If you're convinced that there is/isn't a supreme being, explain why...

Just wondering. :)

:bounce:

.....to say otherwise is a damn lie...of that I'm quite convinced!! :)

How do you explain something that is unexplainable?

Either god(s) exist or they don't. There is no middle ground. It's like Santa Claus. Either he exists or he doesn't. PERIOD.

there has to be room for middle ground. Take for example Frank Tiplers' Omega Point Theory http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/ it seems to be a kind of half way type thing.

edit: in case you don't want to bother with the link here is the meat and bones of it....
The Omega Point Theory of Frank J. Tipler
Frank J. Tipler has proposed that it is possible for intelligent beings to process and store an infinite amount of information in the universe, if certain conditions are fulfilled. His definition of the Omega Point is essentially a future c-boundary which is a single point and an Aleph state, where

Information processing continues indefinitely along at least one world-line gamma all the way to the future c-boundary of the universe. i.e. Life never dies out.

The amount of information processed between now and the future c-boundary is infinite in the region of space-time with which the worldline gamma can communicate. i.e. There will be an infinite number of thoughts, experiences and events.

The amount of information stored at any given time tau within this region diverges to infinity as tau approaches its future limit. i.e. More and more is learned, and things never repeat themselves.

What has made his theory controversial is his claims that it is experimentally verifiable, that the beings near the Omega Point will resurrect anybody who has ever lived into a state close to classical descriptions of Paradise and that the Omega Point itself corresponds to the religious notation of God.

From a transhumanist perspective, the Omega Point is the logical conclusion of our striving towards higer levels, regardless of its nature. It is more of an engineering problem than a philosophical question.

"hooey" by Charlatan.

What do I win?

I just think it is an interesting view point.

God exists within the human mind. It's that mind that chooses to accept or reject based on the evidence and feeling placed before it.

While widely believed that God created Man in his image. It is equally possible that Man created God in his own image.

Cheers
Drifter

and Religion's shape the image of god to serve the political/social/economic control of the one's running the religion. But that does not mean that those people speak for God anymore than a Rock does (actually the rock speaks better and more eloquently for the existance of God than any Pope, Minister, Imam, or Rabbi ever could)

...the PERIOD finality of the poster above notwithstanding. I expect you understand a little more about duality (and non-duality) than does the poster above.

Ferinstance:

Let's assume God does exist. Does that mean that there's only one god, or is there some other god/force/whatever that's heirarchically superior to the god that we ponder?

or

If god exists, are we all just different aspects of god? Is god completely external to us, wholly different than us? Or are we a part of god, divine?

for instance the information we have is based on the bible the toran and etc.......I'm sorry but these sources though old don't really give much credence to the idea of a supreme being....

It seems to me mankinds way of looking for themselves by exalting themselves......I come from a being like me but so much greater than me.

for some people I think the idea of a supreme being makes life easier for them ie they can imagine talking to this being......and feel it helps them.....but that idea in and of itself is very confusing to me.......I notice people who believe in prayer attribute good outcomes to prayer but when bad outcomes come it's well god's will. It's all very strange to me.....

whereas Jesus was more a here and now this is the shit kinda guy. Definitely a schizm in beliefs. Would sure like a look in those Vatican vaults.

If there is, Bush* will be on his way out.

If there isn't, we'll be stuck with four more years of him.

:shrug:

he will become emperor for life.

of God is... (saying God as a generic for of Supreme Being)... Is God "out there" ready to spank you if you step out of line, is God in each one of us, making us divinity itself, is God just a creator and left us to our own design...

I believe in God (and a Goddess), but as in a form that I see them, not some Biblical Fire and Brimstone burping deity or a kindly old man of infinite love for his creations...

Like I said... if it's in your heart, it's there... if it isn't, it isn't... either way is ok...

Some Moran...people have been banned for talking about this. It's a very contentious issue.

People have been banned for being bigots on one side or the other. It may be contentious, but only because some people insist on coming in with a heavy-handed dose of TRUTH, and not considering or respecting other's viewpoints.

Religion/Spirituality/Faith threads can get very nasty, or they can be quite constructive and uplifting. Only those who participate make the discussion....kinda like religion itself ;-)

The football rivalry had been going on for ages, and by 1942 BC was always getting the better of Holy Cross. On November 28, 1942 however, Holy Cross rose up righteous and slaughtered BC 50-0. The disconsolate BC players had been planning to throw a victory party, but after the incredible defeat, few if any showed up.

The BC victory party was planned to be held at the Coconut Grove, which burned that night and killed 492 people. If Holy Cross had lost, the entire BC football team would have been there, and would have died stacked up against the door with the rest.

