God, Religion and higher powers

[Mugendramon]

Anything of divine nature exists and operates in a different plane from ours. By definition its influence in our plane is not in any way explained or perceptible in any terms our mind could grasp.

 

Thus, logically speaking, the existence of anything divine is none of this universe's goddamn business. We can't figure that out. Even if we're told of its existence, in whatever way a religion does it, we can never be certain because of lack of correlation between planes. Neither can we deny its existence, because lack of evidence does not equal lack of existence.

 

A textbook uncertainty.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I believe as I please and I believe in God.

 

 

If you don't know, it is silly to make something up.

 

You're assuming those who believe in God don't know He exists, when many claim they do. An atheist's stance can involve just as many equal and opposite assumptions about where to correctly invest their adherence.

 

Why are your epistemological bearings (Occam's razor and all, which you yourself acknowledged as "nowhere perfect") any more surefire than a believer's? To say "I know that God doesn't exist" is no less of a "made up" or "silly" explanation than to say "He exists."  

 

 

This sort of close-mindedness is destructive towards progress. You are completely refusing the possibility that you may be wrong

 

 

Not everyone worships your "progress". If you're unwilling to let - Minimania - believe as he will, are you any more open-minded?

 

 

This does not mean that in our society people should not be held accountable for their actions, because this is a system which upholds our social order and morals. However, from the perspective of an omnipotent God, this means that people really aren't responsible for what they do, this means that Good and Evil do not exist, and "evil" people are merely like a disease or natural disaster - destructive, but aren't to be blamed..

 

Why would a social order in which people are acknowledged as "destructive" rather than "evil" be any more or less sustainable? 

[Toffee.]

>My earlier post was deleted

K.

 

Though, in all fairness, I know why it was.

[Sethera]

I believe in God and most of it is become of personal reasons. I don't really want to go into those reasons. As I said, they're personal. But I believe in Him. Not because I was raised to believe (in fact, I was one of those children that hated being forced to go to church every week), but because I found faith on my own, years after I stopped being forced.

 

Because of that, I don't believe in trying to persuade or force people to believe in something like most of my Christian family/friends do. Logically, it won't work anyway. Along those lines, I think it is offensive to attack somebody for their beliefs or lack of belief (in this I refer to belief in God specifically, as yes, believing there is no God or there is no proof is still under the dictionary definition of "belief"). And from what I've seen on this forum, that seems to be an opinion I share with most of you.

 

Many people lack proof in His existence, yet still believe. Others have found their own proof, and believe because of that. Either way, I think questioning people and asking them to give evidence to suit your own, or somebody else's standards is unfair. Unless their belief in God is affecting you, then why should it matter to you why they believe? Perhaps I hold an isolationist viewpoint on this, but I think belief is something personal, aside from the Church aspect. In reverse, asking somebody who doesn't believe, or has their own ideas besides God, to explain themselves to suit personal principles is also one-sided. Rather, isn't it better to let them state their own opinion, and share yours, without trying to pick apart their reasons? Without judgment?

 

I may believe, but that doesn't give me the right to look down on you for thinking differently. And it doesn't give you the right to do the same to me.

[.Rai]

>My earlier post was deleted

K.

 

Though, in all fairness, I know why it was.

Oops, was meant to throw you a message about that. Yeah, I just hid it for the sake of spam and huge silly images not clogging up the thread. But, yeah, spam basically.

[Aix]

You're assuming those who believe in God don't know He exists, when many claim they do. An atheist's stance can involve just as many equal and opposite assumptions about where to correctly invest their adherence.

 

Why are your epistemological bearings (Occam's razor and all, which you yourself acknowledged as "nowhere perfect") any more surefire than a believer's? To say "I know that God doesn't exist" is no less of a "made up explanation" than to say "He exists." 

You are assuming I am saying I know he doesn't exist. I am pointing out why I am not convinced he exists and how believing he exists is illogical to me, however I did not say I am convinced that he does not exist.

 

Not everyone worships your "progress". If you're unwilling to let - Minimania - believe as he will, are you any more open-minded?

Progress is a commonly accepted goal in our society which I assume most people, including him, would accept, and so, under the reasonable assumption that he did believe progress was a good thing, I pointed it out to him that he could be making a mistake.

 

Not really hypocritical, I have considered and thought about why close-mindedness is detrimental. On the other hand, he openly admits to how he will not offer that same consideration.

 

Why would a social order in which people are acknowledged as "destructive" rather than "evil" be any more or less sustainable? Why would you be the one to judge?

