious faith).

Well, I guess it all depends on how and what you view religion or spirituality to be about or what its intrinsic and eventual purpose might be.
I don't view religion or spirituality as something to help me in the future - I view it as something to help me NOW. But again, everyone has a different understanding.

Relevance?

You introduced the topic of caring for those around you. I stated clearly how that is unrelated to a pursuit of faith. I'm not sure how the above is relevant to either.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
I didn't say they couldn't. They can have faith in both. That doesn't make them equal. Faith in the substantive is more valuable (and reliable) than religious faith.

But what if the spiritual (or religious, in your terminology) is what is most substantive in a persons' life? Is that not allowed, because you don't believe it's that important or relevant?

You're bending the term substantive to fit your argument.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Put fewer words in my mouth and more marbles in yours.

okay. I wasn't aware I was putting marbles in my mouth, but if you say so...

It could help. I'm not sure if you are intentionally using these strawmen arguments.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
This is easily testable. Without your faith would you die?

Maybe not, but I'd probably be like everyone else my age who are on drugs for depression.

Maybe? Yes or no. It's simple. You will or won't die. If you die it was a need.

I'm also baffled by your reference to drugs. Do you believe that you have a addictive personality? Are you the type to do drugs? What do other people your age have to do with this?

I think it's interesting that given the removal of faith, you'd fill the hole with drugs. It speaks to the nature of both.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Is yes, why do you think so?

Because it is a source of my strength, hope, happiness and belief.

It's a green peg. The red, blue, yellow... peg fit just as well. Unless you can answer why others can function just fine without faith, you have failed to establish faith as a need. Faith is a want.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
What you assume is a need is only one manifestation of a larger emotional and psychological want.

Maybe, but you can't tell me how not to need or want it and you can't tell me how to fulfill it without pharmeceuticals- so don't even begin begin to believe that you can provide a substitute for belief. Why does it even bother you guys. Would you rather I be like the majority of other Americans (at least) who don't believe and medicate myself with drugs....what the hell is the difference to you?

Again with the drugs. I'm really not sure what you're swinging at here.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
You can fill that hole with faith in a good or with other concepts/feelings/ideas. Your professed need to fill that gap with faith in a god ignores that when fitting a round hole with a round peg, there may exist many round pegs. Your declaration that the peg must be green and not red does not make the green peg a need, it makes it a want.

Says you, who doesn't even know me.

Our needs are the same. I don't need to know you. Only our wants vary. You can dress up your wants as being super important, and even give them a priority in your life as high as your and my needs, it still will be a want.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
We have different wants. We do not have different needs. Give me a need that you think is different than mine and it will reduce to a need we both have or a want that is specific to us.

I would never be so arrogant as I don't know you. I have no idea what you need.

But you do Aidan. Arrogance has nothing to do with it. You simply don't know what I want.

T
K
O
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 10:37 pm
These posts are so long. Forgive me if I just scan
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 01:21 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Being an engineer is unrelated to having interest in the universe at large.

I disagree. In the simplest terms, engineers and those who would choose engineering as a course of study are probably inherently more interested in the physical formation of just about anything...including the universe.

I definitely think that may be one reason you find it such a fascinating subject while someone like me, with my particular set of skills and interests and aptitudes might find other facets of looking at and/or thinking about the world more fascinating and interesting. I mean, I've read the information, but do I study it and study it and study it - no - until there's new and breakthrough information- okay...I got it for right now.

But I wouldn't automatically assign 'boring' to either someone who does or doesn't have an interest in studying the origins of the universe. There are a whole lot of other criteria to consider in my mind before I can assign that label.
Quote:
You referenced my modus operandi did you not?

Yeah, sorry if that offended you. It was sort of a throw away statement - the phrase was not meant to imply (at least as I was using it here) anything habitual on your part. I used it wrongly...I was just talking about what you wrote at this particular moment- no offense meant.
Quote:
I never said that people can't be interested in multiple topics or that even an understanding of the universe is the most enlightened thing one can try to understand.

But you did say it was more enlightened than pursuing any sort of faith in anything, no matter how long lasting or meaningful that faith is to someone.

Quote:
You seem determined to have a meta-discussion about the discussion itself. I'm not sure what point there is in that, nor how it advances your argument.

Me, I'm just answering your questions. I'm not determined about anything - especially arguing. I'm just trying to point out that other people who are interested in faith, instead of putting together the minutia of the origins of the universe, can be just as enlightened.

Quote:
Funny you mention it. Yeah, I'm bored by many people

Interesting. I'm almost never bored by people. I find them fascinating - even if I just ask them questions to learn about where they grew up - what do they think about this or that. Only child or siblings....whatever...
But again, maybe that just highlights why other things are more occupying of my thoughts than the origins of the universe.