Proof positive that God exists, that God is a Jesuit, and that God is a football fan. :)

of the Aquinas Proofs on God's existance on Mt. St. James.... :-)

but one has to wonder what that says about god and his/her/their relationship with the people who were in the Coconut Grove that night.

I know...too serious. Sorry. :-)

:toast:

This thread has potential for going south fast. Keep it light!

The world (indeed the entire universe) is filled with incredible violence, suffering and death (kind of odd if there's a loving deity out there), there are literally THOUSANDS of religions/sects/cults out there claiming to be the "one true" faith, literally THOUSANDS of gods and goddesses that were *clearly* invented by mankind, THOUSANDS of "holy" books filled with violence, horror, absurdities and contradictions, and thanks to science it's becoming rather obvious that man is really nothing more than a really smart animal living on a tiny, insignificant planet orbiting a rather average star. No "soul" or "spirit" or "supernatural," only chemicals evolved to the point of intelligence. That may sound depressing, but we need to remember that truth is truth regardless of how it makes us feel.

I could probably go on for a thousand pages on this topic but won't. Just read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins and "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. They explain things much better than I'll ever be able to.

....agree with you 110% ;-)

What is it that makes us step out of ourselves when there is no gain nor reward but the satisfaction of stepping out of ourselves? Like I said this is not an question that can be framed in dualistic dimensions of black and white, look at your puter screen and all the colors well the world is the same way and thus a supreme being would also be.

You're not making any distinction between the human construct of RELIGION and the idea of God, Faith and Spirituality. There is a science aspect, indeed Darwin, Sagan, Einstein et al have shown us the way in which (I beleive) God creates a physical universe. As a non-physical being she doesn't have the power to just whip things out of nowhere.

Yes man is a slightly intelligent being, on an average star, in the middle of nowhere, and I severly doubt we are alone in this universe. There is too much out there for that not to be the case, but that in and of itself doesn't necessarily discount the existance of God

I can give you just as many circumstantial indications for why there *is* a supreme being as you have given for why there isn't. And the fact that there are 1000's of religions is no reason at all--that just means that most of humanity is searching for an answer to this question, but they've come up with different answers over the long hard years. If anything, this persistent quest for the Divine is itself an indication that there *is* a Divine.

I would also cite the following, in opposition to your "obvious" evidence:

beauty (of a flower, of a star, of a galaxy, of a cloud...)
mathematics
evolution (an idea entirely consistent with divinity)
art
love
sapience

One day about five years ago I was alone in my garden and then i wasn't. No name no religious view no revelation. But I definetly am not alone so i refer to this as the presence and do very well with it not being any furthur defined because mindfucking doesn't seem to serve my spirit well.
A neo-paganistic maydayist with buddistic optimystical multifaceted viewpoints.:P

no mindfucking and multifaceted viewpoints!



:toast:

The Voyager I is still transmitting in the same language

:silly:

there be?

It's a leftover primitive belief system we had before science...to explain thunder or death or any event we saw as unusual.

But Thor and Odin weren't true...Zeus and Athena weren't true, Vesta and Venus weren't true...altho people spent their lives praying to them, and sacrificing to them....and the latest version isn't true either.

Just a different name.

looking out my window I think we were better off before the late great mes took over.

Your either walking in the light or groping in darkness.
You either believe or you don't.
The conundrum/(2b) is you can't experience the reality of light unless God invited you and the invite happened before you or the Earth was born or created. Those who walk in the light understand what I write, know that there is a God, know they were invited and just accept it thankfully. Do you want to walk in the light? Then you're invited. You don't? Your not invited. Does that answer your question?

The multiple syntactical variations of the sentiment "You either believe or you don't" are not a substitute for a meaningful explanation.

-- Allen

in a strict logical and rational sense. By definition, god/s transcend thought.

I'm not saying that the existence of any and all god/s is illogical, mind you, but I will assert that the gods of the revealed salvationist religions of our culture are.

I do believe, however, that there is plenty of room for faith in the world.

I think that while humanity has some issues it needs to work on, the world itself is a wonderful place, and it would be no surprise to me to find that there was some kind of benevolent being responsible for that.

I don't believe in an all-loving guy in the sky who sends you to eternal damnation if you aren't doing something right.

But, being a deist I can claim that there is a 'god', who, if not a sentient creator, is a sum of all the universe's energy and is therefore a non-sentient creator.

and in many cases we have.

We are either blessed or cursed with the need to understand things and justify or attempt to explain the unexplainable.

We wish to be enlightened, and are all on some sort of spiritual quest. This quest can lead to gods, science, or irrational superstition.

