Is there a God, and if so, who is it?

[dirtylover]

I see god in the sunrise of her dark brown eyes
and in the swell of her belly
I hear God's voice in the beat of her heart as I rest my weary head on her chest
a hug snd the knowledge of a spiritual embrace
gives me faith
Tears of joy baptize me and she
as us becomes we
I whorship her
at her feet
and bare my soul on my knees
She's my religon
and so I pen this praise

That made me smile

"I'm having a kind of religious crisis. I'm beginning to doubt that I'm God."

That made me laugh

 

[fifty5]

... I have an addled brain now.

Or, is it cos of the milk punch?

If it isn't, I could mix you a pint of G&T...

P.P.P.S. Do YOU want to shoot me???

No, shoot on/in you



f5

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Of all the chemical reactions that could have occured in all the universes, is is not a little miraculous that we arrived at humanity?

If I was placing a bet at the inception of all that is, as to what happens when a load of nothing is exploded, I'd think there'd be pretty long odds for arriving at self-questioning beings.

But see, the universe has all the time it needs to do everything that's possible. Plenty of time for those monkeys to write shakespeare. Plenty of time for everything.

That's what's called the Ontological argument in cosmology. It says that there have been and are infinite universes, but this is the one which produced humans, and so this is the one we wonder about.

If you don't have self-questioning beings, then that universe doesn't exist. See?

---dr.M.

 

[Boota]

Okay, I'm totally with you that pondering about the existence of God is just another ponder, but I don't think this devalues its pondering potential. Also, I think you rate the imagination too lightly...Everything we've ever achieved has been imagined first. If it weren't for imagining stupid stuff we wouldn't have a universe that curves in on itself, such that the beginning of time didn't exist, and parallel quantum universes, and the such like...

My point is that although we are unlikely to cover much ground arguing scientifically about the existence of God, it still makes a valid theological/philosophical debate - where progress isn't really the point anyway, as far as I understand it..

I definitely don't rate imagination lightly at all. It's how I make my living. LOL. Imagination is the genesis of all invention, and most discoveries. Just look at all the technology we have now that was created in Star Trek.

The idea of theological and philosophical debate is fine. The trouble doesn't start when people ask questions. The trouble starts when people "find" their answers, because once they "know" then anyone who disagrees is wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that they really don't "know" anything.

By all means, ponder away! In the end, the conclusions just aren't important. That's fine, though. Not everything has to be earth shaking.

 

[Guest]

I must confess . . .

that I have been questioning many aspects of God and religion these days.

We do belong to a terrific church. I've been choir director for awhile (though I've taken a leave of absence this past year). We love the people there and the pastors are wonderful.

I've personally avoided church lately (but my husband still takes our kids to Sunday school). SO the pastors have maintained a steady barrage of smart-ass emails to keep me informed of church activities. AND usually well-annoyed.

So I email back religous questions of all forms -

-Is there a purpose to prayer or is it merely busywork? I mean honestly. I hate busywork. Lately I have been comparing prayer to Lamaze. You know, the pregnant couples practice it during delivery but the doctor winds up doing what he was going to do anyway? Pointless.

- And how long can I shout at God? Eventually He's going to get pissed at my rantings and smite me or something, isn't He?

Nothing has made me feel more small and insignificant this past year than losing my brother. It has been shoved into my face time and again that we "mere humans" are not in control of our destinies.

I have a new button I wear that says, "I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls." I like that.

AND my thought for the day in my office this week was - Jesus saves sinners! (and then redeems them for valuable prizes!)

*sigh*

Irreverent me, just trying to find my way through it all.

 

[Pure]

I'm surprised none of the agnostics and atheists have talked about the problem Dostoevsky put in the mouth of a character:

If there is no God, everything is permitted.

IOW, in the 'no god' scenario, other than getting grabbed by the cops, why not capture, kill, and eat your next door neighbor?

OK, there's the bad publicity on the evening news, and possible revenge from his/her family members, but what else is there to worry about?

 

[Xelebes]

I'm surprised none of the agnostics and atheists have talked about the problem Dostoevsky put in the mouth of a character:

If there is no God, everything is permitted.

