Is it okay to believe in God?

[BlackShanglan]

Re: suit of clothes II

Oct 31

My God!!

Proof that there IS a Dog!



Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by rikaaim
If, in theory, mutiple universes exist, then how is it that we find out?

I think, by definition, that's an impossibility. If mutiple universes exist, they'd be the same universe (universe is defined by its being everything). If we just mean some abstract physical expanse that's repeated, together they would constitute a universe.

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.

Complicated.

Strictly speaking, there are only two manageable options: either (1) Logic exists or (2) logic doesn't exist in some inconcievable way that we cannot talk about it substantially nor interact with that possibility in any cognitive way (making it meaningless). If God exists above Logic, it is meaningless to make the assertion as the assertion has no concievable property.

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.

Non-contradiction is pretty solid. .9999 repeated infinitely isn't 1, by definition. So, in that sense a thing cannot be A and B. A better way to put it (because the A and B designation will just bring confusing attempts at resolution) is that a thing cannot both be and not-be, simultaneously.

So, .999 "being not 1" cannot "be 1" as well.

 

[Guest]

Re: suit of clothes II

Oct 31

Lovely mustache, cant -

 

[rikaaim]

I think, by definition, that's an impossibility. If mutiple universes exist, they'd be the same universe (universe is defined by its being everything). If we just mean some abstract physical expanse that's repeated, together they would constitute a universe.



Complicated.

Strictly speaking, there are only two manageable options: either ( If God exists above Logic, it is meaningless to make the assertion as the assertion has no concievable property.



Non-contradiction is pretty solid. .9999 repeated infinitely isn't 1, by definition. So, in that sense a thing cannot be A and B. A better way to put it (because the A and B designation will just bring confusing attempts at resolution) is that a thing cannot both be and not-be, simultaneously.

So, .999 "being not 1" cannot "be 1" as well.

Indeed, all very complicated. But you just made the choice very easy in a way. (1) Logic exists or (2) logic doesn't exist in some inconcievable way that we cannot talk about it substantially nor interact with that possibility in any cognitive way (making it meaningless). Thus the choice, do you believe A or do you believe B? That choice can only be made by each individual and thus spins us back to the problem we've been facing all along with no help. I'm glad I could clarify some things.

 

[English Lady]

I personally believe that to be an atheist takes a hell of alot of faith and strength.To truly believe this is it and nothing more, that everything is coincidence and nothing is miraculous well it takes a stronger person than I!


Faith comes in to pla where there is anything that cannot be 100% proven. You can't 110% prove or disprove the exsistance of God. But that is the point I think.

I love The Darkness's point about God setting everything in motion. Like one of those creator PC games we have now. You begin it all, set it up and basically what you create grows and does on it's own with only a little input from yourself.

The beauty of faith is that only you can decide what and if to believe. I isa completely personal choice. A person needs to have some kind of personal experience to work out what to believe. And I think everyone believes in something, even if that belief is in nothing.

It is OK to believe because there is nothing else a person can do. The must believe in something because there are so many things left in the world that are not 100% proven.

I is OK to believe in God because it is your personal experience.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I used to be an atheist. *shrug*

I don't think it's very hard for some people, and I can understand why, too, because I was there once too.

 

[English Lady]

I have always believed in Jesus so that is probably why it seems so very hard to me.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I have always believed in Jesus so that is probably why it seems so very hard to me.

*cringe* I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God necessarily, but I do believed he made great things happen. I do believe in God. I think as a Unitarian, the beliefs are based more upon "treat others as you wish to be treated" rather than Jesus.

 

[English Lady]

My personal belief is centred around Jesus and his life and death. Thats the belief I've always had and will always have I think. My belief is always changing but that is the centre of my faith.

 

[Liar]

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

True, the easiest route, the one that doesn't require any faith at all, is the one I take:

There might be a god, or a thousand gods, or none. I have no idea. I just hope that that doesn't mean I'll burn in might-be-hell for a might-be-eternity after I die. I mean I like warmer climates, but give me a break.

I stand by my statement from many threads ago that the bible is full of fairy tale metaphors (like the 6 day creation, the garden of eden, noah etc), and that to use Creationism vs Darwinism as a bat to argue against the existance of a deity is just plain irrelevant.

#L

 

[Liar]

I love The Darkness's point about God setting everything in motion. Like one of those creator PC games we have now. You begin it all, set it up and basically what you create grows and does on it's own with only a little input from yourself.

I heard a discussion aboutthis over a few drinks recently. The core point went something like this.