To believe in God is not necessarily to believe in a specific god or gods, but to believe that we are not alone and there is more. Perhaps a higher power, perhaps just the unexplainable in our terms.

Religious belief can be a copout and simply a rote belief in dogma passed down to avoid our personal responsibility or mental exercise. It can be a means of control.

Or, it can be an expression of our continuing wonder at our existence and lead us to greater things.

the burden of proof rests with the person who positively claims the existence. So, assuming you are a person of faith, explain to us why you think such a thing/person/force exists.

Then watch as we systematically dismantle the arguments.

Come on.

One cannot prove nor disprove since the only thing that humanity has to go on is FAITH.

You can't disprove it anymore than I can prove it.

I believe, feel, and understand a supernatural presence of some sort, but those are all abstracts. Sorry if that doesn't fit hard science, but science cannot explain everything (even if it does go a long way and is very beneficial to us).

I said, lay out your argument for the existence of god/gods. That argument is your proof.

Saying "I don't know but I feel it" has no merit as it's completely subjective.

Don't suggest for a second that I am being disingenuous by stating my conditions.

Give us your arguments. Atheist, by virtue of their position, take the "critical task" of philosphy. All we have to say is "no it isn't". You have to convince us.

So, what's your BEST argument for the existence of god/gods?

which is why your "critical task" and "logic" can never disprove to someone who feels, belives and has faith in a supreme being that there is none.

no one can prove one way or the other.

Nothing I say will prove to you the presence of divinity, and since I already have my logical doubts, but feel SOMETHING there your logical disproofs aren't going to sway me.

This is a question that has to be decided by each person for themselves.

My best argument exists in the beauty of the world, the joy that is too often lost in the trauma of human events, mathematics, evolution, life, and the creation of new life. ALL of it, to me suggests something more and intangible just out of reach.

I don't say if there is or isn't a god for you, but for me, through hours of meditation, prayer and examining the world around me I have come to the conclusion that there is something outside the perception of the human concious that exists.

To ask for such things is laughable when you think about what it is you are actually asking for.

How would a creature that exists for a amazingly brief period of time on a spec of dust in the universe go about gathering evidence about a being who's very nature is beyond our capability of understanding?

I'm not saying that you should believe or not, I'm just stating that what you are saying equates to asking a dust mite to explain the meaning of life to you in latin......backwards.

If you can get god to cooperate or he wants his existance to be known. A reclusive or reluctant god is a bit more problematic but there should still be ways to gather evidence for ones existance. Note that evidence for the existance of a god does not mandate that we actualy get a sample of god or some such nonsense. Simply finding evidence of some occurrence or event caused by god should suffice. Specifically something there are any number of ways such evidence could be had. Unless of course the argument is there is no difference between a universe with god and one without god.

The actual problem is no good definition of god has been forthcoming from his proponants. Or put another way all the arguments for god that are testable have been refuted. It has effectively left the two sides with little to argue beyond does to/does not. This is perhaps why the anthropomorphic argument of creation has gained so much ground in recent years. It thinks it has got ahold of some statistics that make atheist scientists uncomfortable. Unfortunately it's main target is still people who do not understand science and want absolute answers.

If you can get god to cooperate or he wants his existance to be known.

OK let's for a second here pretend that what is assumed about God is correct. Or rather what is assumed about judgement. It true we are on a proving ground while on this planet. Each one of us is using the free will granted us to do as we wish. At the end our soul is deemed either good enough to go on to the next round or not.

If this is the case then God cooperating would completely spoil the experiment wouldn't it. After all his presence being known, proven, and accepted as fact would motivate humans to behave a certain way or face the factual knowledge that they are going to really hate the after life. As it stands there is doubt and with doubt the human mind can justify many things it otherwise could and would not.

Simply finding evidence of some occurrence or event caused by god should suffice. Specifically something there are any number of ways such evidence could be had. Unless of course the argument is there is no difference between a universe with god and one without god.

this is again an impossible question. How would one know where god is or is not? In order to show something was caused by God one would have to know what isn't. How does one know either if one does not know the nature of god?

Or put another way all the arguments for god that are testable have been refuted.

And here is another problem. Science refutes odd events by finding a way to duplicate them using more ordinary methods. For example if a group of people claim to have seen something miraculous scientists will find a way to recreate such a vision, if they can they write it off. However how do they know their recreation is what happened the first time? They don't, but it's written off just the same.

The only way to prove anything to the scientific community is by controlling, replicating, or predicting something so that it can be studied over and over again. That is impossible with a supreme being and thus no such events will ever be seen as evidence, only as unexplained phenomena that will later be explained away as never having occured.

