Topic awaiting preservation: Peanut Gallery for "Does God Exist?" (Page 2 of 3)

WS - who's to say that a supreme being/power/entity didn't arrange the necessary "chances" so that the world would be created by the Big Bang?


Bodhisattva: an enlightened being full of generosity who sticks around in this world to show others the way to enlightenment.

If you read (and can understand the theory behind it...there's a lot of math and physics...) Mr. Hawkings books, then you will understand why that is not possible...because one would 'see' where the 'invisible hand' interacted with the 'chance' part...resulting in 'non-chance'...and that is also discussed in what I posted...that, in the case of 'manipulating' the 'chance', it results in 100%...and that is clearly not the case.

As Einstein once said, 'God does not play Dice', and certainly wouldn't leave a 5% chance of it going wrong...because then Satan would have it too easy...(think about it).

well, you have a point there. I've read a little of Hawkings stuff, but the math bit does throw me...

(And I'm not stating a belief in God in the Christian sense of the word, just playing argumentative.... )

I just don't see why a Supreme Being couldn't be capable of arranging events so that they occur in what appears to us mere mortals as complete and utter mathematical chance... I mean, a Supreme Being who has existed for as long as the universe has exisited and is omniscient and omnipotent could easily plan out a series of apparently random events from WAAAAAYYY back in the past so that when the universe was created, it appeared to us mere mortals as a series of wholely random events... With that kind of power, anything is possible....

Bodhisattva: an enlightened being full of generosity who sticks around in this world to show others the way to enlightenment.

Well...you are assuming that such a being can change the rules of physics without leaving a trace...hardly feasible, don't you think? Because if that is possible, it would also be possible for Mankind to learn how to do it, as well...and I'm sure that no God would want that...so it would create a system where it wasn't possible to re-work it...which means...no creation of the Big Bang...just let it happen...

That would be the point of being omnipotent and omniscient...

Not CHANGING the laws per se, simply arranging events to take advantage of them. A completely Supreme Being ought to be able to have that power, yes?

It's merely speculation...

(several minutes later...)

WS - I totally forgot you were involved in the debate. After reading your rebuttal to CFB, I realize the futility of my speculation here. (bows graciously aside...) Your intent is to prove the non-existence of the Supreme Being, and since I'm not involved in the debate, I'm gonna call TOUCHE and step aside...
Nice rebuttal, by the way...

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-19-2002).]

quote:

---

Really looking forward to Bug's reply...BTW, has anyone even heard from Bugs lately? Hope

---

I emailed him about the debate, hes been REALLY sick for the last 4 days, like, not able to get out of bed sick...

Ok, I'm just about over the illness and I'm working on a reply. As I can see we're posting some pretty hefty amounts, it could take a couple of days to do it right... but I'm on it

. . : slicePuzzle

webshaman - Thanks for all those wonderful links. You have helped me greatly in my pursuit of understanding.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Man...I just finished reading through WebShamans full post and have to say: Awesome job WebShaman. I'm not going to change my belief based on this debate unless someone can post something that actually proves that their is no god, like, well...mx+b=God, or (-b+sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a=God, none of which are going to happen. All that I can say is that my evidence is really, really crap compared to WebShamans. Maybe I could of gathered evidence from the pastor of our church, he spent 15 years writing papers on the existence of God...Man, since my post sucked and WebShamans is really great, I can just hope that Bugs is extremely knowlegable in this subject (which he is)

Darn...

Then again, though, WebShamans post hasn't proved that their is no God, only provided evidence...

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 06-20-2002).]

Please keep in mind that in debates like these, there is no right or wrong answer. And convincing someone with strongly-held beliefs to change his/her mind also is not a realistic goal of this debate either.

What I have been after is to see how people with such strong beliefs SUPPORT their own belief systems. Is your opinion on a solid foundation or on shaky ground? So I challenge the debate participants to look over their posts to see if what was/will be written really what YOU believe, or was it just a bunch of stuff that other people believe. Don't mimic others. Tell us what YOU think!

