The Religion Discussion

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 29th, 2015, 5:47 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Via Wikipedia - Included only parts that coincide with eachother
...God is... the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe,...Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. ...God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".

unicorn
ˈjuːnɪkɔːn/Submit
noun
1.
a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.

No I don't believe in the definition of God you just gave, that does not mean I don't believe in God.

No I don't believe in Unicorns.

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » June 29th, 2015, 6:39 pm

Fair enough. Note this is less of an argument and more of me just explaining my point of view to make it easier to converse in the future.

Now answer me the following questions about unicorns
Why don't you believe in unicorns?
Can you disprove the existence of unicorns?
What is the importance of unicorns to you?
How do unicorns affect your everyday life?

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 29th, 2015, 7:08 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Fair enough. Note this is less of an argument and more of me just explaining my point of view to make it easier to converse in the future.

Now answer me the following questions about unicorns
Why don't you believe in unicorns?

Because I don't see the need to believe such a creature as you described exists other than for fairy tales, videos and theoretical discussions, purely as a figment of my imagination.
Can you disprove the existence of unicorns?
No, but I can probably prove that I never saw any evidence of them.
What is the importance of unicorns to you?
The creature you described as unicorns have no importance to me for now, except to challenge my imagination I suppose
How do unicorns affect your everyday life?
The creature you describe does not affect my everyday life except when someone asks me about them or I decide to read a book about them or watch a video about them, there are other instances where it affects my everyday life I suppose but not directly.

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » June 29th, 2015, 10:03 pm

Those are great answers. If someone asked me the same questions about God (making reference to the God I described or the God of any of the major religions, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam etc.) I would give them the exact answers that you just gave me.

So now I'm curious, do these answers make me atheist or agnostic and why?

In relation to the last question, how would you feel/ react if you were living in a society that had laws that placed restrictions on your freedom based on the society's belief in unicorns and a fictional book written about unicorns?

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 29th, 2015, 10:20 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Those are great answers. If someone asked me the same questions about God (making reference to the God I described or the God of any of the major religions, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam etc.) I would give them the exact answers that you just gave me.

So now I'm curious, do these answers make me atheist or agnostic and why?

In relation to the last question, how would you feel/ react if you were living in a society that had laws that placed restrictions on your freedom based on the society's belief in unicorns and a fictional book written about unicorns?

all 3 dependent
Agnostic until asked the right question
Theist if the description of god matches ur belief
Atheist if the description of god does not match ur belief

Define restrictions of freedom

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » June 29th, 2015, 10:53 pm

So far all descriptions of God seem as fictional as the concept of a unicorn to me except the belief that the universe is God. To me that seems as meaningless as calling the universe by any other random name.

Let's say you are forced to wear a black sheet over your entire body any time you step out of your house no matter how hot it is. You only have a slit cut outnfornyour eyes. Wearing anything more revealing than this garment would cause you to be punished with a public lashing.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 7:08 am

Agnostic:
Do you believe Gravity & God exists?

Atheist:
Define Gravity & God.

Agnostic:
My definition of Gravity:
The force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass
My definition of God:
Something that Created the Universe from the absence of space & time. Wether it is intelligent or not I do not know.

Atheist:
Yes Gravity exists
No God does not exist

Agnostic:
Why does gravity exist & not God based on the definitions provided?

Atheist:
Based on the definition of gravity, we know it exists because the attraction of matter cannot come from nothing so I am forced to believe something caused it. Why disbelieve when you can see the evidence of this attraction absent it's source?
Based on the definition of God, we don't know it exists because the creation of the universe CAN come from nothing, so I am forced to believe NOTHING caused it.

Agnostic:
You forgot to add in the last part. Let me do it for you:
"Why disbelieve when you can see the evidence of this CREATION absent it's source?
How do you know "it CAN come from nothing"?

Atheist,
I BELIEVE it's not the same thing.

Agnostic:
How is it not the same thing.
Isn't that being hypocritical? You have the exact same scenario of evidence absent source yet you choose to believe one and disbelieve the other. Why not just say Gravity doesn't exist? It's just a figment of our imagination? Isn't the BELIEF "that something can come from nothing" a form of faith?

SBF,
No, because gravity isn't an intelligent being.