Before you stand two doors. Enter one and you are evil. Enter the other and you choose to be good. Which one do you enter? Oh, by the way the only source of knowing which door is the right one is from others who have not yet gone through the doors and do not know any better than you do which is the evil door. Oh they have a lot of good guesses but no one knows which is the evil door. It would not be a violation of freewill for the creator of this test to actually show up and tell you which was the evil door and which was the good door. People do not lack a belief in god because they choose to. They lack a belief because they have no knowledge other than what others have tried to convince them of and they are as much in the dark as they are.

And the "evil door" is clear as day. We all see it, we simply tell ourselves we don't. People know right and wrong they just allow themselves to think otherwise.

I've never been one to buy into the "there is no right and wrong" myth. There is no rule book that you can follow to make the choices for you, but that doesn't mean you didn't know what you were doing when you decided on a door.

You are stating that works are the path to salvation rather than faith. Thus a person that strives for goodness as best they see it is entering the good door. But the doors are unlabled. The only means of determining which is the good door and which is the evil door is to listen to others who have not yet entered it.

Christianity plays a particularly nasty card on the good works entrance by demanding that works alone are not enough. No one can be perfect and all sins linger unless you are absolved of them by faith. So it is not good actions that determine salvation within this particular god's realm but instead being able to guess which door is the right door in ignorance and acceptance of the others attempting to discern which is the correct door. This is where knowledge would not disavow freewill. I cannot exorcise my freewill if I do not know (keep your eye on that word) which door is the good door. It is my freewill that allows me to choose based on information. Ignorance creates an inability to exorcise freewill.

The doors as you say are not labled, but every human is born knowing what is right and what is wrong. Not all things are right and wrong but everyone arrives at the cross roads a few times and has to make choices. Choices to lie, to cheat, to steal, to betray, to harm, and to do what they know is wrong. Some rant against morality to justify their bad decisions but that doesn't change the fact that they made their choice knowing the truth.

Also I don't believe in dogma. Faith is shown in action not words, prayer, or church attendance. Jesus planted a seed and you show your faith by following his footsteps and raging agaisnt the status quo for what is right. I don't beleive god is so vain that he needs you approval, your actions are enough.

Are you suggesting that a baby knows stealing is evil? We learn both what society deams right and wrong as well as what we believe to be right and wrong actions performed towards us. As social creatures we have to be acclimated to what the society has developed as the set of rules. As the society becomes older these rules become more and more complex thus taking longer to acclimate. This is scene is the increasing age considered to be of age.

Of course as we step away from dogmatic religions the definitions and functions become less defined. Even if these freelance belief systems grow closer to the truth (or not) the individual belief sets on their own are less likily to propogate without a support structure behind it pushing it forward. The irony of the propogation methodology of religions is that the effecicacy of the spread of the religion in no way is a signal of the accuracy of its proclomations. It is only indicitive of its methodology of spreading.

well put

not a dust mite analogy.

I am perfectly happy to discuss this with you. As I stated a few minutes ago, the burden of proof rests with the believer. You believe in the existence of god/gods.

What is the argument that brings you to the conclusion that god/gods exist?

There can be no argument and no proof presented. The very nature of "God" makes what you are asking impossible.

I am of the belief that you are born with the innate knowledge that something else greater then youself is out there. Also I'm pretty sure I've seen enough in my short life to know there is something else. What exactly, I don't know. I do know I will find out eventually and if I'm wrong, no skin off my back.

(Edited for misread and for clarity)

Rather than proving why one doesn't belive in something that doesn't exist... it is indeed the responsibility of the one making the claim IN THE FIRST PLACE to do the explaining.

And no "begging the question" type of arguments are allowed.

-- Allen

but it is not a logical or concrete question we are dealing with (in my estimation).

And in fact I see ample evidence to support the notion that god is entirely a mentally created construct.

Consider the fact that we have created the so called religious experience in lab conditions. That is we have caused people to sense the experience of communing with god/the universe/etc simply by shorting out portions of their brain. Consider further that we have to learn to distinguish ourselves as seperate from the universe in our brains development. Consider further the nature of how the brain comes to understand the universe around it. It is not through logic but rather belief that keys our view of the world. Logic may gain some leverage over time but even then it is our belief in the power of logic that lends it strength to our mind. Belief overrides logic and thus ideas that gain strong holds before our minds develop a strong understanding of the world around us maintain their hold over most of our lives.

I won't say there isn't one. However, i don't like the image of the one most people have developed for themselves.