References and the like are very important in the debates, but look closely at your references. Do you really agree with what is said? Do you trust your sources? Does it all truly make sense to you?

anyways ... are there any peanuts left?

Cell Number: 494

I think that their is evidence for and against the existence of a God, and really, for me, it boils down to a matter of faith.

PS: Are circus peanuts allowed?

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 06-20-2002).]

CFB-
Don't get dejected. You did a fine job. You might want to try a different, more metaphysical tact. You a can't fight WS with his own weapons, like using science to prove the existance of a supreme being. Its not going to happen. Science seeks qualititative and quauntative results (ie tiki's spelling sucks and tiki's spelling sucks alot) while ones belief in God is an act of faith.

Faith by its very nature is not qualititative and quauntative. It requires the acceptence of that which cannot be proven. This direction might work better for you. Like tomeaglescz I think both sides should address the question of faith.

WS-
Great arguement, but when you refute CFB's use of the bible as a source, you open your sources to question also. Your arguements depend heavily on Stephan Hawking. Hawking has himself admited to changing his mind on his own theories, well after he convinced most of the scientific community that he was correct. He states this in A Brief History of Time. In addition, scientific theories are just that - theories. Science is simply one window through which man views his world. Many theories have been replaced or modified in the past because they didn't work out correctly(Newtonian Motion for instance) .

I also think by focusing on Hawking you have left out another scientific genius of the 20th century - Albert Einstien. Though I wouldn't say that Eienstien was extremely religious, I would say that his world-view did include God. Einstein would never believe that the universe could come into exsistence by pure chance. That would be an affront to his belief in a well ordered universe.

So my question to the WS/Insider is this: Can you refute an infinitly powerful supreme being(not simply the Christian God)? If god is infinitly powerful, can he not also be infinitly subtle? Thereby creating a clockwork universe that allows for scientific discovery.

Or to look at the box from another angle - Could science be only one way of looking at the mechanism of creation? And faith is another?

*tiki hands beekay some peanuts and some beer. He then leans back and continues to watch the show*


-tiki, cell 478

edit-damn typos



[This message has been edited by tikigod (edited 06-20-2002).]

Hmmm...interesting view, tiki *rubs head*...that thing hurts, ya know?

Ok, Mr. Hawking is one of the leaders in this area...and yes, I know that it is just a theory...but it is a theory that has obxervational evidence...something that can be seen...whether or not the theory is 100% correct, is another question...but at this time, it is that which we have and is supported by evidence...

That was the way to 'combat' if you will, the Big Bang stuff that CFB posted...you will notice that CFBs proposal had no evidence whatsoever...so '0' vs '1' wins...

Personally, I'm not so sure about the Big Bang theory...the reseach on the subject is relatively young...that's why I also posted a refute to the Big Bang theory...

The Big Bang in and of itself, is not proof of God, though it does suggest the non-existence of such a being...

To Biblical references...using the Bible as evidence always goes astray...if one is trying to use it as factual, scientific evidence...but as tiki so eloquently pointed out, there are ways of using it to support one's point of view...as I'm sure Bugs will show us...*shudders at the thought*

As for my view...it is not just supported by the Big Bang (and therefore Mr. Hawkins), but rather also by the total lack of evidence of spiritual and/or higher consciousness facts...with the exception of Reincarnation...that little bit really surprised the hell out of me, to be frank. It seems to imply that humans may have 'genetic memory', which I find fascinating...and fits in well with my belief on a 'racial consciousness'...which also contains evidence according to a university study that currently is studying the 'global conciousness' theory...it seems that prior to, during and after Sept. 11, they registered interesting data...there was a link here, but I'm not sure where it went...the entire article was very interesting...I think WJ posted it...

Which really supports my belief that we are ultimately responsible, as a race and individually, for ourselves...and should abandon the idea of a 'supreme being' that is watching over us, sort of like a father...it is time for the human race to grow up...and take responsibility for itself...

Religion and belief in a 'Supreme Being' has not solved a single problem...on the contrary, it has only caused problems...and it is time to leave it behind...like mankind has left behind belief in many gods, it is time to leave behind belief in one...and start believing in ourselves...the evidence points in this direction...

