I have just disproved reasoning behind why a "God" figure must exist in religion... (GOOD READ)

[DarrylParsons]

Jake:

Good article and good arguments, but I think the key here is how one thinks of "God".

If one thinks of "Him" as a being similar to a human, but with more powers, more intelligence, etc. then I agree that it's all too paradoxical and the original argument is hard to rebut.

However, if one thinks of "Him" as not a "Him" but an "it", then you could define "it" as some sort of force which is everlasting, infinite, and beyond our comprehension. This way there is no need to answer such a question as "what created it" because such questions need only be answered in our 4-dimensional world. We just have to accept the fact that the answer can only be found in higher dimensions which we cannot possibly comprehend.

This is my take on it anyway.

Darryl Parsons

 

[Jazz]

Interesting, Darryl: "We just have to accept the fact that the answer can only be found in higher dimensions which we cannot possibly comprehend"

My point of disagreement is with that statement - you are stating that it is a 'fact' that the answer is something we cannot possibly comprehend - after millions of years of existence on Earth, are we so advanced that new knowledge is impossible for Man to acquire? What we have now would seem like magic to people living two hundred years ago - so why would two hundred or five hundred or ten thousand years from now not be the same as Man's knowledge advances? Only in our lifetimes has the human genome been mapped and we have a long way to go before Man ever really understands MAN.

Again to state my first point way back in this topic, it boils down to faith - whether you believe or not. I personally cannot 'believe' something of this magnitude that has no proof and whose proponents say that we simply have to accept that which we cannot comprehend - which would be fine if there was verifiable proof, just as I accept that a television works even if I don't know the exact physics behind it except that the screen will take the force of a hurled remote control without breaking during a bad beat on a playoff game.

However, the proofs offered are subjective and highly individualistic, as people have had experiences often of an inner nature that have led them to believe - and since I haven't had these, nor seen any other reason to believe, I don't. Note, however, I do have morals and ethics and I don't run around killing people.

The great mystery of religion which I will NEVER comprehend is why certain elements believe that a higher power will doom you to eternal hell and damnation as a Saints fan if you do not accept their faith even honestly and rationally.

 

[HacheMan]

Not only the idea of us, as human beings, evolving from one micro~organism through millions of years, soon growing an eye, then millions of years later growing something to hear with, then millions of years later growing a mouth, then legs, arms, and so on, and so on, and then exactly the same thing had to happen with every single living creature on the Earth! How can anyone even begin to accept such a ridiculous theory?!

 

[Jazz]

Hache - it's called the fossil record. You're also assuming this evolution took place gradually rather than spasmodically - not necessarily so. Also, your progression for evolving above is not likely - I'd assume it would have to have a mouth first before it grew appendages. However, I am personally completely untroubled by the idea that I have evolved from lower forms of life, some of which I once dated in college.

"Ontology recapitulates phylogeny" - an old phrase meaning to say that the various stages of an embryo is reminiscient of the various stages of evolution in the same species. Of COURSE we'd think we were 'perfect' and that only a god could have created us - I'm sure other creatures probably, if they could, would think THEY were perfectly created. Slime molds, jellyfish, warthogs, sponges - all of them. But of course if the mechanism evolution did happen over billions of years, then any surviving creatures would most likely be perfectly adapted to their environment (the losers dying off of course), and so anyone of them being sentient would, lacking other knowledge, think they were 'created'.

In other words, I still see no proof and no reason to think that anything other than 'faith' supports the argument for belief in a god.

 

[TheOldBallgame]

You're trying to understand a supernatural concept with a mortal mind. Some things have to be accepted on faith alone.

People who care about their cats take them in once a year for vaccinations against distemper, feline leukemia, and other problems (also rabies as required by law). We do this because we understand that not doing so can cause the cat to get sick and possibly die. Try explaining that to the cat. All she knows is that she has to leave the comfort of the house, get into a car, go to a strange place, get jabbed with a needle, and be sore in that area for a day or two and often feel a bit sick for a couple of days. She has no clue why she was put through this ordeal, and there's no way to explain it to her because she doesn't have the mental capacity to understand it. But she accepts it and allows you to do it because she has faith in you and trusts you. She defers to what she can sense to be your superior intelligence.

