Nobody really knows

[Wilson23]

Goswami, for one. I've taken two of his classes. Credentialed physicist. Also Fred Alan Wolf. You hve no idea what you're talking about.

Whatever they told you, it was not that quantum mechanics implies God.

 

[Wilson23]

That's simply wrong. The divine, whatever It is, is the one thing, the Thing Itself, the All. As such, that energy is exactly the way the Divine works.

Given that the One is Life (shown by the fact that we are alive), then that energy of life vibrates at different levels as and through everything.

Meaningless New Age deepity.

 

[SkyBubble]

Religion has inspired almost all of our greatest artistic and scientific achievements.

 

[SkyBubble]

Meaningless New Age deepity.

Meaning you don't understand it. It's apparently over your head.

 

[SkyBubble]

“Militant atheists seek to discredit religion based on a highly selective reading of history. There was a time not long ago—just a couple of centuries—when the Western world was saturated by religion. Militant atheists are quick to attribute many of the most unfortunate aspects of history to religion, yet rarely concede the immense debt that civilization owes to various monotheist religions, which created some of the world’s greatest literature, art, and architecture; led the movement to abolish slavery; and fostered the development of science and technology. One should not invalidate these achievements merely because they were developed for religious purposes. If much of science was originally a religious endeavor, does that mean science is not valuable? Is religiously motivated charity not genuine? Is art any less beautiful because it was created to express devotion to God? To regret religion is to regret our civilization and its achievements.” ― Bruce Sheiman, An Atheist Defends Religion

 

[SkyBubble]

“Religion’s misdeeds may make for provocative history, but the everyday good works of billions of people is the real history of religion, one that parallels the growth and prosperity of humankind. There are countless examples of individuals lifting themselves out of personal misery through faith. In the lives of these individuals, God is not a delusion, God is not a spell that must be broken—God is indeed great.” ― Bruce Sheiman, An Atheist Defends Religion

 

[SkyBubble]

“In conclusion: Knowledge of the material world and the natural order of things have brought humanity unimaginable wealth and prosperity. Yet what we desire the most is truth: understanding our special place in the world; purpose: a meaningful personal destiny; and wisdom: the guidance to lead a good life. Material knowledge is entirely the province of science; truth, purpose, and wisdom are largely the province of religion.” ― Bruce Sheiman, An Atheist Defends Religion

 

[SkyBubble]

“The militant atheists lament that religion is the foremost source of the world’s violence is contradicted by three realities: Most religious organizations do not foster violence; many nonreligious groups do engage in violence; and many religious moral precepts encourage nonvio lence. Indeed, we can confidently assert that if religion was the sole or primary force behind wars, then secular ideologies should be relatively benign by comparison, which history teaches us has not been the case. Revealingly, in his Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips chronicled a total of 1,763 conflicts throughout history, of which just 123 were categorized as religious. And it is important to note further that over the last century the most brutality has been perpetrated by nonreligious cult figures (Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe—you get the picture). Thus to attribute the impetus behind violence mainly to religious sentiments is a highly simplistic interpretation of history.” ― Bruce Sheiman, An Atheist Defends Religion

 

[Wilson23]

“The militant atheists lament that religion is the foremost source of the world’s violence is contradicted by three realities: Most religious organizations do not foster violence; many nonreligious groups do engage in violence; and many religious moral precepts encourage nonvio lence. Indeed, we can confidently assert that if religion was the sole or primary force behind wars, then secular ideologies should be relatively benign by comparison, which history teaches us has not been the case. Revealingly, in his Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips chronicled a total of 1,763 conflicts throughout history, of which just 123 were categorized as religious. And it is important to note further that over the last century the most brutality has been perpetrated by nonreligious cult figures (Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe—you get the picture). Thus to attribute the impetus behind violence mainly to religious sentiments is a highly simplistic interpretation of history.” ― Bruce Sheiman, An Atheist Defends Religion

See Atheism 3.0.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_3.0

 

[SkyBubble]

The point of your comment?

 

[Wilson23]

The point of your comment?

Sheiman seems to be thinking in 3.0 terms.

Of course, none of that controversy has anything at all to do with whether God really exists or not, or what his will might be. Which NOBODY REALLY KNOWS.

 

[SkyBubble]

I think we can intuit that something we can call God must exist. Can we 10% prove it using logic alone? No, God transcends logic. But the case for God's existence is too strong for me to disbelieve.

Now, some religions don't stand up to logical scrutiny IMO, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a God.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I think we can intuit that something we can call God must exist. Can we 10% prove it using logic alone? No, God transcends logic. But the case for God's existence is too strong for me to disbelieve.

Now, some religions don't stand up to logical scrutiny IMO, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a God.

Lay out your case for God. I’ll poke holes in it.

 

[SkyBubble]

I'm sure you think you can.

 

[Wilson23]

I think we can intuit that something we can call God must exist.

No, intuition does not support that, no more than it supports the existence of ghosts or kami.

Remember, anything that counts here has to be transferable from mind to mind. If you have an intuitive religious experience, an epiphany or theophany, that means nothing because I have not had the same eperience.

Can we 10% prove it using logic alone? No, God transcends logic.

Not if he exists, he doesn't. Omnipotence cannot make two and two add to five. (Torture can, but that's another story.)

 

[Wilson23]

Wouldn't we ALL like to abolish the conditions that create the need for religion?

Well, it's not really possible. There are four Gods -- that is, four psychological human needs God answers:
1) God the Creator. Simply answers the question, "Where did all this come from?"
2) God the Provider. The one you pray to when you want something.
3) God the Judge. Provides some moral order to existence.
4) God the King of Heaven. Provides a personal afterlife.

Even godless religions like Buddhism can play all roles but the first. (Buddha never claimed to be a god, but they pray to him anyway.)

I suppose the God with whom mystics seek an ecstatic personal union might be distinguished from the above and classed as a fifth entity. But mystics are rare, and their God is so far outside the thought or experience of the majority of believers that he does not even deserve a name.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I'm sure you think you can.

Let’s find out. Any God that can’t hold up to being debunked on a porn board isn’t worthy of being called divine.

 

[Wilson23]

Religion has inspired almost all of our greatest artistic and scientific achievements.

Only in music and architecture. Religious painting and sculpture are vastly overrated, and it's always been more hindrance than help to science.

 

[Wilson23]

Let’s find out. Any God that can’t hold up to being debunked on a porn board isn’t worthy of being called divine.

Reread the OP. You can poke holes in ANY arguments presented for God's existence, but that will not settle the question. In both scientific and philosophical terms the existence of God can never be ruled out entirely -- partly, because the concept of God can never be defined with sufficient precision to falsify it.

Ask any believer: What would it take to prove to you God does not exist? What observable events would be definitely incompatible with his existence? You will get no meaningful answers.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

This is profound, rational discussion, and of course, I want to be part of it. I feel that there's a lot to be said that hasn't been said already.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Also, I am looking at an anal sex movie right now, so, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them.

 

[Wilson23]

Also, I am looking at an anal sex movie right now, so, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them.

Would God like to be fucked up the ass?

That assumes he has one . . . Well, Jesus has one, right?

Jesus loves you! Physically!

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Would God like to be fucked up the ass?

Why, I would naturally assume so.
I mean, the girl in the movie likes it a lot, so...

 

[Wilson23]

Why, I would naturally assume so.
I mean, the girl in the movie likes it a lot, so...

If God is like her, he PRETENDS to like it.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

has

had