I must say...the very basis of science is the acceptance of the fact that everything you know as fact may change tomorrow.

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

Hmmm...I disagree with this

quote:

---

the very basis of science is the acceptance of the fact that everything you know as fact may change tomorrow.

---

Why? Because it should read '...that everything you think you know as fact may change tomorrow'

Facts don't change...because they are proven. 1+1=2 for example, is a fact. It won't change tomorrow. Theories, hypothosises, and opinions (even educated ones) are subject to change, as are beliefs. But not facts. Because if it changes, then it wasn't a fact in the first place.

Forget Peanuts... Where's the Popcorn?



'Me no here. Me go bye. Leave me message. Me reply.'

Wolfen's Sig Site

quote:

---

So my question to the WS/Insider is this: Can you refute an infinitly powerful supreme being(not simply the Christian God)? If god is infinitly powerful, can he not also be infinitly subtle? Thereby creating a clockwork universe that allows for scientific discovery.

---

Tiki -
That's exactly where I was going before... so much better put!

But of course...because there is no evidence to the contrary...that is, that such a being exists...I could also say, can you prove that the universe is not a giant orange and that we are just the 'building components' of it?

More is the question...is there proof of such a being? The answer is : No.

Until there is proof, we must assume that it is not true from a scientific viewpoint...as far as belief goes, hell, my giant orange is as valid as your supreme being...and that is the problem.

That's why the scientific method was invented...to provide proof that others could not only see, but not refute...

Well, yes. That's the point. Hard and fast proof for such a thing is pretty much non-existant. That's what makes the whole faith part of religion so important...

Proving the truth or untruth of EVERYTHING in the world takes some of the fun out of life, don't you think? I mean, why shouldn't we retain some sort of mystery?

Isn't there enough mystery in Life itself? What about the mysteries of self? How about the mysteries of the unexplored?

Belief, on the other hand...can be mis-guided, used, and abused. Very Dangerous. Maybe we could all do with a little less belief, and a little more curiosity...

I think that just because we may be inside an orange does not mean there is no creator. It just means the people who eat the orange also probably do not know who created them. I think that if there is a God, he has no idea who he is, and he is probably some rich kid living in a large suburb somewhere and his thoughts create things without him even knowing it.

Or perhaps God is very humble and does not care to be recognized for what he did, so he leaves no proof. He is just doing his job after all.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Certainly curiosity about the self, and human life as a whole is one thing...

Trying to prove the existence one way or the other of a Supreme Being is something completely different.

Regardless of your particular dogma, faith and belief are the things that make religion what it is. To a non-religious person, hard evidence is more important. You make a lot of sense in that regard. But to try and disprove the existence of that Supreme Being is a lot like scientific proselytizing...

Belief is a personal thing. Part of the problem I have with organized religion is that it attempts to provide a hard and fast set of beliefs. God works this way, not that way. You have to do the ritual THIS way, not THAT way. Your belief system revolves around science and its proofs. Someone else's belief system revolves around the mysteries of Catholicism. Mine, well, mine revolves around the idea that there exists a creative energy force that drives life in general. Science just provides another way of looking at it, as well as some pretty indisputable facts about life. Even science can't deny that most all life forms have an energy force of some sort. The simple fact that atoms make up the world proves that. But the fact that science is logical and proveable doesn't really make it any better or worse than a religious belief system. Yes, beliefs can be abused. So can science. (Einstein's work on the atom being the basis for the bombs that ended WWII for example) Some things are better left unproved.

Gilbert, you're a trip!

Bodhisattva: an enlightened being full of generosity who chooses to remain on this plane in order to help others find enlightenment.

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-20-2002).]

Ok, I know Bugs is supposed to rebut, but i have to say this:

WebShaman: The links that you posted that were supposed to discredit the Bible were just amatuer stuff. I looked at a book and found that a lot of them, when traced back to the original Greek or Hebrew, with their language, actually do not discredit the bible...I haven't researched the geneology stuff yet, but that is Bugs place...Anyways, this is really interesting stuff!