Religion is a lot the same way. There are things that are impossible for us to understand because they are on a higher plain than our ability to comprehend. That's what 'faith' is about, in my opinion: acceptance of a concept or principle without concrete "proof" to back it up. Believe if you wish, debunk if you must, but you can't "prove" it either way.

 

[Jazz]

TOB: we agree almost absolutely on the issue of faith, except that I don't agree that "There are things that are impossible for us to understand because they are on a higher plain than our ability to comprehend". Again, how can anyone know what is 'impossible to understand', unless we already are at the absolute summit of Man's knowledge?

However, for me extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The difference between me and a cat is that the cat KNOWS I exist, while I have no such knowledge that a god exists - only what people who believe tell me. Faith.

 

[codeworks]

nobody knows but lets set up some odds


-110 there is a God
+120 there is no God

 

[DarrylParsons]

Jazz,

You make good points in that I cannot know what lies beyond eventual human comprehension. Never is a long time and we may at some stage see further into those higher dimensions, but what I am saying is that we can't at the moment and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the moment that we might. This is my opinion.

I do not claim that the existence of God or gods can be proven. I believe it on faith and if you choose not to it certainly doesn't bother me. I get along much better with atheists than with religious folks who make all sorts of irrational statements about how people should behave based on some far fetched ideas they have about the supernatural world.

The heaven and hell stuff IMO is just a tool used to acquire power and for controlling herds of ignorant masses. It's pretty much blackmail created by humans for what I consider evil purposes. I would never make up stories like that to scare people into believing something they wouldn't believe on their own. Whoever wants to believe, let them, and whoever wants to disbelieve, let them too. Live and let live, that's the way I see it anyway.

 

[GringoinCR]

In my opinion, science will continue to prove things that forces religions into changing what they preach. This has been happening all the time.

The worst part of the whole thing, is that religion has created much more harm than good. Look at the crusades. Look at the middle east.

I try to live a morally correct life. I do believe in Karma.

Trying to force someone on anyone on "faith" simply does not seem like it's in their best interest.

 

[FatFrank]

>Trying to force someone on anyone on "faith"
>simply does not seem like it's in their best
>interest.

Faith is the ONLY way to believe on God... it (faith) cannot be proven or forced on anyone. Faith comes from God bestowed only on His Elect children.

Ephesians 2:8,9 -- For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Hebrews 11:1 -- Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

 

[GringoinCR]

Unfortunately the Bible was written by man. Man is always going to have a bais. If the Bible was intended to be the true word of God, why didn't God write it? Jesus being the son of God would have been a much better instrument to write the Bible.

 

[FatFrank]

Gringo,

It ALL goes back to "faith"... Either you have it or not.

Going back to Jake's revelation

Logically, there has to be Ex Nihilo -- But how?

 

[FatFrank]

"Logically, there has to be Ex Nihilo"

LOL

When I re-read that I started laughing... There is no logic in creating something from nothing!

My point: when you backtrack in time as far as one can logically imagine (big bang for example) there is still 'something' from which all of the universe derived... be it 'something' smaller than a quark. Even quantum mechanics is at a loss for an answer to what was before that 'something' which exploded into the known universe.

So, whatever that first 'something' is, it came from nothing: Ex Nihilo !

Ex Nihilo is not natural, it is supernatural, therefore is not logical.

 

[blueedwards]

"In my opinion, science will continue to prove things that forces religions into changing what they preach. This has been happening all the time."

actuall gringo, i believe the opposite is true. i have seen examples of discoveries in archeology, astronomy and other areas of science that confirm the teachings of the bible force evolutionists to change their story.

 

[blueedwards]

if i was God and i decided to create a world, i think i would probably create beings who couldn't figure me out using their own logic. but, that's just me.