Quote:
However, the Literary, artistic, and musical types I've met have typically cared about understanding the universe.

Well yeah, I didn't say none of these people cared - but how many of them do you sit around with and say, "Put down you guitar and stop singing and let's talk about (once again- and knowing we can only go back over what we already know and have no definitive final answer) the origins of the universe...and if you bring up god or faith I'll tell you you're irrational and believe in leprachauns....' That's what would be boring to me.


Quote:
You introduced the topic of caring for those around you. I stated clearly how that is unrelated to a pursuit of faith. I'm not sure how the above is relevant to either.

No, it's not unrelated at all. The object and purpose of my quest for faith has to do in a direct way with how I view and care for the people around me.
You believe it may be irrelevant because its not a relevant issue for you.
But it is relevent to me, although I can admit it seems irrelevant to other people of faith.
But everyone's faith has a different objective and in fact, directive.

Quote:
Maybe? Yes or no. It's simple. You will or won't die. If you die it was a need.

I don't know what would happen to me without it. I've never not had it. I might be a very different and more conflicted person without it. I might be depressive and less hopeful-which is very different than how I am and have been my whole life with it.
I'd much rather give up other aspects of who I am than that one.

Quote:
I'm also baffled by your reference to drugs. Do you believe that you have a addictive personality? Are you the type to do drugs? What do other people your age have to do with this?

No, I actually don't have an addictive personality. I don't and never have done drugs (except for pot about three times- I don't like to smoke either - not even pot).
I reference drugs because I think its indicative of the lack of something in our society, that many, many people need to access mood elevators to even make it through the day. I think that may be due to a lack of faith in anything, and a generalized feeling of malaise and boredom toward life, as well as a somewhat overwhelming aura of emptiness.
I don't feel that way - I don't need to take drugs. But I don't know if I would feel that way if I didn't have and nurture my faith in something.
I do think it's incredibly important to my happiness.

Quote:
I think it's interesting that given the removal of faith, you'd fill the hole with drugs. It speaks to the nature of both.

I don't think I would fill the hole with drugs - for me it'd be food before drugs...I'd get fat (on hot fudge sundaes to be specific).
No, actually I'd probably just drift around the world and travel- looking for something-but not knowing what.
Yes, I made the reference to drugs as a substitute for faith because I know that that's what nonbelievers reference faith for the faithful -as a drug.

What I was asking is, why do the unfaithful care? Would they rather a person achieve happiness in some other way?

Quote:
It's a green peg. The red, blue, yellow... peg fit just as well.

Obviously not for me. Why should I have to take a peg that fits me out and substitute another one. Because you don't like my green peg and you want me to have a red, yellow or blue one?
Quote:
Unless you can answer why others can function just fine without faith,

Because they're not me. What they need is different than what I need.
Quote:
you have failed to establish faith as a need. Faith is a want.

Says you, who doesn't think its as important as other things in your life.

Quote:
Our needs are the same.

No. Even the fact that you're a man and I'm a woman, make our needs different.
And if you don't know this - you should learn this before you embark on a relationship of any substance with a woman.

Again, I think you primarily think of 'needs' in the physical realm.
I KNOW that my needs- what I know I NEED- extend beyond the physical.

I would never believe I knew what your needs are unless you told me what they were.



Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 01:07 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Quote:
Being an engineer is unrelated to having interest in the universe at large.

I disagree. In the simplest terms, engineers and those who would choose engineering as a course of study are probably inherently more interested in the physical formation of just about anything...including the universe.

This discussion is growing further and further from the practical way this whole thing plays out.

The way this actually plays out in life; the moment when a quest for faith comes in conflict with a quest to understand nature is usually when faith asks the individual to stop. Stop asking questions. Accept the world as created by a god. And when even a person who has invested a great deal of time in faith has questions about that, they answers from faith are that they simply must believe, while otherwise they are free to explore and challenge new ideas. Some old new ideas include the world being round, the earth being very very very old, and that all creatures share a common ancestor. When the person who has studied nature is interested in what faith has to offer, they are asked to forget what they have learned about the universe and simply have faith.

This has nothing to do with being an engineer. I could be a preacher, and if I had questions about the universe pursuing those questions are not welcome in a faith.

aidan wrote:

I definitely think that may be one reason you find it such a fascinating subject while someone like me, with my particular set of skills and interests and aptitudes might find other facets of looking at and/or thinking about the world more fascinating and interesting. I mean, I've read the information, but do I study it and study it and study it - no - until there's new and breakthrough information- okay...I got it for right now.