Well, I can address all those that were found on that page but I plan to only hit them generally because if I respond to each and every thing WS cited, then I'll end up with the 20 pages! I think we have to keep our responses restrained to a certain scope. Perhaps arguing the specific merits/problems with the Bible itself should be left to another debate.

bodhi - You should look into Chaos Magick. It's pretty cool stuff. I'm sort of like you and into all sorts of stuff. I think all things have truth, and that is sort of what Chaos Magick is all about. Also another cool thing is Discordianism. Here is a link for each.

Chaos http://www.angelfire.com/va2/firewraith/about.html

Discord http://www.principiadiscordia.com/



-^^-
--::--
\___/

quote:

---

...that everything you think you know as fact may change tomorrow

---

Actually WS...you're right there...I knew I left word out somewhere.

But really...I did read something interesting once.

1+1=2...Why?

Can you answer that one?

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

I agree with Bugs, I read about 500 pages last night in books, and found arguments/facts discrediting everything that WS said!

My head hurts now... good job everyone. Some really interesting reading there.

CFB...but is there evidence thereof? That is the point...as for the Bible...if it truly is the word of God, then the text should not change with translations...but because it does, that just proves that it is a book written by Man, and not by God...and therefore has mistakes in it...unfortunatly, we are not allowed to examine all of the Dead Sea scrolls...because they are locked away...now why is that? Certain parts have been 'released' to be studied, but not the whole thing...some of the best evidence is simple held from the public...

@Bugs...yeah, I also wanted to much more in there...but then, the amount of material...much too large...I had to cut down on the amount...

Gilbert -
I've studied in some form or fashion about every magickal discipline there is. Including Discordianism... (I've my own copy of the Principia...Have you read the Cosmic Trigger? Robert Anton Wilson is such a crazy man!)

Keeping an open mind about spirituality in all forms I think gives me a good broad perspective on how people relate to each other over spiritual beliefs. Study, and a good thorough background in anthropology, one of the most interesting, but useless degrees one can obtain...

CFB & WS
There are many things in the Bible that are historically accurate. However, for the most part, the reason for this is that it was historians writing it. The Old Testament is almost entirely made up of what scholars and historians call "Morality Plays". Stories that teach people how to act properly. You don't really think that Lot's wife was truly turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back, right? And the Song of Solomon has been irrefuteably proven to be a Turkish love song... Several parts of the New Testament were rewritten, updated and changed as recently as the 1300's... That doesn't mean that NOTHING in the Bible is true, nor does it mean that EVERYTHING is true. Trying to use it for the basis for an argument doesn't work for that reason. It's a mixture of truth and fiction. For the purposes of teaching Christians and Jews alike why we should behave the way we should. Archeological evidence supports many events in the New Testament, but mostly only what relates to government and location at the time. In many cases, it's the only historical reference available on the existence of certain people.
Having experienced a dig in Israel, searching for links to the Bible from the archeological record, I think I can safely agree with that. When dealing with religion and spiritual beliefs, you really have to read between the lines when trying to link it to historical fact. Religious beliefs aren't supposed to be proveable. Again, if they were, faith wouldn't be so important...

Bodhisattva: an enlightened being full of generosity who chooses to remain on this plane in order to help others find enlightenment.

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-21-2002).]

bodhi23, you are completely correct that religion is based entirely on belief and faith. What I can't understand is WHY would someone choose to believe and have faith in something that they have no reason to believe in the first place? Where does this belief and faith come from in the first place? I'm not suddenly going to decide to believe in God tomorrow for shits and giggles, so what causes people to believe?

Someone I think used the arguement that Einstein couldn't accept the fact that the Universe wasn't created by someone because of it's ordered nature. Many religious people also use the clock metaphor. Someone had to have created the clock. My question is, "who created the clockmaker?" If everything has to be created by something, then who created God? Would he also not have to fall under the rule of being created by something else?

