What is your justification for believing in a God?

[zapatos]

This again proves my point, that God is malevolent. If you see a child drowning in a pool and begging for help and you are quite physically capable but yet you choose not to help the drowning child but instead you let the child die, then this in my opinion makes you not a good person. I think that the same kind of logic can be applied to God.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?

 

I think you guys should read up on the philosophy of 'Cosmicism' and H.P. Lovecraft.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft

Thanks for the links. A bit dark and pessimistic for me. My philosophy shares many of the same ideas but is a bit more upbeat.

 

Hope you didn't mind me batting your post and name around like a shuttlecock.

[tar]

Well,

 

The bickering back and forth about what god can or can't be, in terms of exhibited characteristics, at least is justification in belief in god, in that everybody here seems to have an idea in mind as to what their beliefs are in respect to the universe they find themselves in, as well as a general feeling that they have it figured out, a little better than the next guy/gal.

 

I keep going back to the idea that there is something about the linguistic finding, "that people tend to put the same idea framed in the first person in a good light, framed in the second person in a questionable light, and framed in the third person in a bad light", that is very pertinent to this discussion, and the discussion of God and religion, and human psychology, and a bunch of other stuff.

 

If we as individual organisms, have a feeling of belonging to the universe, and a personal "knowledge" of what that is, that we are talking about, those are not feelings and thoughts without justification. Its sort of plain truth. There is no evidence I know of, that would suggest otherwise. We ARE made by the universe. There is nothing else we know of that could have done the job.

 

And the universe is rather big enough and old enough for anybody to, with justification, hold it in rather the highest position possible, in terms of power and authority.

 

I think the "problem" with religion, is when somebody, or some group of somebodies, usurp the power and authority of the universe, as if they could really have any kind of special "in" with it. That their own idea of it, somehow trumps anybody elses.

 

And I think the power of religion, lies in the fact, that every person has knowledge of and unseverable connection to, the very same and singular reality. There is no other universe but this one, to refer to, or be subjected to. If an intelligent insightful person like Moses, or a Mayan Priest or a Monk or wiseman or a Stephen Hawkins or brilliant philosopher for that matter, exhibits a special understanding of it, people have no problem "going along" with them and giving them a leadership role.

 

Its not like anybody could really be talking about any other god than the one and only that really does exist.

 

Regards, TAR2

[zapatos]

tar,

 

The one thing that jumps out at me in your post, is your personification of the universe. Its 'power' and 'authority'. The feeling that you 'belong' to it. None of that strikes a chord with me at all. Do you feel the universe has some kind of 'mind'?

[tar]

Absolutely.

 

You are the best example of a mind that the universe has, that I can point out to you.

 

tar,

 

The one thing that jumps out at me in your post, is your personification of the universe. Its 'power' and 'authority'. The feeling that you 'belong' to it. None of that strikes a chord with me at all. Do you feel the universe has some kind of 'mind'?

 

Zapatos,

 

What evidence do you have, that your mind is not of this universe?

 

Regards, TAR2

[zapatos]

Absolutely.

 

You are the best example of a mind that the universe has, that I can point out to you.

 

 

 

Zapatos,

 

What evidence do you have, that your mind is not of this universe?

 

Regards, TAR2

My mind is in this universe. But it sounds to me as if you are saying the Universe has a 'mind' of its own, independent of us. Is that right? If so, where is it, and what does it do? What evidence do you have of it?

[tar]

I suppose I have some explaining to do.

 

How can I at the same time declare I have no belief in an Anthropomorphic God, AND go around personifying everything.

 

I think the answer I would give at this point, is that I have a "theory" that we, as human's tend to understand things in human terms, because...well...we are human. It would be rather difficult to have a thought that was not a human thought. With this in mind, I figure that metaphors and analogies that I use, as a human, would have the possibility of meaning something to you, as well. I do not expect you to think that I mean a big human brain sitting "out there" somewhere cogitating upon where to next wield his/her power and authority. But when the tsunami hit Japan last year, it was certainly powerful, and did point out to me, at least, that we as humans are not in charge. Not that "anybody" is. But that when taken together, as one thing, nature has the upper hand over us. (And this does not require there being an actual big hand hovering above.)