IOW, in the 'no god' scenario, other than getting grabbed by the cops, why not capture, kill, and eat your next door neighbor?

OK, there's the bad publicity on the evening news, and possible revenge from his/her family members, but what else is there to worry about?

I don't derive pleasure out of plunder and pain. It's as simple as that.

 

[KarenAM]

I'm surprised none of the agnostics and atheists have talked about the problem Dostoevsky put in the mouth of a character:

If there is no God, everything is permitted.

This may not be true, however. I recall reading that there is evidence that ethical behavior, like much of human behavor, is actually genetic. In other words, most of us have a moral code programmed into us (sociopaths are distinguished by not having such).

If true, this would explain nicely why atheists and agnostics can be just as moral or immoral as religious people, and why no single religion has a monopoly on moral behavior. It can also be accounted for without God, in that an inborn moral code would allow australopithicine #1 and australopithicine #2 to better defend themselves and their descendants from both australopithinine #3 and the lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Hence it would be a survival advantage selected for.

Which means that, if this is true, morality may just be another bunch of chemical mush in our heads. It also would mean that we cannot help but be moral; only the degree and details will vary.

It's an interesting idea, anyway. When it comes to God and theology, the older I get the more confused I get. So I hope no one minds if I don't offer an opinion about that.

 

[Boota]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious
basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way
if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and
hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein

 

[Liar]

I'm surprised none of the agnostics and atheists have talked about the problem Dostoevsky put in the mouth of a character:

If there is no God, everything is permitted.

IOW, in the 'no god' scenario, other than getting grabbed by the cops, why not capture, kill, and eat your next door neighbor?

OK, there's the bad publicity on the evening news, and possible revenge from his/her family members, but what else is there to worry about?

Nothing, but those things you mentioned should be good enough to make it a no-no. When all is said and done, the atheist's view on this is quite simple:

Why would I want to eat my neighbor? Most people would agree with that pork chops and fries are a better alternative.

And what would be the consequences? The victim's family members are not the only ones looking for revenge, the extension of the flock, society, would want to have a stab at me too. Why? Because I have proven to be more of a threat and burden then an asset to the human race. If I do that, I'm in a world of poop.

Simply put, there is no benifit, and too dire consequences in capturing, killing, and eating your next door neighbor. (As well as a waste of time and energy.) Same goes, most of the time, for walking over and punching him in the face. Self perseverance is ultimately for your own good, not for the good of your surroundings.

#L

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm surprised none of the agnostics and atheists have talked about the problem Dostoevsky put in the mouth of a character:

If there is no God, everything is permitted.

IOW, in the 'no god' scenario, other than getting grabbed by the cops, why not capture, kill, and eat your next door neighbor?

Dosteofsky is right only if you believe humans to be evil little fuckers who are only kept in line by the threat of divine punishment. I don’t believe that at all.

Opposing this are the ideas of secular humanism, which say that if there is no God then we are all in this together and all responsible for each other’s well-being. It’s absolutely essential that we help each other because God’s not going to help anyone.

So people who only do good out of fear of divine reward or retribution are actually only acting selfishly in their own interest. It’s only the people who do good without hope of reward or punishment who are acting ethically.

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This may not be true, however. I recall reading that there is evidence that ethical behavior, like much of human behavor, is actually genetic. In other words, most of us have a moral code programmed into us (sociopaths are distinguished by not having such).

C.S. Lewis based his argument for the existence of God on the fact that humans have a moral sense and a sense of good and evil, which separate us from the animals but seem to have no survival function. It may seem silly to base such a sweeping proof like this on whether you feel bad about telling a fib, but it’s really a pretty good argument.

Then E.A Wilson and the sociobiologists came by in the ‘70’s and pointed out that all our ethical and moral proclivites are just what you’d have to have to enable you to live in a social group, and that in smart social animals like man, evolution favors those groups that show positive ethical values like compassion and sharing and a sense of right and wrong. Natural selection favors those societies that love and care for their members and who have an ethical sense.