Agnostic,
I never said it was or wasn't, neither did I say God was or wasn't either.
We know Gravity exists right? So consider this:
If Gravity temporarily stopped working when people are falling to their death after they prayed to Gravity not to fall then I would consider the EVIDENCE that whatever they prayed to was or wasn't intelligent. If they prayed to something other than Gravity when falling to their Death & weren't saved it would be strong evidence that Gravity helped & it is an intelligent being.

Agnostic:
Please swap the word Gravity with God and you will see we all agree "God the creator" should exist based on the evidence of creation itself & we can only say it is intelligent based on the evidence of personal experience through prayer and statistical results.
I don't mind if you disagree with what I have just said, but show logic why you disagree.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 7:59 am

Burka scenario simplified:

Someone who thinks they have personal experience with God decides to oppress someone else for not having personal experience with God (no fault of their own)

Don't need to go do far to find unfair laws.

Eg.
In Trinidad not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it, but mad men are set free for not knowing the law.

bluesclues · Postby **bluesclues** » June 30th, 2015, 8:25 am

the reason he doesnt is probably the same reason why aliens dont talk to us lol. humans have a way to go to develop. the way humans interact is so primitive. i mean you even attack, cheat, lie and sometimes kill your loved ones.

someone once asked.. what is love
a wise man answered... baby dont hurt me

dont be surprised if advanced beings dont want to touch you with a 10 foot pole. humans are not nice creatures. as the japanese say. a man has 3 faces. one he never shows to the world. well God would know that face even thought u hide it from everyone else. when that face stop looking like a bloodthirsty monster maybe then you can gain some interaction. would you call a wild snake your friend then go try to pet it? wake up, ur not as saintly as you portray to others. and the spirit knows. not like u can trick it. trying to do so is very high on my 'not recommended' list.

dougla_boy · Postby **dougla_boy** » June 30th, 2015, 9:17 am

i just want to say this thread is the worst....to much extremists on either side of the fence...

its disgusting....

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 12:19 pm

dougla_boy wrote:i just want to say this thread is the worst....to much extremists on either side of the fence...

its disgusting....

I'm actually defending both sides of the fence using logic.

Atheists aren't wrong when they say certain types of God's just cannot exist. Eg. A 100% Merciful God that is 50% merciless is contradictory & therefore illogical.

Bluesclues will say it still is possible because God has no limit.
Truth is it's only possible not because God has no limit, but because he changes the meaning of merciless to create a new word.

There is nothing wrong with redefining a word if everyone agrees to the new meaning, but if they don't agree to the new meaning then you need to make a new word.

Eg.
This new word could be Mercifess. It means to be merciful sometimes & merciless sometimes, but neither all the time. I just made that up by the way.

Therefore when someone says God is a Mercifess god, it will not contradict statements like "God is Mercifess he saved me from eternal damnation" & "god is Mercifess, he sent me to eternal damnation"

Just don't tell me everything he does is merciful & he isn't merciless, then expect me to believe that.
If you don't know the meaning of contradiction then just say that.

bluesclues · Postby **bluesclues** » June 30th, 2015, 2:56 pm

what if he's merciful to the merciful and merciless to the merciless. half merciless to the half merciful and half merciful to the half merciless? lol

Postby **Duane 3NE 2NR** » June 30th, 2015, 3:46 pm

dougla_boy wrote:i just want to say this thread is the worst....to much extremists on either side of the fence...

its disgusting....

was religion intended to be followed half heartedly? Not following everything to the book?

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 4:22 pm

bluesclues wrote:what if he's merciful to the merciful and merciless to the merciless. half merciless to the half merciful and half merciful to the half merciless? lol

Half isn't 100%.
So God is only merciful to those he thinks deserves mercy. I will assume this to be true.
How does this equate to being 100% merciful to everyone?

100% merciful to some is not the same as 100% mercifully to all.

If you don't believe that God isn't 100% merciful to all then why fool people into thinking that he is?

bluesclues · Postby **bluesclues** » June 30th, 2015, 4:44 pm

well the way the story is told. u got to just be happy he even gives us this chance by giving us a shitty world to live in that we have a chance of graduating out of. i guess he is merciful to everyone because hes actually using energy to continue sustaining our existence. if u have nothing else to be thankful for be thankful for that.