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

I suppose I have some explaining to do.

 

How can I at the same time declare I have no belief in an Anthropomorphic God, AND go around personifying everything.

 

I think the answer I would give at this point, is that I have a "theory" that we, as human's tend to understand things in human terms, because...well...we are human. It would be rather difficult to have a thought that was not a human thought. With this in mind, I figure that metaphors and analogies that I use, as a human, would have the possibility of meaning something to you, as well. I do not expect you to think that I mean a big human brain sitting "out there" somewhere cogitating upon where to next wield his/her power and authority. But when the tsunami hit Japan last year, it was certainly powerful, and did point out to me, at least, that we as humans are not in charge. Not that "anybody" is. But that when taken together, as one thing, nature has the upper hand over us. (And this does not require there being an actual big hand hovering above.)

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Yes, I think it is well within everyone's grasp to understand that there is relative order and stability in our universe, something that is needed for life to be sustained. The randomness of such order existing would quite easily be interpreted by the human mind to be controlled in some way. Which might lead to something controlling it. Perhaps logic would then suggest that suggesting the universe is not controlled but purely random is not of logic.

 

Moving from such an analogy to God seems rather obvious to me. We do know that man is not in control so looking to man as some who holds the answers would be a very flawed line of thought. Only something that claims to be not purely of this universe could ever claim to control this universe.

 

Seriously Disabled:

 

Only when viewing life through finite eyes would an example of a child drowning have reference, we see the child alive and now the child is dead. But if God is eternal then the child has not died but merely left earthly life as we know it. Has the death of the child had an impact on those humans that are still in this form of life, undoubtedly. But that does not mean that the act of not saving the child was bad, especially if the child is now in a better environment. It is only perceived as bad by the self which has lost a part of themselves that they had attached to the child.

 

Moontanman:

 

To your first comment - Are you really using shit as a metaphor for the universe and all that is in it?

 

Second comment - I am not sure what is meant by good deeds, surely it is something that we like. I would say the correct punishment is much more of a good deed than giving children 'sweets' to stop them from having a tantrum. Love is not always perceived as good by the individual. Someone had a nice example a few posts above this one.

 

John5746

 

I assume by the smiley face that you get what I'm saying.

 

I don't think the concept of God is abstract at all, there doesn't seem to be a human alive that hasn't heard of the concept of God. How could it possibly be considered abstract? The concept of a human on the opposite side of the planet is no more abstract than the concept of God on the opposite side of a plain that includes the universe.

[Ophiolite]

Are you really using shit as a metaphor for the universe and all that is in it?

What is wrong with this as a metaphor? It appears to be potentially highly accurate and potentially highly positive. Do you dislike positive, accurate things?

 

I don't think the concept of God is abstract at all, there doesn't seem to be a human alive that hasn't heard of the concept of God.

I suppose a similar number have heard of the concept of hate and of love, but these are also abstract. If you disagree I can recommend several good dictionaries.

[Villain]

What is wrong with this as a metaphor? It appears to be potentially highly accurate and potentially highly positive. Do you dislike positive, accurate things?

 

 

I suppose a similar number have heard of the concept of hate and of love, but these are also abstract. If you disagree I can recommend several good dictionaries.

 

I don't really think of myself as a piece of shit, if that is the way others see me or themselves then so be it.

 

Yes abstract in the sense that they are not available directly to the five senses, but not abstract as in without understanding or availability to the mind.

[Moontanman]

I don't really think of myself as a piece of shit, if that is the way others see me or themselves then so be it.

 

 

It's all in your perception, a dung beetle has a completely different world view. I wasn't trying to say we are shit in the sense you seem to mean but so many seem to think that something had to create the universe and then go on to say that something has to be an intelligent creature. Why couldn't the universe simply be the result of natural forces we know nothing about and have nothing to do with intelligence of any kind? A creature that excretes universes as a by product and is totally unaware of what it does is just as justifiable as an always existing intelligence...

[tar]

Well,

 

Perhaps the idea we are talking about, is personality. Does the universe exhibit a personality or not.