A: "I don't believe in God, I believe in the big bang."

B: "I believe in the big bang too."

A: "So you don't believe in God?"

B: "Yes I do."

A: "How can you belive in the big bang and in God at the same time?"

B: "Who else would had pushed the button?"

(silence)

A: "Ok, I'm way too drunk for this conversation. Let's talk football."

#L

 

[English Lady]

but that does require some faith Liar, not very active faith thats true but it is faith all the same.

Actually as an aside i saw a wonderful programme a while back all about the Noah story. there is evidence to say a Noah type event did in fact happen but it wasn't a worldwide flood (it just seemed it to the people at the time)and Noah could have been a merchant setting off to take livestock and produce somewhere who got caught up in the flood and somehow survived. The story passed on by word of mouth and eventually written down as just kinda inflated on each retelling. It was fascinating to watch.

 

[English Lady]

I heard a discussion aboutthis over a few drinks recently. The core point went something like this.

A: "I don't believe in God, I believe in the big bang."

B: "I believe in the big bang too."

A: "So you don't believe in God?"

B: "Yes I do."

A: "How can you belive in the big bang and in God at the same time?"

B: "Who else would had pushed the button?"

(silence)

A: "Ok, I'm way too drunk for this conversation. Let's talk football."

#L

I love that and it's very much my way of thinking!!

 

[BlackShanglan]

I stand by my statement from many threads ago that the bible is full of fairy tale metaphors (like the 6 day creation, the garden of eden, noah etc), and that to use Creationism vs Darwinism as a bat to argue against the existance of a deity is just plain irrelevant.

#L

Yes, I am strongly in agreement with you there. I think that the Bible is a relevant text for literary criticism and that an understanding of symbolic communication goes a very long way in understanding it. Humans communicate in symbols, and so evidently does God if we look at Jesus's parables. I think that the Almighty is just trying to talk to us in a way that feels familiar to us.

Shanglan

 

[English Lady]

Yes, I am strongly in agreement with you there. I think that the Bible is a relevant text for literary criticism and that an understanding of symbolic communication goes a very long way in understanding it. Humans communicate in symbols, and so evidently does God if we look at Jesus's parables. I think that the Almighty is just trying to talk to us in a way that feels familiar to us.

Shanglan

I think there is alot of truth in that

 

[fifty5]

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!

I'm glad I'm open enough for you to agree with my 'action philosophy' (second quoted para), but the one before that does give me problems...

I can't concieve of any purpose that I can respect. The obvious one of an 'experiment', just to see what happens, that caused events like the inquisition, the holocaust, the arab-israeli conflict and so on, I find simply contemptible.

But maybe I'm an agnostic. My fall-back position is that a 'good' god will recognise that if it's because He set it up that way (with an unknowable purpose), he won't blame me for conclusions reached as honestly as I can, without the necessary understanding to be 'right'. (Or else He's despicable, not worshipful...)

Eff

 

[fifty5]

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?

Depends on how you define "God".

If that definition includes "omnipotence" - the power to do anything whatsoever - then the existence of any (real or hypothetical) 'law of nature' - some rule that denies the possibility of any power whatsoever to break it - is mutually contradictory: the simultaneous existence of a power that can break any rule and a rule that cannot be broken by any power is a logical impossibility. One of those two hypotheses must be false.

... Unless one hypothesises an omnipotent being who, by an act of will, creates rules that He cannot break ...

But that hypothesis negates divine intervention, make prayer worthless (except on some olympean score board)... and generally devalues all religious belief: pray and worship all you like, God has already decided not to act on those behaviours!

Faith is real. Like placebo drugs it has measurable effects. Evolution has enforced the greater survival value of those who do have faith when there is less than perfect knowledge (which is still the case). To my guess, the processes leading to that were what were going on before humans evolved to the point where they could create God in their own image.

Eff

 

[fifty5]

Non-contradiction is pretty solid. .9999 repeated infinitely isn't 1, by definition. So, in that sense a thing cannot be A and B. A better way to put it (because the A and B designation will just bring confusing attempts at resolution) is that a thing cannot both be and not-be, simultaneously.

So, .999 "being not 1" cannot "be 1" as well.

Sorry Joe, your maths isn't up to this. 0.99 recurring is just another way to write '1'. Each '9' in the recurring sequence takes it closer to '1'. If there are an infinite number of those '9's, then the totality is infinitely close to '1' - and 'infinitely close to' is just another form of words for 'equals'. The symbols are different, but the entities are identical.