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » June 30th, 2015, 4:46 pm

God is all merciful. It is we that punish ourselves and banish ourselves to the fiery pits of hell by not believing in him or drinking alcohol and little wafers with a bunch of strangers at least once a week (preferably Sunday morning from half 8 to half 9)

MD back to our convo before.
What if I define "the big bang" as Something that Created the Universe from the absence of space & time.
Would you say that your definition of God = my definition of the big bang?
Would you say that your definition of God could equal my definition of the Big bang?
If yes, would you say that God could be the big bang?

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 5:02 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
dougla_boy wrote:i just want to say this thread is the worst....to much extremists on either side of the fence...

its disgusting....
was religion intended to be followed half heartedly? Not following everything to the book?

Did the creation of religion start with an intention to create a religion?
Could it have started off as a question, that needed answers from those that asked it, and eventually evolved over time?

The Judaism practiced today is historically not the Judaism practiced when Moses was alive.
The Christianity practiced today is historically not the Christianity practiced when Jesus was alive.
The Islam practiced today is historically not the Islam practiced when Mohammed was alive.

There are some sects today that try to bring the religions back to their original state, but they aren't taken seriously & most are shunned.

If we are going to take anything to the most extreme devotion I think we owe it to ourselves to examine the foundation of our devotion and determine if it's worth it.

If your not sure your foundation is unstable why fight to save the rest of the house?
If someone you respect tells you your foundation is flawed is it not worth taking a look?
If you find evidence it is flawed should you not attempt to repair it?
If it cannot be repaired does it not make sense to condemn that foundation & build a new one?
If you can't afford to build a new one is it not you to blame if you continue living in the old one when it comes crashing down on you?
If you just don't have the money, time, energy or patience to build a new one but your smart enough not to live in the old one, then why not stop worrying about houses & live free.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 5:13 pm

bluesclues wrote:well the way the story is told. u got to just be happy he even gives us this chance by giving us a shitty world to live in that we have a chance of graduating out of. i guess he is merciful to everyone because hes actually using energy to continue sustaining our existence. if u have nothing else to be thankful for be thankful for that.

If your father puts a gun to your head & tells you give him all the money he spent on you or die, you're supposed to be thankful & happy because he knocked up your mom & still gave you a chance to live if you give him all the money he spent on you growing up?
Such a merciful father to give you a chance to save yourself from the death option he is imposing on you because he wants back what is "rightfully his". I wish everyone had such a merciful father as yours.

That's like thanking someone for giving you your life by giving them it back.
That's just repaying a debt you never agreed to pay & you never accepted in the first place.
That is not Thanks.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 5:40 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:God is all merciful. It is we that punish ourselves and banish ourselves to the fiery pits of hell by not believing in him or drinking alcohol and little wafers with a bunch of strangers at least once a week (preferably Sunday morning from half 8 to half 9)

MD back to our convo before.
What if I define "the big bang" as Something that Created the Universe from the absence of space & time.
Would you say that your definition of God = my definition of the big bang?
Would you say that your definition of God could equal my definition of the Big bang?
If yes, would you say that God could be the big bang?

Yes my example of a definition of God matches your definition of the big bang.
No I would not say that God could be the big bang because I already have a universally accepted definition of the big bang and it does not match your definition.

Big Bang:
The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature which according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

There is no mention of matter being created absent space time. It clearly states matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature. This is still matter bound by the definition of space time.

There is a universally accepted concept for what you are mistakenly describing as the Big Bang. It is called "God the Creator".
Note Concept does not mean fact or truth.

bluesclues · Postby **bluesclues** » June 30th, 2015, 5:44 pm

according to my study. religion was formed from individuals getting the answers to and demonstrating phenomenal things and then tried to teach it to the people in their region. with very limited success.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 6:18 pm

bluesclues wrote:according to my study. religion was formed from individuals getting the answers to and demonstrating phenomenal things and then tried to teach it to the people in their region. with very limited success.

You mean figuring out something logically & then unable to explain their logic in the same manner they understood it?

There are names for that. Take your pick:
1. Communication Barrier
2. Halucination
3. Tricked
4. Temporary insanity
5. Unscientific
6. Limited knowledge.

bluesclues · Postby **bluesclues** » June 30th, 2015, 9:11 pm

well someone figured out how to ride a wild horse. they actually ride wild horses regularly without problem. how is it their fault if the students still cant ride the horse after reading his teaching or attending his lecture?

