Is it okay to believe in God?

[Liar]

Where was God in the first 13 Billion years or 21 Billion years of the Universe (however old it is this week)? Did He just suddenly pop up in the last few thousand years? If He is omnipotent, why didn't he create some species to praise him for the first 99.99999% of existence? Or is He just getting vain in His old age?

This is the most common argument against the existenxce of a god. What I can't understand is that whenever I hear this argument, I am the only one to reply like so:

Then maybe He ain't.

Maybe it did take him that long to get it reasonably right.

Maybe Creation was a fucktard of a tedious accomplishment and what we have is just as good as God could make it.

Just sayin'. it's easy to argue against the existance of an omniscient/potent/present god. It's pretty impossible to argue against the existance of an imperfect one.

#L

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Liar
This is the most common argument against the existenxce of a god. What I can't understand is that whenever I hear this argument, I am the only one to reply like so:

Then maybe He ain't.

Maybe it did take him that long to get it reasonably right.

Maybe Creation was a fucktard of a tedious accomplishment and what we have is just as good as God could make it.

Just sayin'. it's easy to argue against the existance of an omniscient/potent/present god. It's pretty impossible to argue against the existance of an imperfect one.

#L

Speaking from the core of Philo/Rel work, most people carelessly use the terms "omnipotent" and the like (the "omni's")... which leads to some of the worst contradictions of concept.

Formally, we use "extent of possibility" as a limitor (monstly because going past that gets into inconcievable stuff). So, "omnipotent" would not necessitate perfection, more like "perfect as it gets" or (for Spinoza) "perfect as it is".

 

[Liar]

Speaking from the core of Philo/Rel work, most people carelessly use the terms "omnipotent" and the like (the "omni's")... which leads to some of the worst contradictions of concept.

Formally, we use "extent of possibility" as a limitor (monstly because going past that gets into inconcievable stuff). So, "omnipotent" would not necessitate perfection, more like "perfect as it gets" or (for Spinoza) "perfect as it is".

Uuh ok. Your point in commonspeak being....?

Omnipotence would not necessitate perfection. Only omnipotence. Did I say anything else?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Liar
Uuh ok. Your point in commonspeak being....?

Omnipotence would not necessitate perfection. Only omnipotence. Did I say anything else?

Translation: "Your point pretty well reflects what contemporary philosophy thinks."

 

[Liar]

Translation: "Your point pretty well reflects what contemporary philosophy thinks."

Ooo kay den. Thx for the clarification.

Geez, I knew I shouldn't jump into threads like these at two in the fucking moring.

#L

 

[Guest]

Ooo kay den. Thx for the clarification.

Geez, I knew I shouldn't jump into threads like these at two in the fucking moring.

#L

LOL!

Night-night, hon.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Damn....I really started somethin here, didn't I?



Joe...I just had to throw this in: while I may not always agree with you or like your ideas, I love what you have to say...and I love that you *have* things to say. I do have to read your statements and ideas about five or six times though before I understand....

 

[Guest]

Nothin' like a good hat an' a suit o clothes.

Oh my, yes!

(Actually, it reminds me of the Ascot Gavotte scene from My Fair Lady.)

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Oh my, yes!

(Actually, it reminds me of the Ascot Gavotte scene from My Fair Lady.)

Totally agreed

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by she_is_my_addiction
Damn....I really started somethin here, didn't I?



Joe...I just had to throw this in: while I may not always agree with you or like your ideas, I love what you have to say...and I love that you *have* things to say. I do have to read your statements and ideas about five or six times though before I understand....

Thank you. I really do appreciate it.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Thank you. I really do appreciate it.

The AH wouldn't be the same without you.

 

[fifty5]

Hi SIMA,

My short answer is "Yes" - bu with the caveat that you don't misuse that belief to oppress others.

Long answer...

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in faith.

Faith (whether in God, Good, or Self) is a strength to draw upon.

My own position is faith in consistency. I believe that the scientific method is potentially capable of determining all the rules - and that even though those rules haven't yet been fully determined, all physical matter is subject to those rules - and that 'mind' (and the faith that mind can have) is no exception to that.