 

Seems to me that it is logical and possible and meaningful to both ascribe personality to the universe and to recognize it, itself is not a human. Humans are something of the universe though, and it is not logical to assume that the universe was completely devoid of personality, prior the birth of TAR2. Or prior the first man (or woman). Or prior the first rat or ameoba, or prior the first strand of protein, or prior the first living cell, or prior the first snowflake.

 

If one does not ascribe a modicum of personality to a snowflake, or a sun, or a hydrogen atom, then where does one start ascribing personality to anything.

 

I can not be the only "person" in the universe, and I cannot be "other than" the universe.

 

Any and all traits I recognize in myself, I can find "out there". I cannot be anything, see anything, feel anything, think anything, do anything, without the universe's involvement.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I think "random accident" is a weak argument. It discounts the achievements that had to have come before.

 

To roll a 7 you need a pair of dice. And as many times as you roll, you will never come up with the queen of spades. For that, you need a deck of cards.

Edited April 18, 2012 by tar

[Ophiolite]

I don't really think of myself as a piece of shit, if that is the way others see me or themselves then so be it.

Feces are a byproduct of life, which is in turn a complex phenomenom. It may well be that the universe is a by product of some other phenomenom. Therefore comparing the universe to excrement is a possibly highly accurate analogy or metaphor. I thought Moontanman's point was well made with that metaphor.

 

Feces are largely made up of living organisms. Don't you consider it marvellous that in disposing of our own waste we are generating a mini-universe of life? Or, are you to anthropocentric for that view to take hold?

[Moontanman]

I have a real problem with these belief and faith concepts. I have spent considerable time in my life trying to understand religion, much of it was as a true believer. I am talking years here, but every time i question a theists beliefs they automatically make the assertion that if i had just read or listened to their arguments or their holy book i would see the error of my ways. It's quite insulting, but if i ask them to listen to my point of view or read a link to some information or spend even a few minutes watching something on the subject they rarely even bother to do anything but come back with the old if you only looked really close to our argument with faith you would see the error of your ways.

 

I have looked, I have read, I have tried to have faith but all i ever see are people being manipulated by other people, either for for personal gain or by genuine concern but never by anything even close to real evidence. Human beings are easily manipulated by peer pressure and by social pressure. It is easy to show this, and I do mean easy. How can 2 billion people be wrong? Easily, because of social pressure, if enough people tell you that throwing a virgin into a volcano will keep it from erupting then that's what you do, blind faith and belief can lead to insanity on a large scale. Not understanding this has the potential to destroy civilization, it has done so in the past and if it continues will do so in the future.

 

I have no desire to convert others to atheism or to some idea of god 3.0 but it's important to understand that just because a large group tells you something is true this doesn't have any bearing on it's veracity. Believe if you must or even if it is simply easier to do in your peer group but always remember that anything you are told by another or even if you experience it your self unless it can be verified you should be skeptical and not allow your self to feel motivated to make others conform because that is basically what religion does. It allows people to justify their need to make others conform to what they think are the right social norms and it can lead to really horrendous things, yes even the really really really wonderful news you feel the need to give inevitably leads to crazy. It can be shown all throughout history, once the idea that you are correct and that "god" is on your side anything can be justified and often is. Does everyone do this? Of course not, i am sure that when witches were being burned or Catholics or Protestants or Pagans or who ever a large number of people were horrified... but social pressure and fear of unjustified beliefs allowed them to allow it to happen.

 

All religions seem to trend in the direction of fundamentalism at the fringes, in the US these fringes are doing their best to gain as much control as possible and good Christians can't seem to see how insane this idea is. Once the fringes gain control over the masses they start to persecute others and eventually it will be you.... either you will be persecuted or be a part of the group that persecutes, it's inevitable, it always happens.

 

the only way to avoid this is to avoid unsubstantiated beliefs and to stop trying to make others conform, allow others to disagree because it allows you to disagree as well....

 

i have no desire to convert anyone to anything but the very fact that so many theists come here to a science forum to try to convince others they are correct is indicative of what I am saying. It's rare to see anyone who does not believe go to a religious site and try to convince them of anything but theists seem to be attracted to non believers like a moth to a flame, the flame is evidence of reality, and the results are the moth being burned or the flame being snuffed out...