Eff

 

[fifty5]

I personally believe that to be an atheist takes a hell of alot of faith and strength.To truly believe this is it and nothing more, that everything is coincidence and nothing is miraculous well it takes a stronger person than I!

I believe you are right, but...

What is miraculous? (And exactly what do you mean by that word?)

To me a universe that obeys universal physical laws (only some of which the human race on this planet has yet discovered) is in itself an utterly awesome concept.

Is that so very different to your concept of 'miraculous'?

Yet still, because we haven't yet discovered all the laws of nature, you are completely correct to say that my opinion depends on faith.

It is the general trend of human knowledge, away from superstition, towards mathematical/physical/biological/etc. understanding that is consistent and universal, from which I draw my own faith - and thence, my feeling of personal responsibility.

Eff

 

[English Lady]

I think, my definition of Miraculous is something that is mysterious, something that seems to be done by a higher being than us, that seems not to have any fully scientific explaination.

Thats what I mean by it anyways

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by fifty5
Depends on how you define "God".

If that definition includes "omnipotence" - the power to do anything whatsoever - then the existence of any (real or hypothetical) 'law of nature' - some rule that denies the possibility of any power whatsoever to break it - is mutually contradictory: the simultaneous existence of a power that can break any rule and a rule that cannot be broken by any power is a logical impossibility. One of those two hypotheses must be false.

Formally, in most philosophy, we don't use that definition of omnipotent because its silly... for the reason you just mentioned. Its meaningless.

Originally posted by fifty5
Sorry Joe, your maths isn't up to this. 0.99 recurring is just another way to write '1'. Each '9' in the recurring sequence takes it closer to '1'. If there are an infinite number of those '9's, then the totality is infinitely close to '1' - and 'infinitely close to' is just another form of words for 'equals'. The symbols are different, but the entities are identical.

Eff

That doesn't make sense, unless its saying "we assume them to be equal"... because by the definitions of the numbers, they aren't. A mathmetician friend of mine told me, once, that there is a level where the assumptions--like that--are made... but its not the same thing as saying "equals" because formally working from .999~9 leads to gross inequalities with 1.

 

[fifty5]

...
A: "Ok, I'm way too drunk for this conversation. Let's talk football."

I love that and it's very much my way of thinking!!

Yeah - and I'm prolly too drunk too - but it's after that that, to me, that the conversation gets interesting.

Throw in the combinatorial maths and chaos theory and 'universal physical laws' and 'predestination' stop being quite so diametrically opposite.

And my earlier posts about the incompatibility of an omnipotent power and universal laws are also compromised. If we're talking about possibilities that are uncomputably large, then the consequences are also uncomputable.

Logic may well be inescapable, but computing the logical consequences can still be impossible.

Eff (still not prepared to believe in any god that won't forgive disbelief.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Depends on how you define "God".

If that definition includes "omnipotence" - the power to do anything whatsoever - then the existence of any (real or hypothetical) 'law of nature' - some rule that denies the possibility of any power whatsoever to break it - is mutually contradictory: the simultaneous existence of a power that can break any rule and a rule that cannot be broken by any power is a logical impossibility. One of those two hypotheses must be false.

One hypothosizes a divine being that has made laws by which all other things are governed. Non-divine, non-omnipotent beings and objects all follow them. The divine omnipotent being may disregard as it wishes.

Shanglan

 

[fifty5]

Yes, I am strongly in agreement with you there. I think that the Bible is a relevant text for literary criticism and that an understanding of symbolic communication goes a very long way in understanding it. Humans communicate in symbols, and so evidently does God if we look at Jesus's parables. I think that the Almighty is just trying to talk to us in a way that feels familiar to us.

Shanglan

A different take on that is that all religious texts were written by human beings, so of course they would feel familiar to other humans.

The premise that God was invented by mankind seems to me a much simpler way to explain religious belief. If God didn't exist, then it would have been (inescapably) necessary to invent Him.

Faith is still an exrememly powerful force.

Belief in God is, as such, neither good nor evil (it could well just be an evolutionary valuable survival trait). Using belief in God to oppress others IS (IMHO) evil.

Eff

 

[BlackShanglan]

Belief in God is, as such, neither good nor evil (it could well just be an evolutionary valuable survival trait). Using belief in God to oppress others IS (IMHO) evil.

Eff

Agreed, with the addendum that the word "God" in the latter statement might just as well have the word "science," "reason," "progress," "equality," "justice," or pretty much anything else inserted. Narrowing the world to the accomplishment of a single goal, and sacrificing all other considerations for that goal, has a way of turning ugly very quickly.

Shanglan