As of 2004, science suffers from a great big 'hole in the middle'. Scientists have discovered laws that apply to the 'macro' world (e.g. the gas laws that relate temperature, pressure and volume) and laws that apply to the 'micro' level (atoms, and the genome, for instance). However, in between those there is still an enormous gap: one cannot apply the so-far-discovered laws of the micro and predict much of the macro; especially at the level of thinking human beings.

My own guess is that the primary reason is combinatorial maths: as the number of individual inputs (atoms, nerve cells, etc.) increases, the number of states multiplies exponentially - one 'bit' (a single atom, a single memory cell) is either on or off - 2 states. Given 8 of those, you have 256 possibilities. With 24, there are nearly 17 million (multiply 8 items by 3 means multiplying the outcomes by 65536). And how many cells are there in a single human brain? And how many atoms in the universe? Then apply the exponential function.

So why do I not believe in God? Well, as far as I can see, there are 2 possibilities: that God invented the rules, or the rules simply happen to be true - "laws of nature" for want of a better phrase.

In the first case, after inventing the rules as unbreakable laws, God is powerless to affect the outcome: having invented those rules as laws, (s)he can't break them...

But if God is omnipotent...

For me, that's an example of the Reductio ad absurdum proof mechanism.

In the second, there is no God anyway.


Nevertheless, the combinatorial maths (or whatever) does mean that even if 'predestination' is the case, the outcome is still unknowable - sort of like chaos theory.

So, to my mind, it is OK to believe - just so long as you don't use that belief to justify oppressing those with different beliefs.

Logic isn't enough - thanks to the combinatorial maths - but while alogical seems to me acceptable, illogical" seems stupid, and even evil.

"To thine own self be true" seems to me to be a far better philosophy to bridge that gap between micro and macro than anything else available in 2004.

I love my wife.

I love my puppies.

I love myself - as long as I'm honest.

"Go thou and do likewise!"

Eff

 

[The_Darkness]

I believe in God and that God has made it not neccessary for God to exist. Let me explain....

First off, we have this wonderful evolution mechanism built into every single creature on Earth. I don't want to debate evolution vs non-evolution or Humans from Monkeys or all creatures from an ameoba. I refuse to have that conversation. Period.

You in back. Knock it off. Evolution exists. If you don't believe it, that's your deal.

I think that God got everything going with an insaitiable curiosity and then just kinda let it go. Everything is programed with the ability to change, adapt, grow, die, and reproduce....well...living creatures, and large systems (ecologies, planets, etc) can anyway....rocks don't suddenly grow more rocks. However, volcanoes put large amounts of "new" rock (and dust and ash) into the big picture.

I say all of this for only one reason: Any Engineer who designs something does two things: they design their creation to be able to be changed and used in the future, or they design a pile of crap that will be out-moded in a very short time.

It is my belief, that God got everything going. Be it through the Big Bang or whatever, I don't know....it's not my place to question that. I believe that the universe is several billion years (which ever flavor is appropriate right now, 13 or 26, as thebullet said) and that it is in a constant state of fluxuation, growth, and change. Most of this change is unobservable by Human standards....millions on the short hand and billions of years on the long hand...to take place.

There's a purpose to all of this, whether it's to make God happy for the sake of making God happy, or whether there's a greater, divine plan.....I don't know.

I'm with fifty5. Have at it kids, go out, have fun, stay out of prison (though, it builds character) and try to die debt free!

 

[mismused]

Dear Mismused..

When I said, "..the human mind is known to most..." I was being gentle to those fellow Litsters who do not acknowledge existence as an absolute.
==============

Poor ami cus,

If you are going to state what is, tell why it is so. In spite of your apparent love of your idea of your mental invincibility, you really should tell the rest of us poor souls why it is we should acquiesce to all that is good and wise in you, and go as you guide us.