I'm not sure what you mean and I feel like you have misunderstood what I have said. Our social order depends on us to encourage people not to commit evil or destructive acts. However, those who commit such acts, are in a way, victims because they only commit such acts due to how they were born and the external factors that affected them, even if they are clinically sane. Think of it like how insane people aren't really punished because they are insane and can't be responsible for their actions. Under the premise of adequate determinism, it can be said that no one is responsible, no one deserves punishment or blame, although it is true that punishment and blame are necessary mechanisms in our society.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

You are assuming I am saying I know he doesn't exist. I am pointing out why I am not convinced he exists and how believing he exists does not make sense to me, however I did not say I am convinced that he does not exist.

 

I never said you were an atheist, just that I don't consider the atheist perspective as any more rational/free-of-assumptions than the theist perspective. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean and I feel like you have misunderstood what I have said.

 

I think so too, I read the "However, from the perspective of an omnipotent God, this means that people really aren't responsible for what they do, this means that Good and Evil do not exist, and "evil" people are merely like a disease or natural disaster - destructive, but aren't to be blamed." as "the idea of God's omnipotence is problematic because it would be bad if people who threatened the social order weren't acknowledged as evil", but it seems like it's more your perspective that the social order simply has to adapt against such people whether they're blameworthy or not, which I would agree with.   

 

 

 

Progress is a commonly accepted goal in our society which I assume most people, including him, would accept, and so, under the reasonable assumption that he did believe progress was a good thing, I pointed it out to him that he could be making a mistake.

 

 

"Progress" is also a term that varies vastly in meaning depending on context, hence "your progress", which could be entirely different from his. There are people who would consider your conversion to their religion as a devout follower to be "progress", among other things you might consider "regress" now. That's not what I want, I want you to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions as you have, but an unwavering mind can be as much of an element in progress depending on the context as a flexible mind. 

[chairman ali]

I don't believe in a god as I just don't see no proof...logical 

 

Just going to throw this in, have you studied Logic and philosophy?

[Brinolovania]

Wow, this is the 2nd 75% civil religion thread YCM has had in the past year. I'm impressed.

 

I'm not gonna say too much here, because I'm no good at writing long posts about serious topics like this, but I will say that I think God (probably) does not exist. That's mostly because I've never participated in any organized religion, despite the fact that both of parents did as children (my mom is Jewish and my dad is Christian, so that's probably part of why they never took me to church/synagogue), and because proof and all that stuff Aix and others have already mentioned. One of the biggest factors, also, is that nothing huge has ever happened to me where I felt like a higher being was involved with me. Would I be correct in saying that true belief in God begins from having something happen in one's life, where they believe God has helped them through whatever that thing was? At least in some cases? "True belief" meaning that the person has come to the conclusion that God is real through their own experience and thought, as opposed to, say, children who believe in God only because their parents do.

 

disclaimer: I kept thinking I was gonna end up sounding condescending or something while writing this, so if I did come off like that, sorry. I'm not intending to be, I just suck at talking about stuff like this.

[Trebuchet MS]

I personally feel that if there is a God, he/it is completely alien to us, doesn't operate on the same concept of morality, and thus isn't quite the benevolent god many would like it to be. It would be incomprehensible, and thus I can't put my faith in it.

[~~~~]

Aikusu: I agree with you about Adequate Determinism, or at least, all the implications of Adequate Determinism that you have brought up. However, it is possible to build a machine that generates a truly random value, based on quantum mechanics. This means that if someone really wanted to, they could say "If I get 0 from this machine I will go down the left path and if I get 1 I will walk down the right path." and thus the randomness of the extremely microscopic would be affecting the macroscopic universe.

 

But it is something I have been saying/thinking for about a year and a half now, that ultimately, people are not responsible for their actions. This has also led me to heavily question what people mean by justice, and personally I think a lot of people use it to mean retribution, which only causes more suffering on top of the original crime. Punishment should only exist because it deters people from doing the crime, and punishments such as prison have the added benefit of preventing the criminal from committing any more crimes, and could in theory help someone move their life around, although I doubt that would be the case for many with how current prisons are.

[Aix]

"Progress" is also a term that varies vastly in meaning depending on context, hence "your progress", which could be entirely different from his. There are people who would consider your conversion to their religion as a devout follower to be "progress", among other things you might consider "regress" now. That's not what I want, I want you to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions as you have, but an unwavering mind can be as much of an element in progress depending on the context as a flexible mind. 

Perhaps I should have specified because I thought it was implied, but I use progress here as a mostly general term in reference to the events of human progress, both in science and in stuff such as social values and human rights. For example, in history, the heliocentric model of the solar system and women's rights were both impeded by close-mindedness and a rigid mind. I have not come upon an example where a rigid mind has been productive, unless you are referring to some sort of strong will or determination. In any case, I do not see any case where Minimania's complete disregard for criticism is a good mindset.