An omniscient, omnipotent being that REQUIRES its own creations to pay homage and worship toward it, and will bring wrath and suffering against those, who of their own free will, choose not to bow down to something they can't see, is an egomaniacal image that i find VERY unattractive. Why people would worship a petty, vengeful, egocentric God is baffling? Fear is not a motivator that any all powerful being should need.

I'm always reminded of the Simpson's episode where Bart uses his Mr. Microphone to get Rodd and Todd to get him cookies. "What do you want? Angry God or Happy God?"

A God who is as beneficient as it is powerful is a more attractive image, and we don't get much of that in this country. Too bad!
The Professor

Basically looking at the fact that god had a perfect opportunity to correct some horrendous wrongs in the world and yet decided to focus on worship of himself in the 10Cs. And this we call a good god? Ok a couple of points for saying killing is a bad idea but minus several million for leaving out slavery, discrimination, child abuse, and a host of others that should have been on there. If we petty humans have been able to notice the injustices inherant in these why did god miss them? I mean drinking milk with your hamburger really rate as worse than whipping a child? Does working on Saturday(or Sunday depending on your calendar) really make you more evil than a rapist?

The Professor

"I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

This qoute above is the whole is what Christianity is supposed to be about. This is also the one quote you will rarely see escape the mouth of a Right Wing supply side Jesus following pseudo christian.

Will accumulate effective and moral means of guiding a society. Those that do not create strong societies die out over time and do not propogate. This is simply evolution in action. Thus you will find a great deal of wisdom within Christianity. But there are also appendixes and other aspects that get carried along with the functional wisdom. It is the dogmatic claims of absolutism that makes such sects dangerous. These ancient pronouncements of right and wrong become fixed and may not change with the ebb and flow of society. As we become more aware of the implications of actions our social definitions of right and wrong become more informed. As long as the religion can change with the society it has positive effects. But when the differences between what the society has learned and what the religion espouses become a chasm the society begins to struggle.

While absolute authority may in fact be an excellent means by which to propogate a set of ideas it becomes a burden within a society that is increasing its awareness of ideas and values. Thus for a time the churches authority functioned admirably to spread the "word" and built strong societies. But as the societies learned new concepts this strength became a fault.

Thus the churches splintered and fractured and split until there are thousands of denominations each with their own take on the truth. From these numerous splinters arise some that find a new balance with the societies learnings and others that cannot. Those that fail fade away. Those that succeed become the new "truth". Different from the old "truth" yet claiming the same authority to define truth.

Because if you are your argument falls apart or more importantly give evidence of the absolute Truth of the spoken Gospel of Salvation found in Christ! There are successful Christ centered Churches that are preaching a 2000 year old Truth which means they aren't claiming new authority but the same time proven authority to define Truth that is claimed as it always has been in Christ. There are many many new religions that have splintered off old Christianity but that proves nothing in regards to the validity of that new religion except to prove the validity of the old time proven Christianity as described in the Bible where it says, that in the last days many will say they are Christ and instead of following the Christ of the Bible they will tell you to follow them.

Dogma added by men in large hats or small hats are flawed. The bible was written by man. Thus I read it for what knowledge one my gain by reading it. Otherwise I stick to the parts where it seems a god is speaking to you directly. TC, Jesus, 7 deadly sins, etc etc. I don't care for Peter or any other added restrictions.

True atheists are not convinced there isn't a God. They merely do not believe in one. Saying "I don't believe in God" is very different from stating, "I believe there is no God."

The second is more likely to be said by an anti-theist, and said anti-theist usually particularly reviles one religion in particular.

you mistake atheism and agnosticsm. Use of the word belief whether in positive or negative presupposes they existence of god. Atheists aren't troubled by belief. Belief when applied to such has no meaning. We don't "not believe" in a god or gods. There is/are no god/gods.

On a personal note, I am getting tired of the term anti-theist.

Atheism vs theism is about beliefs. Either you believe, or you do not. There is no middle way.

Agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge (whether or not it is possible to have knowledge of a God.)

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_athorag.htm

Check that link.

Belief describes faith, to accept the existence of something without proof. Atheists don't disbelieve in the existence of god, that would assume that god/gods exist and that we choose not to acknowelge him/her/them. The closest an atheist will get to belief is "if there is a god/gods then those who believe such must put forth the evidence to prove the existence of that/those god/gods. Until such time as that evidence appears, and is verified, and stands up to philosophical and scientific scrutiny, the god/gods do not exist."

What you just does not seem to contradict my previous post, but the title is "nope"

let's say we agree. LOL.. aren't message boards fun?

There is a great deal of confusion over these words. A simple examination of their structure may lend some clarity to them.