Otherwise, aren't you like the Vatican, and demanding total obedience to the Vicar of the Almightly on earth who is infallible? If so, what's the difference which God any one chooses to acknowledge, or not acknowledge, since you're setting yourself up as The Vicar of the Western World. Mercy, the Pope is apt to get a bit upset with you, don't you think?

==============
In your case, I do not know if it is stubbornness, ignornance or simply the lack of the ability to perceive reality.

==============

Yes, it must be so. You spout, and I dare to ask you to back it up. You get PO'ed, and that makes me stubborn, ignorant, and incapable of . . ., why stop where you did? Why not just say that I'm incapable of anything that fits your logic, your reasoning, ungrateful wretch that I am? *Sigh!* Yes, I'm so bad. Punish me, dear ami cus. Don't let any of us retards even dare kiss the hem of your skirt.

Skirt? Hmm. Maybe. Yes, you cleric types wear cassock like skirts, don't you? You are kind of like what so many men call the proverbial woman, someone who simply must have the last word, eh?
=============

There are certain aspects of reality defined as 'axioms' truths that are self evident and absolute. The easiest on is: "A is A" Which means, "a thing is that which it is..." that to 'most' is self evident, easy to understand and is an absolute statement.

You whine and whine that I do not present 'facts' for you when the fault is in your ability to fail to acknowledge that truth and reality exist totally independent of either you or me.
=============

Yes, give me your axioms. Let's see, that's kind of like facts, huh, or nearly so? Is that right?

Hmm! Wait, didn't I ask for them? Facts, I mean. You have the esoteric facts, axioms, right? Please, great ami cus, share them with us "whiners" who beg for a fact or two from you.

How else are we expected to go out and proseltize for The Church of Ami Cus? We, the ignorant, know not how to mesmerize with the munificent beauty of your words, we have not your eloquence, your charm, your person. Help us, oh great leader, and leave us not to whine forevermore. (Hehe, you're so cute when you get all wordy, and lost for how to explain the mess you get yourself into).
=============

I cannot prove existence to you, no one can, it cannot be done. Thus you muddle about looking for god to swoop down and enlighten you.

Ain't gonna happen my friend. You must use your mind in a logical, focused, non contradictory manner in able to comprehend the reality of your existence and the nature of your being.

Good luck.


amicus... [/B]

===========

Read the rest of your blather. Show me one fact to back up what you say. Well, really, I know it's asking a lot, too much, I daresay, but why not give all facts since you say this is so, and that is such, and all should know. Know what, why, ami cus?

Please, don't leave me all alone here to whine in front of all these people. Spare your facts, and help us to better proseletize for your church.

No? Shucks. I think I'll go whine elsewhere. Maybe someone else has facts to back up what they give as axiomatic. From axioms, right? Like facts, the stuff to hang one's bonnet on, huh?

Such a beautiful mind you waste, ami cus (mind, as stated in previous post). Go ahead, have at it, ami cus, have the last word. I surrender to your magnificent fact-filled posts.

A for you, and a good bye

mismused

 

[BlackShanglan]

Review that sentence logically and you will find a major contradiction. Mankind 'defines' objects and theories based on the evidence and characteristics of the 'existence' of the item under investigation.

In other words, the object first exists, then we define it.

Now amicus, this is simply silly. We have definitions for things that we have not acheived to any notable degree - peace, justice, tranquility - for things that might or might not exist - God, heaven, hell, alternate universe - and for things that we know to be fictional - dragon, pixie, warp drive. The claim that a definition is built only around an existing object really is unsupportable, and the fact that we are arguing about God, which at least one of us thinks doesn't exist but can define, should surely show that.

The axiom is: lacking evidence supporting the existence of 'A', one can conclude that 'A' does not exist. And we go on from there.

Tthis has been provably false in many cases. For most of human history, one would have been forced to conclude that electrons, DNA, and the planet Pluto did not exist, as we could not have detected the evidence of their presence. The better axiom is, "Lacking evidence, we cannot conclude anything about A."