 

I never said you were an atheist, just that I don't consider the atheist perspective as any more rational/free-of-assumptions than the theist perspective.

Can you elaborate?

Aikusu: I agree with you about Adequate Determinism, or at least, all the implications of Adequate Determinism that you have brought up. However, it is possible to build a machine that generates a truly random value, based on quantum mechanics. This means that if someone really wanted to, they could say "If I get 0 from this machine I will go down the left path and if I get 1 I will walk down the right path." and thus the randomness of the extremely microscopic would be affecting the macroscopic universe.

 

But it is something I have been saying/thinking for about a year and a half now, that ultimately, people are not responsible for their actions. This has also led me to heavily question what people mean by justice, and personally I think a lot of people use it to mean retribution, which only causes more suffering on top of the original crime. Punishment should only exist because it deters people from doing the crime, and punishments such as prison have the added benefit of preventing the criminal from committing any more crimes, and could in theory help someone move their life around, although I doubt that would be the case for many with how current prisons are.

Indeed, that is why it is adequate determinism and not pre-determinism. The latter means the universe is determined at its birth, while the former takes into consideration quantum uncertainty. Regardless, in this case, it would seem things are determined by luck, rather than anything else.

[Icy]

I'm going to be honest here. The idea that there is a god, pantheon of gods or sufficiently advanced alien/race out there somewhere absolutely delights me. 

Like imagine (which is sort of the point) of what it's capable of, what it might not be willing to do, what its personality is about. I want to know it on a friendship level. Take it out for Fries and a Fizzy Drink.

 

But in the sense that there is some sort of after/duringlife shenanigans that it has planned for us or whatever bothers me not.

 

I will be the best person I can be for my fellow humans to the best of my ability because I can be. And for no other reason. God and a divine way or no.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I am highly religious, and am of the Lutheran Denomination of Christianity. 

 

I believe in God sheerly because my brain cannot fully comprehend the concept of the universe existing without being made.

[Tentacruel]

I am highly religious, and am of the Lutheran Denomination of Christianity. 

 

I believe in God sheerly because my brain cannot fully comprehend the concept of the universe existing without being made.

This is me basically, except I"m not sure I would fall under Lutheran. I need to look it up. I just know I'm a protestant.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Another thing I will say is I don't appreciate being told there is no afterlife, for....a multitude of reasons. So that's a bit of a sore subject that relates to religion/God.

Not that anyone directly said that.

[VCR_CAT]

Myself been Christian for my whole life. Mennonite Brethren denomination; although I wouldn't consider myself belong specifically to any one denomination, that's just where a lot of my upbringing and learning comes from. Took post-secondary Bible School for two years too what what.

 

Anyways, if there's one thing I've learned is that there's no perfectly infallible, objective evidence that leads to the proof of God, just as there isn't perfectly infallible, objective evidence that there's no God. Yeah I believe the HECK outta God and am pretty dang religious, but I've come to accept that any sort of debate or argument regarding His existence isn't going to go anywhere and will often become heated or just an unpleasant conversation. Those kind of arguments just aren't worth anyone's time; nobody's going to be convinced of anything.

 

But that's the point, I believe. A relationship with God isn't supposed to be totally logical and infallibly proven. I don't think God wants people to believe in Him just because that's the logical truth; I believe it's meant to be a deep and personal relationship, and that's harder to achieve if you believe in God on the same level you believe in gravity.

 

Through my life and the things I've gone through, I've come to believe in God. I think back to those times and the things I've been through and that's all the evidence I need. But that evidence is probably not good enough for someone else, and it's definitely not good enough as overall evidence. But, for my experience, it makes it very real to me. Also to clarify, I don't believe in relativity in truth, and I'm not saying this truth is relative. I'm saying that my own life experiences would never be good enough as logical, infallible evidence because it's very personal; it's not something you can test or measure and prove scientifically. And I'm okay with that.

 

I think we'll all face those times in life where our worlds get rocked in a major way and we gain a new perspective, or get a chance to look at this "God" thing in a whole different way; whether you believe or not. It's those experiences that can lead to some of the strongest believers and even just stronger people. Stronger than a textbook truth could make someone.

 

Anyways I'm beginning to ramble. If you wanna talk 1 on 1 about stuff I'm open to it.

[Azure Wolf]

Another thing I will say is I don't appreciate being told there is no afterlife, for....a multitude of reasons. So that's a bit of a sore subject that relates to religion/God.