[scourge]

After a debate i see is getting nowhere i always agree to disagree. If i haven't already i will do so now. The reason theist (Or Christians at least they come to atheist because of the will to try and bring salvation to all they can. If they don't want to hear it than they wont. Yes i agree that a lot of the time that you see people manipulating people for personal gain. That does not represent us that are true to it, we give our best to help and aid people when we can. You have no reason to come to theist, you have no salvation to offer them. But reguardless like every group you have your crazy people that DO come to religious forums to advertise atheism. Keep in mind this isn't an atheism forum its a science forum. I didn't come here to advertise Christianity I came here to discuss science and this was a subject i stumbled upon.

[Moontanman]

After a debate i see is getting nowhere i always agree to disagree. If i haven't already i will do so now. The reason theist (Or Christians at least they come to atheist because of the will to try and bring salvation to all they can. If they don't want to hear it than they wont. Yes i agree that a lot of the time that you see people manipulating people for personal gain. That does not represent us that are true to it, we give our best to help and aid people when we can. You have no reason to come to theist, you have no salvation to offer them. But reguardless like every group you have your crazy people that DO come to religious forums to advertise atheism. Keep in mind this isn't an atheism forum its a science forum. I didn't come here to advertise Christianity I came here to discuss science and this was a subject i stumbled upon.

 

 

Scourg, if you can agree to disagree then you are not part of the problem but it's still scary that you don't seem to see there is a problem... No i have no salvation to offer anyone, all i have is reason i also lack hell fire to threaten them as well but i do offer reason, to me reason is very important because with out reason religion spirals into the black hole of fundamentalism, persecution of anyone who doesn't believe and on down into death and destruction, it has many times before and will again unless we can all agree to disagree and go on with our lives...

[scourge]

It is clear that we were given the option to choose whether to follow him or to not. Fundamentalism was just huge misunderstanding of religion. If you don't want to hear it then you wont. If you don't want to believe than don't. We were not given this choice so that we could take control of those that chose the other option and FORCE them to make our same decision. If we weren't supposed to have the choice then we wouldn't have it. As long as we understand that fundamentalism shouldn't happen again.

[imatfaal]

After a debate i see is getting nowhere i always agree to disagree. If i haven't already i will do so now. The reason theist (Or Christians at least they come to atheist because of the will to try and bring salvation to all they can. If they don't want to hear it than they wont. Yes i agree that a lot of the time that you see people manipulating people for personal gain. That does not represent us that are true to it, we give our best to help and aid people when we can. You have no reason to come to theist, you have no salvation to offer them. But reguardless like every group you have your crazy people that DO come to religious forums to advertise atheism. Keep in mind this isn't an atheism forum its a science forum. I didn't come here to advertise Christianity I came here to discuss science and this was a subject i stumbled upon.

 

Scourge - just one point to quibble over. An altruistic rationalist or atheist does have reasons to go out and debate with theists; I think that many of the presumptions that the governance of society are based upon are flawed. These flaws are due to the religious (in the case of the uk judeo-christian) background and overtly and covertly religious development of the state and culture. If these flaws, and the reliance on outdated dogma that they are based upon, were to be removed then society would be improved I and everyone else would be benefited. Secondly, I think it is a shame that other potentially rational being shape their lives on what I think is a falsehood - with a false premise any logical process will only be right by accident and will more often just be wrong. Now this is not the place to rehearse the details of my thoughts - but surely you can agree that if I think as above I do have an active reason ... you could almost portray it as thus - you are arguing to benefit me in the next world, and I am arguing to benefit you in this.