I am arguing, not from a failure to understand the rules of formal logic, but from the perspective that they do not discover what is physically true, only what can be logically proven. These are not the same thing. Logical proofs are notoriously dependent on the quality of evidence, and in this case there is no evidence. The only rational and logical position is to label it "unproven." My point is that "unproven" has nothing to do with something's actual existence. It only means that we lack evidence or a chain of reasoning to prove its existence or eliminate its possibility. God is, in my opinion, clearly in that category. True logic does not dictate that that which it cannot prove does not exist; rather, genuine application of logic acknowledges immediately weaknesses in evidence.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by BlackShanglan
True logic does not dictate that that which it cannot prove does not exist; rather, genuine application of logic acknowledges immediately weaknesses in evidence.

Bingo. Basic Logic 101.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Bingo. Basic Logic 101.

Phew. Now I know I'm on stable footing; Joe's got my back.

(Stable? Ha? Geddit? Oh, never mind.)

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

That's why atheism is a faith.

 

[amicus]

No, sorry, not on stable footing.

While it is a curious distinction you make, that the lack of evidence says nothing about the non existence of something, you forget the mutually exclusive concept of contradiction.

If A is indeed A, then A cannot be both A and B at the same time. Thus if the laws of nature and our knowledge of evolution are indeed 'real' then to purport existence to your all powerful supreme being would be a contradiction to the laws of nature.

So that although no evidence exists to support your concept of god, nature declares pass interference and penalizes the believers 10 yards and grants a first down.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Cantdog...define the word atheist, one who denies the existence of god.

Nothing about faith.

Of course you may make up your own word and use your own definition. But atheism, by definition, is not a 'faith'.

nice try...

 

[BlackShanglan]

If A is indeed A, then A cannot be both A and B at the same time.

Agreed.

Thus if the laws of nature and our knowledge of evolution are indeed 'real' then to purport existence to your all powerful supreme being would be a contradiction to the laws of nature.

In what way? I see no contradiction between the existence of a supreme being and the presence of laws in the universe. Indeed, some might argue that the presence of the physical laws of the universe suggests an ordering entity who set those laws in motion.

I tend to agree with you on the idea of the whole Noah's ark / creationism point of view - but then I don't espouse that point of view, so it doesn't really trouble. I see no contradiction in suggeting a prime mover who set some laws of the universe into effect, or who allowed evolution to take its merry course with the work the creator set in motion.

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't know that we have any solid Laws of Nature that would contradict the existance of God, specifically. Evolution is still only a theory, strictly speaking.

Which Laws of Nature contradict the existance of God?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Cantdog...define the word atheist, one who denies the existence of god.

Nothing about faith.

Of course you may make up your own word and use your own definition. But atheism, by definition, is not a 'faith'.

nice try...

I believe that cantdog's point is that in the absence of evidence, any belief requires faith, including belief that something definitely doesn't exist. Naturally, I agree with him.

Shanglan

 

[rikaaim]

No, sorry, not on stable footing.

While it is a curious distinction you make, that the lack of evidence says nothing about the non existence of something, you forget the mutually exclusive concept of contradiction.

If A is indeed A, then A cannot be both A and B at the same time. Thus if the laws of nature and our knowledge of evolution are indeed 'real' then to purport existence to your all powerful supreme being would be a contradiction to the laws of nature.

So that although no evidence exists to support your concept of god, nature declares pass interference and penalizes the believers 10 yards and grants a first down.

amicus...

If, in theory, mutiple universes exist, then how is it that we find out? In theory, one world may be parallel to ours, but on a different plane. Now if there is a different plane, does our plane of logic still exits? Now, assuming that you shall bare with me one small given, the theory just for the assumption and provement of logics place, IF (and I do believe) God exists, but on another plane, can our logic still define Him? What's to say that our logic works for our meager intellect, but He is above and on a different plane? Both physically and mentally. My point, something so board and possible, in different theorms and realms, may be ungrassped by our best attempts. I.E. If A is A then A can not be B. Well, .9999999 repeating is .9999999 repeating, but it is also 1. A very small distinction mind you, but still none the less it is an entity A was well as B at the same time.

 

[cantdog]

suit of clothes II

Oct 31