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » June 30th, 2015, 9:34 pm

bluesclues wrote:well someone figured out how to ride a wild horse. they actually ride wild horses regularly without problem. how is it their fault if the students still cant ride the horse after reading his teaching or attending his lecture?

Assuming this is somehow related to the existence of God.
1. Before you can want to ride wild horses you have to observe they exist.
2. Once that is done he must prove that he can ride them.

Regards God (the way you define it)
We cant even prove anyone has even gotten past point 1 yet, if they have they can't even prove they know him.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » July 1st, 2015, 2:06 am

Do not watch this video if you are Christian. It's offensiveness will scar you for life.

Warning do not watch.

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » July 3rd, 2015, 8:49 am

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » July 3rd, 2015, 9:07 am

MD Marketers wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:MD back to our convo before.
What if I define "the big bang" as Something that Created the Universe from the absence of space & time.
Would you say that your definition of God = my definition of the big bang?
Would you say that your definition of God could equal my definition of the Big bang?
If yes, would you say that God could be the big bang?

Yes my example of a definition of God matches your definition of the big bang....

There is a universally accepted concept for what you are mistakenly describing as the Big Bang. It is called "God the Creator".
Note Concept does not mean fact or truth.It's OK. I just wanted to see if you were more tied to the word or to the meaning. It seems you are tied more to the meanings (as am I) so there is little point in arguing over the word.

The most widely accepted definitions of God also describe him being as a "being"

Google wrote:God
ɡɒd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

So with this in mind I will edit my former post to say

Slartibartfast wrote:So far almost all descriptions of God seem as fictional as the concept of a unicorn to me except the belief that the universe is God. To me that seems as meaningless as calling the universe by any other random name.

EDIT: Added in the world "almost". Due to the vagueness of your definition (unsure whether the universe was created by a being or not) all I can say is that I agree the universe is here and that it had a beginning. I see no reason to believe in an intelligent creator. I wanted to be able to either agree or disagree with you but this is the best I can do. You can take it however you wish.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » July 3rd, 2015, 10:47 am

Slartibartfast wrote:
MD Marketers wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:MD back to our convo before.
What if I define "the big bang" as Something that Created the Universe from the absence of space & time.
Would you say that your definition of God = my definition of the big bang?
Would you say that your definition of God could equal my definition of the Big bang?
If yes, would you say that God could be the big bang?

Yes my example of a definition of God matches your definition of the big bang....

There is a universally accepted concept for what you are mistakenly describing as the Big Bang. It is called "God the Creator".
Note Concept does not mean fact or truth.It's OK. I just wanted to see if you were more tied to the word or to the meaning. It seems you are tied more to the meanings (as am I) so there is little point in arguing over the word.

The most widely accepted definitions of God also describe him being as a "being"

Google wrote:God
ɡɒd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

So with this in mind I will edit my former post to say
Slartibartfast wrote:So far almost all descriptions of God seem as fictional as the concept of a unicorn to me except the belief that the universe is God. To me that seems as meaningless as calling the universe by any other random name.

EDIT: Added in the world "almost". Due to the vagueness of your definition (unsure whether the universe was created by a being or not) all I can say is that I agree the universe is here and that it had a beginning. I see no reason to believe in an intelligent creator. I wanted to be able to either agree or disagree with you but this is the best I can do. You can take it however you wish.

Intelligent creator is definitely another topic.
So we agree that it is logical that "something cannot come from an absolute nothing".
Well I have a possible solution on how to explain why reality cannot come from nothing but still exists.

It boggles the mind to fathom how can reality have not existed at some point in time.
This is illogical, a paradox, as it contradicts itself.
The contradiction is because we assume time and reality cannot exist separate from each other.

Einstein helped resolve this conflict by showing that time can be separated from reality based on perspective. Since our reality is based on perspective it is possible that we have not empathized the perspective of a being not bound by time. Unfortunately our perspectives are bound by the limits of time & we have not found a way to view reality without the construct of time.

The double slit experiment also proves that time and reality are separate & can exist independent of each other.
If we were to assume that reality and time are 2 separate concepts then we no longer need to assume that reality can come from nothing.

What can be implied from the Einstein's theory is this:
Matter does not need a starting point to exist, but time does.