[scourge]

Scourge - just one point to quibble over. An altruistic rationalist or atheist does have reasons to go out and debate with theists; I think that many of the presumptions that the governance of society are based upon are flawed. These flaws are due to the religious (in the case of the uk judeo-christian) background and overtly and covertly religious development of the state and culture. If these flaws, and the reliance on outdated dogma that they are based upon, were to be removed then society would be improved I and everyone else would be benefited. Secondly, I think it is a shame that other potentially rational being shape their lives on what I think is a falsehood - with a false premise any logical process will only be right by accident and will more often just be wrong. Now this is not the place to rehearse the details of my thoughts - but surely you can agree that if I think as above I do have an active reason ... you could almost portray it as thus - you are arguing to benefit me in the next world, and I am arguing to benefit you in this.

 

Well i am not only arguing to benefit you in the next but give you satisfaction in this one as well. Not as an insult to your kind nature or anything like that but i must bring up the question, Are you doing so to benefit ME in this life or are you doing it to benefit YOU? Not trying to question you as a good person i just want you to examine it. Then tell me, ME, YOU? Or OTHERS?

[Moontanman]

It is clear that we were given the option to choose whether to follow him or to not. Fundamentalism was just huge misunderstanding of religion. If you don't want to hear it then you wont. If you don't want to believe than don't. We were not given this choice so that we could take control of those that chose the other option and FORCE them to make our same decision. If we weren't supposed to have the choice then we wouldn't have it. As long as we understand that fundamentalism shouldn't happen again.

 

 

No, fundamentalism was not just a huge misunderstanding, it was the law of the land for centuries, centuries of horrific crimes against anyone who did not believe the correct way, constant wars against groups that other disagreed with, Only the gelding of the Christian faith by secular governments allows you see the gentle side of it as the basis of it. You only need study history to see it's true colors...

[imatfaal]

Well i am not only arguing to benefit you in the next but give you satisfaction in this one as well. Not as an insult to your kind nature or anything like that but i must bring up the question, Are you doing so to benefit ME in this life or are you doing it to benefit YOU? Not trying to question you as a good person i just want you to examine it. Then tell me, ME, YOU? Or OTHERS?

Hopefully all three - but the argument stands whichever of those three you choose. You stated there was no reason for an atheist to argue his point and convince the theist - I believe I have shown that there is a reason.

[scourge]

Hopefully all three - but the argument stands whichever of those three you choose. You stated there was no reason for an atheist to argue his point and convince the theist - I believe I have shown that there is a reason.

 

Point taken and accepted, But to a believing theist your reason for doing so is of no matter to them because this life is most insignifigant. Same to an atheist, why would the thought of eternal life intrigue someone that dosn't believe in life after death in the first place? Which is another theist/atheist dig.

[imatfaal]

Point taken and accepted, But to a believing theist your reason for doing so is of no matter to them because this life is most insignifigant. Same to an atheist, why would the thought of eternal life intrigue someone that dosn't believe in life after death in the first place? Which is another theist/atheist dig.

 

Hmm: within many religions the way one lives one's life is of utmost importance - the same applies to those that may call themselves humanists. I do not include those religions for which salvation is pre-determined, but for those other religions in which temporal works of mercy, kindness, and compassion are part and parcel of religious observation then I cannot agree with you that this life is insignificant. Perhaps I would agree that some religions state that personal happiness should not be paramount in this life - but not that the community's well being is insignificant.

 

On your counterpoint: the thought of eternal life is not quite the same as life after death and neither of them really impinge on my consciousness to an important degree. The reason it worries me is that thoughts of eternal life in others' minds does affect me and the community at large. I would prefer to live in a world where no decisions made by anyone are influenced in the slightest by thoughts or desires of eternal life or life after death.

[scourge]

I would prefer to live in a world where no decisions made by anyone are influenced in the slightest by thoughts or desires of eternal life or life after death.

 

Me too. You are encouraged to do good deeds out of pure love for the person rather than going to heaven in mind when you die. But of course alot of the time that does not happen and people cant help but look at that.

[John Cuthber]

 

Bite me.

 

So far, that's as close to an answer as I have received to my earlier question.

I feel it is rather lacking.

[zapatos]

So far, that's as close to an answer as I have received to my earlier question.

I feel it is rather lacking.

That was not an answer to your question, it was my response to you calling me a troll.

 

Since you think I am trolling I figured that responding to your question would be a waste of time. I was doing my best to express my thoughts and you found that lacking. Why waste your time and mine?