First let us look at the word Theism. A theist is a person who has a belief in god or gods. There is no information contained in this word designating the reason or nature of this belief. Only that they do have a belief in a god or gods.

The prefix 'a' means without. Thus an Atheist by definition is simply someone that is without a belief in god or gods. Again this can be for any number of reasons. We simply know from this term that they lack a belief in god or gods.

Gnostic is based on the greek word meaning to know. Thus a gnostic is someone who knows a thing. This is in an absolute sense of knowing. A gnostic is someone who has knowledge of a thing.

Thus an Agnostic is someone who is without knowledge of a thing. They may have a belief or a very educated guess about it. But in the end they do not have absolute knowledge of a thing. Thus the gnostic/agnostic axis revolves around whether a person has knowledge of does not have knowledge of god.

An individual can be any combination of these terms. Atheist/Agnostic, Atheist/Gnostic, Theist/Agnostic, Theist/Gnostic. Of these some are more likely. An Atheist/Gnostic is a logical conundrum. It would require absolute knowledge of the universe to exclude the possibility of god. This is the crux of the "cannot prove a negative" argument. I cannot prove there are no smurfs in the universe. I can present arguments that show the unlikelihood of smurfs or I can refute existing arguments for smurfs, but I cannot prove there are no smurfs. Thus most atheists fall into the Atheist/Agnostic category. Those that refute this notion may in fact not understand the nature of what they are arguing and may be basing their claim on emotions rather than logic.

Of the theist categories both are potentially possible. Theist/Agnostics are those that believe in god for any number of reasons. The Theist/Gnostics are either right or mistaken about origin of their knowledge. These are the people that have "experienced" god in their life. They either have experienced god and thus are truly Gnostic Theists or they have misunderstood the true nature of their experience and erroniously see themself as Gnostic.

That's exactly what i was trying to say, but it's too busy here today to spend the time to write up a good post.

There is no proof, or disproof of a greater being, only what people choose to believe.

I choose to because I feel a presence larger than myself. I feel there is something larger than me. I don't think it makes more decisions or hates anyone. I don't believe it interfere's with human affairs. I do think it watches over us. God is not male (if anything its female), God is God.

What people choose to believe is none of my business, I just wish some would respect my beliefs.

I want to believe, I don't want to think my life as a rotting bag of flesh is my entire existance, but alas that's what all evidence points to. There is no evidence of a god of any type, let alone one in particular. So, I'm agnostic.

Hey God - we could use a little help down here if ya don't mind. If you haven't noticed, your masterpiece is quickly turning into a total shithole. Nothing new, I'm sure. Still, maybe you should step in and DO something.

Dear god, hope you get the letter and...
I pray you can make it better down here
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image
See them starving in the street
'Cause they don't get enough to eat from god
I can't believe in you

Dear god, sorry to disturb you but...
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about god
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!

Dear god don't know if you noticed but...
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
And us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look
And all the people that you made in your image
still believing that junk is true
Well I know it ain't, and so do you
Dear god
I can't believe in
I don't believe

I won't believe in heaven or hell
No saints, no sinners, no devil as well
No pearly gates, no thorny crown
You're always letting us humans down
The wars you bring, the babes you drown
Those lost at sea and never found
And it's the same the whole world 'round
The hurt I see helps to compound
That father, son and holy ghost
Is just somebody's unholy hoax
And if you're up there you'll perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve
If there's one thing I don't believe in

It's you
Dear god

eom

I thought this place was about proving yourself? I'm not familiar with a religion that is of the mind that this world is gods masterpiece.

What religion is it you speak of?

I suspect the notion is that those that do not believe in god see the notion of a world created by a god that is preported to be perfect and good proclaiming the world to be good would be high praise indeed.

The people suck.

If you'd prefer, I could always keep my use of analogies and metaphor to a minimum.

What I was saying (and what I assume everyone else gathered) is that if there IS a God that gives a shit about this place that he so painstakingly created, one would think that he'd show up in public once in a while and at least frown and shake his finger at us for being such (collective) dumbasses. Face it. We're screwin' the place up. We have been for most of recorded history.

As it stands, we're still committing atrocities with no end in sight because "My magic sky wizard is better than your magic sky wizard".

If there is a God, he's nothing more than a snotty kid who's left a jar of insects to fight it out on a long-forgotten shelf. Sounds pessimistic, I know. You have no idea how fervently I wish I was wrong, but I don't think that I am.

You think God should be making decisions for us because it would be better. I don't. It's up to each to decide what their path is. I'm fine with that.

And I am married to her.

Just like most Christians aren't "Convinced" that Zoroaster is in a jacuzzi with Odin contemplating Budda's weight loss on the Atkin's Diet.