I think in your last statement here I see best illustrated my point. You've got it for now? Got what? What stability lies in knowing so much of your faith is directly contradicted by so much science? What does your faith say to it's own deficit? to believe? Believe in what? That what we know in science is wrong? This is the exact complacency that troubles me about those of devout faith.

aidan wrote:

But I wouldn't automatically assign 'boring' to either someone who does or doesn't have an interest in studying the origins of the universe. There are a whole lot of other criteria to consider in my mind before I can assign that label.

Origins of the universe are but one way to study nature. As stated before how does this play out in practicality?

How it usually plays out for me is that someone says something from a learned faith, and I go to correct them with what we know from science. They will respond with interest in understanding what I'm telling them and it's implications to their faith, or they will become defensive of their faith.

Hmm. Perhaps I'll change my wording. It is not that a disinterest in understanding nature makes a person boring, but rather a non-interest in knowing the implications of nature on man and its creations that make a person intellectually neutered. It's not boring I guess because I have to admit the psychology of denial is fascinating.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
I never said that people can't be interested in multiple topics or that even an understanding of the universe is the most enlightened thing one can try to understand.

But you did say it was more enlightened than pursuing any sort of faith in anything, no matter how long lasting or meaningful that faith is to someone.

That is correct.

How does a faith being long lasting give it value if it is wrong?
How can a faith be "meaningful" if it is factually wrong?

aidan wrote:

I'm just trying to point out that other people who are interested in faith, instead of putting together the minutia of the origins of the universe, can be just as enlightened.

Not if they reject science and logic in the name of protecting their faith. Absolutely not.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Funny you mention it. Yeah, I'm bored by many people

Interesting. I'm almost never bored by people. I find them fascinating - even if I just ask them questions to learn about where they grew up - what do they think about this or that. Only child or siblings....whatever...
But again, maybe that just highlights why other things are more occupying of my thoughts than the origins of the universe.

Ack! More origins of the universe! The topic is much more diverse than just that.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
However, the Literary, artistic, and musical types I've met have typically cared about understanding the universe.

Well yeah, I didn't say none of these people cared - but how many of them do you sit around with and say, "Put down you guitar and stop singing and let's talk about (once again- and knowing we can only go back over what we already know and have no definitive final answer) the origins of the universe...and if you bring up god or faith I'll tell you you're irrational and believe in leprachauns....' That's what would be boring to me.

What makes you think we can have no definitive answer? Is this what faith says? Is this what you believe of science? I'm just curious. Are you under some assumption that intellectually religion has science at a stalemate?

I'm not telling people to put down their guitars at the open mic night. I'm not telling them to huddle up so we can talk about the origins of the universe. I'm saying that to reject science and logic for faith is intellectually shallow.

Perhaps their not boring, but I want to give them my time, like I want to waste my time arguing with someone that the sky is blue.

"The sky is blue."
"Is not.
"It is. Look up."
"I don't need to look up to know it's not blue."
<night falls, person looks up>
"See, I told you it isn't blue!"
"Yeah, well it was, and it will be again. You wait."
"We'll see about that."
<sunrise>
"Okay, look now. The sky is blue."
"You had your chance."
"Just look up."
<man looks up>
"Well? I told you it was blue!"
"Yeah, well, you can't ever prove it was blue yesterday! I knew it was going to be blue today."

aidan wrote:

Quote:
You introduced the topic of caring for those around you. I stated clearly how that is unrelated to a pursuit of faith. I'm not sure how the above is relevant to either.

No, it's not unrelated at all. The object and purpose of my quest for faith has to do in a direct way with how I view and care for the people around me.
You believe it may be irrelevant because its not a relevant issue for you.
But it is relevent to me, although I can admit it seems irrelevant to other people of faith.
But everyone's faith has a different objective and in fact, directive.

Your motive for pursuing faith and the pursuit to understand people are not one and the same. They are two different quests, and even they can conflict much like science and faith can conflict.

Faith will tell a Christian that homosexuality is a sin/amoral . A quest to understand people has lead great minds in psychology to think that homosexuality has natural origins; that it is not a choice. If it is not a choice, how can it be sin? If it is natural, and yet still a sin somehow to choose to live as a homosexual, then the person is defying the nature that god gave them. Again, faith conflicts. In this case it conflicts internally with it's own logic.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Maybe? Yes or no. It's simple. You will or won't die. If you die it was a need.

I don't know what would happen to me without it. I've never not had it. I might be a very different and more conflicted person without it. I might be depressive and less hopeful-which is very different than how I am and have been my whole life with it.
I'd much rather give up other aspects of who I am than that one.

You not knowing how you would be, means that you must additionally admit that you might be better off. Thats for you to sort out, but I don't expect you to challenge your current comfort zone.