I think that’s interesting, because my dog, who’s a social animal himself, clearly knows when he’s done wrong. When I look at the empty plate that held the last cookie and then at him, he lowers his ears and slinks away looking guilty as hell. He has the beginnings of an ethical sense. My cat, who’s not a social animal at all, couldn’t care less what I think.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

. . . I think that’s interesting, because my dog, who’s a social animal himself, clearly knows when he’s done wrong. When I look at the empty plate that held the last cookie and then at him, he lowers his ears and slinks away looking guilty as hell. He has the beginnings of an ethical sense. My cat, who’s not a social animal at all, couldn’t care less what I think.

---dr.M.

Cats are survivors. It makes me wonder how the animal kingdom fits into that argument.

A cat would cheerfully eat the last cookie while you watched. Then they would saunter away, tail held high (I always imagine them to be humming to themselves) pretending not to hear your shouted insults.

Perhaps not the best ethical sense, but certainly possessing of higher intelligence than your poor pooch!

 

[KarenAM]

Perhaps not the best ethical sense, but certainly possessing of higher intelligence than your poor pooch!

Actually the dog is smarter. Because the dog's ethical sense means that in the society of Dr. M, the dog and the cat, the cat will be the first to be eliminated in any dispute.

There's a reason that dogs are called "man's best friend", and having a man as an ally is a pretty good way to get your genes into the next generation.

 

[sweetnpetite]

But... we've discovered quite a lot, so why do absolutely none of those discoveries - zilch, fuck all, absolute zero - discover magic?

It all depends on how you define magic. Christianity is by far more 'superstisious' and 'supernatural' than say, Wicca or Paganism. Most pagans think that magick isn't about breaking the laws of nature, but about understanding them, and being able to manipulate or use them to your advantage. If you think of Magic as supernatural, or something that can't be scientifically explained- then by definition, science *can't* discover magic- because once something's scientifically explained, it's not magic anymore (by that definition)

I also read something once that claimed that magic was a *social* interaction. IN otherwords, some people say if it doesn't 'work' everytime it's not real. They compared the rules of magic to the rules of social interaction- they don't work everytime, but understanding them helps you to achieve your aims. Example- if you smile and say hi to someone, you expect that most likely they will be friendly back. But sometimes that's not what happens. Usually that doesn't mean that we give up on polite greatings and say they 'don't work'- although repeated rebuffs would make us look to see what we are doing wrong, in order to improve our 'charm spell'

To me, that's exactly what magic is, it's making things happen using unseen (not 'supernatural') forces. Like creating worlds -people places and plots- out of dark lines on light papers. The words don't supernaturally jump up and dance around the room, or form into characters- but something is created that is bigger than the sum of it's parts.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: I must confess . . .

I've personally avoided church lately (but my husband still takes our kids to Sunday school). SO the pastors have maintained a steady barrage of smart-ass emails to keep me informed of church activities. AND usually well-annoyed.


- And how long can I shout at God? Eventually He's going to get pissed at my rantings and smite me or something, isn't He?

Nothing has made me feel more small and insignificant this past year than losing my brother. It has been shoved into my face time and again that we "mere humans" are not in control of our destinies.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother. If your paster knows about this, then I think he is being increadably incensitive. He should know, that at the very least you need time and be willing to give it to you and get off your back. (My own former paster used to say, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.")

I don't believe that God will smite you. I used to worry about that too, long ago. Now I think it's healthy to shout and rant at God. If he's so all powerful, what should it matter to him anyway. If he's all caring, he will understand why you are doing it, and have patience with you. IF he's not there, it certainly doesn't matter, and if he *would* smite you, you might as well make it worth it, cuz then he diserves to be yelled at.

The whole, being struck by lightning thing is rather pagan anyway, deriving from Zues/Jove (Jove- Jahova; intereseting). Probably seems kind of silly when you look at it that way.

 

[Guest]

I'm surprised none of the agnostics and atheists have talked about the problem Dostoevsky put in the mouth of a character: If there is no God, everything is permitted.

That was a pithy statement by one of many fictional characters. Dostoevsky struggled with "god" in the thoughts of many of his greatest protagonists, most especially Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov. Focusing on one notion isn't fair, an intelligent agnostic or atheist should be more adroit. Just saying.

Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

Most of what's been writen in this thread applies to Christianity, more than to religion or even god. People tend to think that religion is only a certain way because they don't really have exposer to radically different types of religions or beleifs.

I don't think religion is about superstitions and supernatural phenomenon. To me religion is just a system of beliefs- a way of viewing the world. We all believe something and that's our religion. So many have only been exposed to about 4 religions and they think religion *has* to be dogmatic, that god *has* to be perfect in order to be god, and that religion *has* to mean blind faith and unquestionng loyalty. Religion doesnt' mean any of those things, and there are plenty of religoins where it doesn't. Buddism doesn't even have a god for instance. Most of those tenence of what people think make up 'religion' are really just what make up organized and centralized *power.* Who holds the keys to salvation and eternal life? Who decides what is moral and proper? Who sets up the 'order' of things? (ie. It's god ordained that I be king and you all till my land. or it's god ordained that certain classes of people act a certain way and do certain work)

But we can't help it. So many of our churches tell us that our own religion is a religion and that all others are 'cults' or 'myths' or in some other way false. We need to expand our idea of what religion is, because it's not dogma, superstision or blind faith. You *can* have religion and have none of these.

I'm not really sure if this is quite on topic, but I wanted to point out what I was seeing in many posts.

Love,
Sweet

 

[sweetnpetite]

Opposing this are the ideas of secular humanism, which say that if there is no God then we are all in this together and all responsible for each other’s well-being. It’s absolutely essential that we help each other because God’s not going to help anyone.


---dr.M.

I think Jesus said pretty much the same thing, but while maintaining that there *is* a god.

When jesus said 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand' I don't think he meant 'Coming soon' like fundamentalists take him to mean. I think he means that God and Heaven aren't 'out there' but rather that they are within us and around us. At hand= right here!

I'd elaborate, but I'm not feeling well.

 

[Carl East]

You'd think after what I've been through I might storm in here and state that god never did exist, and is only a tale told over hundreds of years. The fact is I do believe in god, I have to believe someone's pulling my strings. I've always believed there was a higher being, I just don't know why.

Perhaps I like the thought that someone is looking over us, I don't know. Usually I avoid threads about religion and politics mainly because everyone has there own take on things. The fact is you might strongly believe that there is no god, but you can't prove it either way so why debate it?

Thinking about it a little more I probably want to believe because of my father, I'm hoping to get and see him again when I pass on.

Carl

 

[CharleyH]

If you don't have self-questioning beings, then that universe doesn't exist. See?

---dr.M.

Yep - I see, and believe part of this, yet you've forgotten the simple fact that we can't really prove we are self-questioning beings?

Quantum physics, in a verbose kind of way, explains that we can't really even prove what we've proven since the proof changes each time we view the results.

Agnostic, existentialist, spiritual, religious as we have all have experienced here? The one common denominator: God is a word, it is a symbol that each of us understands and uses, albeit we interpret the symbol differently. Yet, we all agree that the symbol exists. If it didn't, then we would not be discussing it, therefore, God exists, here, now, until I leave this thread and the symbol leaves my mind. The alpha and the omega in this sense, which is why I quote Dr. M.

Science and religion are not so far apart as the dichotomy appears.

 

[Pure]

Interesting responses, (PS to 'sweetnpetite')

I don't actually think Dostoevsky was talking about fear of punishments keeping people in line; more that there would be no standard with an objective basis.

Karen made several good points and said,
/This may not be true, however. I recall reading that there is evidence that ethical behavior, like much of human behavor, is actually genetic. In other words, most of us have a moral code programmed into us (sociopaths are distinguished by not having such).

If true, this would explain nicely why atheists and agnostics can be just as moral or immoral as religious people, and why no single religion has a monopoly on moral behavior. It can also be accounted for without God, in that an inborn moral code would allow australopithicine #1 and australopithicine #2 to better defend themselves and their descendants from both australopithinine #3 and the lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Hence it would be a survival advantage selected for./

I don't have a problem, Karen, acknowledging that there are social animals: bees at a low level; wolves at a higher one.
The standards, in the latter case are: support your pack; support your flesh and blood (close relatives); and esp.--for females-- support, care for, defend the young.