Can't "prove" that every "god" doesn't exist but really don't care to either.

That's it. No reason to think there is. I could be wrong, but so far I have no reason to think so.

And if you really want to get into it: http://www.iidb.org

"We Don't Know, and You Don't Either!"

That's why it's called faith. You can't explain why, you either believe or you don't.

Although one time I was hiking in Garden of the Gods, and this guy that looked strikingly like Jesus, or possible Scott Stapp, looked at the trail marker that explains how glaciers cut up the rock formations a million years ago, and he said out loud to a bunch of us strangers, "That's ridiculous, everyone knows the Earth is only5,000 years old."

Well, that man has faith, I guess you could say. Personally, I think he was nuts.

evidence to show that prayer can influence things. I think it is safe to say that it is bullshit.

There would be no need to have hospitals, only churches. Again, this is bullshit.

If God was real, there would be no need for religion.

Cheers
Drifter

If there is a creator, then why would the creator create a species with innate skepticism, and then demand complete blind faith which directly went against what he created. If he wanted worship, then why create skepticism or why not reveal yourself. And why hold skepticism against something that you created to be skeptical. If he didn't want worship, but skepticism, then why would he punish those that do have blind faith in him. Wouldn't he rather respect a life well-lived?

I believe that God is good and doesn't care whether or not people believe or worship her. That she judges (if she does at all) based on your humanity towards your fellow human being and good deeds, not on the "sins" created as a means of control by *Some* people who have used Religion to further their personal agenda.

God gave humanity (still in my belief) skeptical, logical and scientific consciousness that we may have free will and question everything, even her.

The horror

I've seen make me think of early renaissance astronomical models of the universe.

They were determined to put the earth at the center of the universe. They had faith in that idea, and they built that assumption into all of their models. These constructions were incredibly complex, elaborate, and they described the motion of the planets very accurately. But they were all dead wrong.

Imagine that something like the quantum-level sub-structure of the universe itself were capable of storing and transmitting information from one region of space to another, and that like the human brain, that galaxy-sized information processor evolved intelligence and consciousness.

Presumably such an intelligence, while not material in nature, would fill the known universe and be part of eveything that existed. This universal consciousness could, in theory, know everything that can be known. But since this intelligence was the result of evolution within the sub-quantum structure of the universe itself it did not pre-date the universe and so could not have created the universe.

Thus we have an entity which might be considered a "god" since it fills the universe and knows everything. Yet this entity might also be considered a "non-god" since it did not create the universe, nor does it have the means for affecting the material universe by performing "miracles."

How would such a semi-god matter? What if the information patterns that make up our individual consciousness were to be copied out into this universal processor at the time of our physical death? (I.e., uploaded into the sub-quantum processor.) Then our consciousness could survive in this non-material state in the absence of a physical body. And perhaps those patterns could be downloaded back into a new-born human so that our unique consciousness could be "re-incarnated" in a new physical body.

Why not? Consciousness is nothing more than information and it's already been shown that the meaning of information is independant of the medium that carries that information, and, in fact, that information can be stored and retrieved with zero expenditure of energy (IBM scientists have shown "no lower bound" to the energy cost of storing a bit). This kind of semi-god, this kind of "life after death" and this kind of reincarnation does not conflict with any known laws of physics, and while a great deal of evidence exists to suggest that it might be true, there is no proof that it cannot be true.

and I can't see God. Thus, the only way to make up your mind is by what you feel in your heart. I.E. faith.

Sorry, but I just don't have the feeling. It's just not logical.

And every time I even get close to checking out organized religion I get sick to my stomach with the hypocrisy.

... while I agree that one's opinions about such things as gods can be based on "the feeling", having had formal scientific training I do enjoy speculating (or hypothesizing) what kinds of "gods" can or cannot exist within the framework of what is currently known of the laws of physics.

So far I've come up with about a dozen different versions of the "god hypothesis" that satisfy at least some of the notions of what a "god" is, without violating any known laws of nature. So it is simplistic to dismiss the idea of a god based solely on modern reductionistic science. Reductionistic science is not inconsistent with the existence of at least some types of "gods", including the particular type of god mentiond in my post #78.

The only evidence I see for a supreme being is literature e.g. the Holy Bible. I'm not one to accept other peoples' claims without verification.

Everything around me seems to have an adequate naturalistic explanation until you get down to the frontiers of physics. I don't know what quarks are made of and it may never be established in my lifetime, but I do not feel a need to consign that which is not well understood to a supernatural process. I'm comfortable not comprehending string theory and quantum mechanics.