Reality for us is dependent on the flow of time.
What if we lived in a reality where we are no longer bound by the flow of time. We can go as far back and as far forward as we want and it will never end. We never even knew of a reality where time is described as it is now.
Would you still ask the question "What created that universe?"
It would be a stupid question, because we don't even know the meaning of "create".
Is it not possible to create a universe within this universe that is bound by time? It would not be a paradox and thus could exist logically.

As a man of Logic SBH, let me ask you this.
Which one of these statements makes sense & which one does not:
Infinity can create the finite
Or
The finite can create infinity.

Surely you must have said the former. Which brings me to my next point.

Since nothing can be proven to exist outside our thoughts, then all that is left is logical faith vs illogical faith.

Logical Faith:
Infinity can create the finite

Illogical Faith:
The finite can create infinity

Which side do you stand on?

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » July 3rd, 2015, 12:10 pm

Cool so we will put the argument of an intelligent creator aside. By now you should be fully aware of my views on this should you ever decide to bring it back up.

Logically I will always agree that infinity can create the finite as the finite is a subset of the infinite and not vice versa.

I hate to appeal to authority but I make a slight exception in this case so take it as you will. It's been a couple years since I read Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing". I would be lying if I said I remembered a lot of it right now. All I remember is that while reading it, there were some good arguments that "proved" that quantum physics can be very paradoxical (proved is in quotation marks because the reader must accept that all scientific experiments were adequately carried out and finding properly interpreted). With that in mind, when it comes the the universe and where matter came from I will admit that I am uncertain.

Personally I think that there may be more to this universe than we can detect right now. (Nothing scientific to back this up so it is understandable if you think differently) Look at how many sub atomic particles have been discovered in the past century alone.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries
I wonder if there are facets of our universe that are currently being our detection and understanding. It is not illogical to think that there may be a property of our universe that exists completely outside of out perception and that our perceived universe arose from this. This would make our universe a finite subset of something greater, however, from our perception it may appear as a finite subset that appeared from nothing (i.e. nothing conceivable to us).

I believe this is what you formerly defined as "God" for which I have no argument against except that there is no logical reason to believe that the "something greater" is a supreme/superhuman/intelligent/supernatural being of some sort.

MD Marketers · Postby **MD Marketers** » July 3rd, 2015, 1:25 pm

Correction:
There is no absolute reason to believe that the predecessor of our current reality is a creator god.
There is still logical reason to believe that there was a catalyst for the creation of our time bound universe. It is illogical to believe otherwise. If you wish to name it God, there is nothing wrong with that.
Therefore the concept of an above all realities God is illogical. Whatever created this time bounded universe carries the same limits as my mother who created me.

This does not mean that I should not respect the fact that my mother created me.
If it can be assumed that she sacrificed her own stuff for me then I would be justified in respecting her for that.

Slartibartfast · Postby **Slartibartfast** » July 3rd, 2015, 1:43 pm

MD Marketers wrote:Correction:
There is no absolute reason to believe that the predecessor of our current reality is a creator god.Note that I was only referring to the definitions that point to God being an intelligent/supreme/supernatural/superhuman being.

There is still logical reason to believe that there was a catalyst for the creation of our time bound universe. It is illogical to believe otherwise. Please elaborate this point

If you wish to name it God, there is nothing wrong with that.No point arguing over the meaning of the word. I will refer to what I meant as an Intelligent, Supreme, Inexplicable and Supernatural being (ISIS being for short). some definitions of "God" may not fit what I mean so I will use ISIS instead of God for the purposes of our discussion. When you mention God I will assume you mean "whatever created the universe, whether it be supernatural or not" if that is acceptable.

Therefore the concept of an above all realities God is illogical. This seems contradictory as an "above all realities God" could be "a catalyst for he creation of our time bound universe" Whatever created this time bounded universe carries the same limits as my mother who created me.

This does not mean that I should not respect the fact that my mother created me.
If it can be assumed that she sacrificed her own stuff for me then I would be justified in respecting her for that.

Hey if you want to continue to use the definition of God as a the creator (whether it was an intelligent being or not) can you come up with a word that means "Some thing unintelligent/ purely physical that caused creation"? It would make it easier to structure arguments. I developed the ISIS acronym to act as the creator if it was a being already to help. I would then be able to reply with a lot less confusion and misunderstanding between us.