If that's pretty much all 'morality' is, I accept the programming argument.

It has the air of 'post hoc' and not very imformative, for we know there is some killing and 'murder' among primates, e.g., the new male killing the child of previous male, so as to start fresh with the female. Also there is some intergroup 'warfare,' iirc. These too, we might speculate are 'programmed' or genetic. Indeed, so might be, scratching one's ass.

Turning to the worthy mabeuse (those are well articulated posts, dr.):

Mabeuse said,

Dosteofsky is right only if you believe humans to be evil little fuckers who are only kept in line by the threat of divine punishment. I don’t believe that at all.

you must live in a better neighborhood than I.

Opposing this are the ideas of secular humanism, which say that if there is no God then we are all in this together and all responsible for each other’s well-being. It’s absolutely essential that we help each other because God’s not going to help anyone.

There's no reason to suppose "if there is no God, then we are all in this together."

There's no reason to suppose we are 'all responsible for each other's well being.'

Who the heck is 'we'. Getting back to the Karen scenario: yes, support your wolf pack. That's about the extent. No reason to support *another* wolf pack, afaik (I mean, do wolf packs do this?). And of course, no reason to support cousin Wiley the coyote.

Turning to our 'founding fathers', 'we' the people felt that certain rights were self evident-- for white Christian propertied males.
That was their 'we', and they weren't idiots.

In short there's no reason to suppose 'we' should treat the races ethnic groups, tribes, or genders 'equally.' In fact warfare among 'tribes' goes far back into the dim past. As does subordination of women. Some of the greatest minds of the past did not see what you claim is self evident.

people who only do good out of fear of divine reward or retribution are actually only acting selfishly in their own interest. It’s only the people who do good without hope of reward or punishment who are acting ethically.

This is of course, what Kant said, as a particular kind of Protestant maverick zealot. It's not self evidently true to most of the world, eg mainline Christians and muslims. Not to say, the utilitarians, the largest group of contemporary, non religious ethicists.
====

. Lewis based his argument for the existence of God on the fact that humans have a moral sense and a sense of good and evil, which separate us from the animals but seem to have no survival function. It may seem silly to base such a sweeping proof like this on whether you feel bad about telling a fib, but it’s really a pretty good argument.

One of the best, I'd say. Found in F Copleston, and AE Taylor, among others. It's not merely that X, a given person 'feels bad', but that there's widespread consensus that, for self serving reasons, it's wrong to lie (e.g., as to why you missed Aunt Sally's funeral).

Then E.A Wilson and the sociobiologists came by in the ‘70’s and pointed out that all our ethical and moral proclivites are just what you’d have to have to enable you to live in a social group, and that in smart social animals like man, evolution favors those groups that show positive ethical values like compassion and sharing and a sense of right and wrong. Natural selection favors those societies that love and care for their members and who have an ethical sense.

I'm not sure of this account of sociobiology, since it makes 'group survival' an evolutionary value, whereas natural selection is, by a majority of scientists, agreed to act (select) at the individual level.

But it's true that there's an evolutionary value in a person's saving his/her brother (sister) [and other close relatives]. Those genes are similar to one's own; it's the next best thing to passing one's own along.

As to the last statement,
Natural selection favors those societies that love and care for their members and who have an ethical sense.

It seems NOT universally true. The 'society' of cockroaches does not 'love and care for' each other. Indeed, if one dies, he's eaten by the others.

As to human societies, it's by no means clear that the more humane ones have any evolutionary advantage. Genghiz Khan did quite all right. So did Sparta.

Of course most 'old' societies were not very humane at all, if one speaks of such things as torture, human sacrifice, etc. It's true the Aztecs were defeated by the Spanish (of inquisition fame); it's far from obvious that the Aztec lost because they were less 'loving and caring' than the Spanish.

Same point as before. In evolutionary theory, as in the 'clear light of reason' or 'ordinary ethical intuition' one finds no reason to give weight to the welfare of those in other groups (nations, tribes, etc.).

I do admire ethical 'humanists', of course, my friend. But whereas the Christian ethics rests on 'God's will' and everyone's immortal soul, an agnosticism which purports a linkage to 'universal regard for all human others', makes a claim which rests on thin air.