What other aspects of who you are would you give up? How far would you take this? At what point would you draw the line? At what point would you be satisfied in knowing that holding on it faith and letting other things go in your life that you valued was NOT worth it?

aidan wrote:

I reference drugs because I think its indicative of the lack of something in our society, that many, many people need to access mood elevators to even make it through the day. I think that may be due to a lack of faith in anything, and a generalized feeling of malaise and boredom toward life, as well as a somewhat overwhelming aura of emptiness.

This would make for an interesting thread by itself. The psychology of people who use addictive substances is very diverse. Certainly some abuse drugs because of a perceived emptiness. That emptiness can be present in devout people of faith too though.

Of course then there is science that chimes in for a quick note that for whatever reason that people start abusing, a large (perhaps largest) factor in continuing is chemical addiction.

aidan wrote:

I don't feel that way - I don't need to take drugs. But I don't know if I would feel that way if I didn't have and nurture my faith in something.
I do think it's incredibly important to my happiness.

If I was to be fired from my job tomorrow, I might feel empty too. Lots of things can make us feel incomplete. I see no reason to treat faith as being exceptional in this manner.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
I think it's interesting that given the removal of faith, you'd fill the hole with drugs. It speaks to the nature of both.

I don't think I would fill the hole with drugs - for me it'd be food before drugs...I'd get fat (on hot fudge sundaes to be specific).
No, actually I'd probably just drift around the world and travel- looking for something-but not knowing what.

Interesting about the fudge sundaes. I think that may be more telling than the drug references. LOL. I know what you mean though. If I was to get kicked off of my soccer team, I'd probably stop running too. Again, I don't see faith as being exceptional in any way.

I think that change more than the absence of loss is what scares you here. As you said yourself, you've always had faith, you've never known living without it.

I'll ask you a personal question. If it's too personal, I understand.

Have you ever lost your mother or father?

I have only known a world with both of them. I cannot imagine my world without them. If either or both was gone, I would feel a certain emptiness. I would feel much like you've expressed what your loss of faith would (as you imagine at least) feeling like. In the face of all of that, I know that day will come. I know there will be a day that I will have to know a world without them. I fully admit that I am not prepared for that day, but I am forced to accept that come that day or some day to follow it, I will and must survive. More than survive, I will need to thrive.

I cannot understand how the absence of faith could ever compare to a loss such as this, and how if we can live and thrive even after such a loss as that, how it can even be entertained that a loss of faith would be something that we could not only get over, but thrive in spite of.

aidan wrote:

Yes, I made the reference to drugs as a substitute for faith because I know that that's what nonbelievers reference faith for the faithful -as a drug.

Horse before the cart. You're stealing my lines. LOL.

Aside from the joke, do you disagree with this statement?

aidan wrote:

What I was asking is, why do the unfaithful care? Would they rather a person achieve happiness in some other way?

I care only because the faithful make themselves an obstacle in the quest to understand nature and universe. I'm all about free will, so if people of faith want to powwow about how they disagree about evolution, fine. Just stop screwing up the science standards in our schools.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
It's a green peg. The red, blue, yellow... peg fit just as well.

Obviously not for me. Why should I have to take a peg that fits me out and substitute another one. Because you don't like my green peg and you want me to have a red, yellow or blue one?

Leave your green peg in aidan. I'm glad it works for you, just don't claim it's the only one that fits. I'm not telling you to put it out and put a different one in. I'm saying that come the day that your green peg breaks, just know that there are others that fit too.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Unless you can answer why others can function just fine without faith,

Because they're not me. What they need is different than what I need.

This is the logical equivalent of saying that you NEED your M&Ms or else you'll get hurt. When asked how you'll get hurt, you reply: "Because I'll cut myself if you do!" It's self fulfilling circular logic.

You can't say that others can live without their M&Ms because they have different needs than you. It is your desire for M&Ms, not your needs that you protect.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
you have failed to establish faith as a need. Faith is a want.

Says you, who doesn't think its as important as other things in your life.

Even "importance" is measured different with needs versus wants. With needs, importance is boolean in nature. It is or it is not a need. With wants importance can be qualified and measured.

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Our needs are the same.

No. Even the fact that you're a man and I'm a woman, make our needs different.
And if you don't know this - you should learn this before you embark on a relationship of any substance with a woman.

Again, I think you primarily think of 'needs' in the physical realm.
I KNOW that my needs- what I know I NEED- extend beyond the physical.

Touche to the point about men and women. But that difference does not resolve why your claim to "need" faith while others (namely me) do not.

I'm not saying a discussion of feelings/emotions is off limits here aidan. But lets be clear, those things are wants. I would never say wants are trivial or that they aren't important, but even importance is a subjective measure.
aidan wrote:

I would never believe I knew what your needs are unless you told me what they were.

I promise you that I could never tell you or another person what they were, and you could figure it out.

T
K
O
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:17:24