Not that anyone directly said that.

Yeah the thought of having nothing after you live doesn't seem great. You spend your whole life doing things and wouldn't get anything out of it, which might be why some people feel the need to enter some form of religion as they take solace in knowing there is something waiting when they die, be it reincarnation or Heaven.

[mitchermitcher]

To the guy who brought up Occam's Razor, I'm not saying I particularly disagree with how you use it to interpret this whole matter of God and whatnot, and you already acknowledged that it's nowhere near perfect, making what I'm going to say rather redundant.

 

But Occam's Razor is merely an idea, a mental construct of sorts that we use to understand reality and the unknown. Reality itself doesn't have to follow its rules. Bringing back to the argument of God. Siding with the idea that requires the least assumptions, that God hasn't been proven yet, is well, the safest idea, the one most likely to be correct(again, only by following Occam's Razor). Believing that God definitely exists becomes a bigger gamble then, because it's less likely to be correct. Faith would be the mental fortitude or ability to take on that gamble, in that context at least.

 

Yeah I don't really have anything to say, just felt like bringing that up. Sorry.

[Agro]

I only believe in myself because logically, I can't prove anything else.

 

 

But you can believe what you want. Just as long as it doesn't impede my ability to live with my own beliefs.

[Tourmaline]

I only believe in myself because logically, I can't prove anything else.

 

 

But you can believe what you want. Just as long as it doesn't impede my ability to live with my own beliefs.

Solipsism is an accepted and undeniable truth anyway. It works very well with Spinozism.

[Agro]

Solipsism is an accepted and undeniable truth anyway. It works very well with Spinozism.

I prefer to think of it as VINOzism

 

 

rai gonna warn me for spam

[evilfusion]

This is a fascinating topic. It is interesting to see different angles and viewpoints on a similar subject, for many people's answers are quite personal to them and their upbringing. So I suppose I'll give you my viewpoint.

 

I do believe their is a God, probably due to my upbringing. However, I see no reason to have discussions as to whether or not God really exists. I haven't seen proof of his existence and I don't want proof. I don't judge people for believing, or for not believing. But I don't want them to shove their belief, or lack of belief, down my throat, and would resent any attempt to challenge my belief.

 

I'm not a religious person. I find religion as a whole to be flawed. It's a concept that is excellent, but as the various religions branched off, you find a mixture of unsavoriness in the zeal some people have for their religion, or have warped the central message of their religion to spout a different agenda.

 

I believe religion is not, and has never meant to be, absolute. As society has evolved, many of the messages of some religions, the Bible being noteworthy, has become outdated. Some of the things decried as sinfulness is now considered normal. This COULD be attributed to a steadying decline of humanity, or it could just be another element of the passing of time and the resourcefulness of human minds moving towards what they see as a brighter future.

 

I see religion as guidance. The role of religion is to teach people and guide people to look out for others and be a better person, and comfort people through trials and struggle. They could do it because "God commands this of his people" or whatever, do it because that's the only way to get to eternal paradise, or they could do it because they have compassion in their heart and don't like to see suffering when they can do something to ease the burdens of their fellow man.

 

I'm not a saint, but I believe myself to be a good person at heart, but with human fallibility. If God exists, I hope this is what I would be judged by, and not whether I steadfastedly followed guidelines that are centuries or millennials old. I don't see religion as being absolute truth.

 

But with so many religions devoted to the concept of God (or gods), I feel there must be some sort of higher power. Even if the image of God is in the mind of mankind, and really it was just chance, the human mind seems to want to always believe that someone is at the helm for the universe, either benevolent or malicious (Random Number God).

[Azure Wolf]

I believe religion is not, and has never meant to be, absolute. As society has evolved, many of the messages of some religions, the Bible being noteworthy, has become outdated. Some of the things decried as sinfulness is now considered normal. This COULD be attributed to a steadying decline of humanity, or it could just be another element of the passing of time and the resourcefulness of human minds moving towards what they see as a brighter future.

 

Yeah religions change to much for what they are, Christianity split into two then split more for more interpretations. The same will be for any religion though none have sparked as much infighting as Christianity. The 'war' between them is still ongoing though not as much. Can't actually speak for all countries though here there is still lingering tensions from the IRA decades ago and hate from Catholics towards the bias of the Protestant government.

 

Things change and so the messages of religions have to change to accommodate these changes. The Christian bible is different from the likes of the Torah despite having the same God because of what people believed and how people interpreted the message.

[Agro]

More importantly:

I do believe their is a God,

evilfusion made a single grammatical error

 

truly these are godless times