J.

PS. Sweet'n-- hope you are feeling better.

 

[Guest]

Yep - I see, and believe part of this, yet you've forgotten the simple fact that we can't really prove we are self-questioning beings?

How is that? Most human beings self-question to some extent, even children. And at the very same time they are conscious that they are doing so. We each individually recognize our conscious selves. Who is the owner of that recognition: The aware self of its self-awareness.

Just how I see it, and my self-aware self.

Perdita

 

[CharleyH]

How is that? Most human beings self-question to some extent, even children. And at the very same time they are conscious that they are doing so. We each individually recognize our conscious selves. Who is the owner of that recognition: The aware self of its self-awareness.

Just how I see it, and my self-aware self.

Perdita

How is that? LOL - you can only prove that you exist by your own admission. And do you - put aside the I think therefore I am. Can you, in fact determine without question, the difference between your dream life and the one you live? I may just be a figment, a ghost. Can you tell me for a fact that every thought you have ever had has not been influenced by something/someone? So, is to self-question a redundancy of something far greater? Can you tell me without doubt, that you are not a cell, functioning as you must in the body of someone else? Can you tell me - without doubt that you weren't in an accident, and currently in a coma, and that Lit is all a figment of your dreamlife? Or that you are of mine?

In essence, whether science or God, since I am thinking about it in a different way now because I came back: is - us all. I have studied the bible, surprisingly enough - symbollically the answers are so simple. Symbollically science and religion say the same thing: We are all the symbol: god.

Yet, (and your nipple looks tasty btw) the symbol itself makes god/God real in your experience, in mine. Prove to me that you actually self-question. You only know that you are human because someone defined you as such Semiotics my dear Wat, um, Perdita.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

This is what I believe:

There is no God, in any form.

I’ve seen too many bad things to believe any more. When children and other helpless souls are left to die, or live for that matter, in the worst possible ways and conditions, then I wonder how any God can let that sort of thing occur. Therefore I have long ago chosen not to believe.

I don’t even sing my own national anthem anymore (God save the Queen) for the same reasons.

I do however, still go to certain church services, Weddings & funerals etc. After all, these are all family type events which are mainly a joy to attend. In the case of funerals of course, it’s a matter of paying respects and saying goodbye in the manner of the deceased’s choosing. I recently attended a Jewish funeral for example.

Another religious service I like to attend, a very important one to me, is Remembrance Sunday here in UK. This is a time to remember comrades who have gone before us and fallen in our name and I like to demonstrate my respect and remembrance at this time.

I go to no church due to any belief I have, I go there for the customary gathering at certain events.

I believe the evolution theory. There is much proof to substantiate events where-as the bible has little proof. As for the bible, I think it was written by one or a number of very clever people, who saw the story as a way of gathering people together, under one banner.

Who is to say, that 2000 years ago, it didn’t begin as a children’s tale in a village somewhere, and grew over the years into the epic saga it now is.

All of that said, I have respect for the church, in that I know most churches, within most religions do lots of good for people all over the world. They are to be applauded, as are all the other religious based organisations around the globe that do likewise.

As for life after?? I wait to be convinced. It would be nice to think so, but what if there isn’t?? What if, all of this is for nothing??

UFO’s, again the same. But I do feel, that in all the infinity of space, the chances of our sun being the only star with a planet that supports life, are pretty remote. There is probably other life out there, and why shouldn’t some of it be more advanced than us??

Bringing both subjects together:

I believe, that in all the infinity of space, we, the human race are merely a speck in the workings of it all. Each one of us is just one milli-speck within that speck.

Now tell me what matters??

Nothing does really!

We are just one race, on a planet, within a galaxy inside infinity. The only stuff that matters, is what makes us feel. That’s it people, there is nothing more.

Take any one event. Any one! Your wedding, your birth, 9/11, the second world war, the birth of man, the birth of life on this planet even.

Who, other than the human race actually cares??

Do the Cows in the field give a single jot about any of it??

Do Horses understand our workings of this world??

Do birds give a toss about global warming??

No, they don’t!

We are insignificant in the big picture. All of us. Get used to it!

And God??? He can get used to it too!