I have always lived my life morally and if there IS something after...great.. if not.. oh well :)

It doesn't impact my life one way or the other.. I am made up of the same basic elements as every other living thing..

We are all just links in the chain of life..Humans have that damned "big brain" and we are the only beings who "know" that we will die someday, so it makes sense to try and imagine that there will be more "after"..

It's like being the only one not invited to the birthday party.. Even though you were not there, you still want to know who was, and what the presents were.. Humans are curious creatures...:)

why?

look at the fucking world.


end of discussion.

...

Perhaps:

1. God didn't make the world, but only observes it.
2. God made the world but then left it alone to sink or swim on its own.
3. Could fix things up, but doesn't care.
4. Does care, but doesn't have the ability to fix things up.
5. Lets thing remain screwed up becuase that's what gives us the most leraning opportunities.
...
Or any number of other reasons why some kind of god might exist even though the world is screwed up.

why would anyone give a damn about the existence of such a being?

god won't stop the slaughter of millions of people throughout history.. but people still pray for a good job interview.

"because what i believe is right and if others don't believe what i believe, then they are surely certifiably insane."

to disprove a god(s) is to show how he is internally contradictory. This internal contradiction immediately disproves its existence.

You can do this by researching the dogma surrounding it and/or the book associated with it.

Unfortunately, taking time to disprove all 100,000 gods ever dreamed up is quite a waste of time, and therefore I must agree that the burden of proof lays on the assertion


I will say this again, however, at the most basic level I can prove that 'my' god exists by simply giving him the description of being the sum of all the universe's energy.

for that which is other than knowable.

Does it exist? As a mythically useful placeholder it does.

Okay, you want the short version?

By "God" you might mean either:
(a) the traditional Western definition -- an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being;
(b) something unknowable, beyond reason, mysterious, etc.; or
(c) something else.

If you mean (c), then I don't care about this God. If by "God" you mean, say, a fifth fundamental force in the universe, be my guest, but I'm going to ignore it.

Well, maybe I'll care about it. If by "God" you mean, say, a guy in New Orleans who's giving away $1000 to the first person who can email him some trivia answer, then maybe I'll give a shit. But usually what people end up saying when they choose this option is something that really is of no interest.

If you mean (b), then I don't care about this God either. If this thingamajig is so mysterious and unintelligible, then I haven't a clue as to what it's all about, and neither does anyone else, and if you go around saying that "at least God loves me" or "at least God has a purpose for it all" at the same time that you subscribe to this meaning of the term, then you are just confused. If this God is as mysterious and beyond reason as you say, then quit talking about it. By your own account, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

If you mean (a), then there's no chance in hell it exists. Why do I say that?

Basically, I think the argument from evil is as close to a knock-down argument as any argument can ever be. I know this is contentious, but you just asked for my reasons -- not for a full-fledged defense. A complete defense takes more time. But, here's the relatively brief version.

All theists who give a damn about being consistent agree: given that God is all-good and all-powerful, if evil exists, he must have some morally acceptable excuse for not stopping it. That excuse might be that he literally can't stop it or that he could stop it but shouldn't for some reason. In any case, the point is that there's got to exist a good theodicy -- an excuse.

But the excuses that have been proposed are almost all laughably bad. This is where a detailed defense would come in -- in the examination of those theodicies. Obviously, I can't provide all that detailed defense here. But I can tell you I've thought about this for a long, long time, and I've come to the conclusion that there simply isn't any conceivable excuse. If you say there's some excuse beyond the power of my reasoning ability, then I say -- fine, maybe so. But all I can go by is my reasoning ability, and my reasoning ability leads me - after long exercise - to conclude that there's no good excuse. None. So such a being just cannot exist.

That's it.

I'd say convinced except that I am not convinced of anything, even those things that there is every evidence for. "I know nothing at all except for the fact of my own ignorance." (I don't remember who said it). I don't think that it is faith because I am still learning about faith. Yes, I've had moments of faith, but consistent faith is difficult. Despite what you may believe, God has always been with me. I don't know if God is with everyone, but God has always been with me. If God had not been with me, I may have been dead or in prision instead of here. I have seen many miracles that perhaps could just be explained as a series of unlikely coincidences attributed as personal miracles after the fact. God has given me strength as well. I ponder the nature of God and cannot understand yet and probably never will. I cannot deny God. Really God will exist or not exist in His/Her true nature regardless of whether we believe or not. My life is better because I believe in God. Maybe your life is great without believing in God. Don't discount that others really have benefitted by their religious beliefs separate of religious organizations. For me, spirituality and a belief in God is part of how I live.

I'm not sure about Diana Ross.