I always have to laugh at people who are incapable of believing that the Universe came into being unaided but then turn around and happily believe that God came into being unaided. Regardless of how far you go back, something had to come into being without the assistance of something else. Is it not just as easy and believable to believe it was the Universe that came into being unaided, something that we can observe and experience than a mythical tyrant that we cannot?

I have come to think that the reason people fight so vehemently for the belief of their God and religion is that so many people are horrified by the ramifications of a Universe where there is no God. That would mean that there is no purpose to our being, a complete affront to our species' laughable sense of importance and worth. It would mean that we have only one shot and after death... oblivion. It would mean that we are totally alone and insignifigant with only each other to cling. There are a great many people who are unwilling and terrified at that prospect. And so they go on with their lives inventing half-truths, mythical beings, and a myriad of justifications that sometimes contradict and are often difficult to swallow just to make life sufferable for themselves.

I yearn for the day that the human race can put aside its silly superstitions and base our behaviours on the simple concepts of understanding, empathy, and compassion. Three things that most religions claim to espouse but don't practice often enough and that people isolated and half a world away that have never even heard of your God have in ample quantities.

Now that is a really good point you make. Actually, if one examines the evolution of faith, one sees a remarkable pattern...and this pattern is interconnected with Man's own progression, as well.

From belief in spirits (animism) during the hunter & gatherer times..
To many gods (the birth of the cultivation age...man learns to farm, and to 'hold' land) and build citites...
To the belief in one god (modern man) and the struggle to put this one way of belief forward above all others...therefore 'eradicating' the others...
The next step...one belief wins...and then dissappears, for without a 'contrary' belief, it has no substance.
Man finally believes in Itself.

Kinda like a child growing up...and having to face reality...

Want eternal life? Then find a way to do it now. Want to get rid of suffering? Poverty? Then start solving the problems plaguing mankind now, instead of waiting for some 'being' to do it...

After these things have been done, what place is then left for a belief in God? We would already be in a heaven, one of our own makings...

You've heard of not being able to see the forest for the trees, right? Same thing with religion. Most people can't see the true nature of spirituality for the religious dogma associated with it.

Belief and faith are totally human developments. No one can really say if "God" exists or not, not for hard and fast facts at any rate, no matter what resource we use. Belief and faith come out of a couple of things, one is fear, of which you've spoken. Another is what some people refer to as being "saved" or "reborn"... Or any other such rapturous experience. Some people believe because it's all they've ever known. They grew up under the inflluence of a church or temple or synagogue, and it becomes a part of their life. For someone to truly BELIEVE in their spirituality, they have to find the reason within themselves. Regardless of the outer forms our religious experiences take, true spirituality comes from within, and no one can tell you what that is.

But you're right about the whole clock-maker thing... The world sits on the back of an elephant on the back of another elephant, on the back of another elephant, on the back of a turtle, etcetera etcetera and so on and so on... That's why it really has to come from within. True faith and belief, from within yourself, is unshakeable and unquestionable. If you question it, you can't have too much faith in it. No one is required to have faith, most people feel more whole with it. People who are truly at one with their spirituality embody all three of those qualities you speak of, again, regardless of dogma. If you are sensitive to people's energy, you can tell who is at ease spiritually and who is not.

(And when I refer to "God" I do so in the most encompassing manner possible. Supreme Being takes entirely too long to type sometimes...)

WS- That's a good observation. But it's gonna be a long time before that One Belief wipes out all the rest. Most dogmas are a result of the environment one exists in. There's still too many different cultures on the earth for that to happen.
And yes, if more people paid attention to the teachings of religion as opposed to what religion means what... we'd all be in a lot better place...

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-21-2002).]

St. Seneca,
Finishing my contribution to the formal debate section is time consuming to say the least but I want you to know I address the question you raise about why God *is* and everything else *became*. CFB addressed it by using the Big Bang as evidence of a "beginning" and I am going to offer a philosophical angle for it.

WebShaman,
One of the options left for people who abandon faith in God is Utopianism. They believe that since there is no heaven it is therefore best to create heaven here and now. It sounds good on the surface but *please* consider what happened to all of the great atheistic utopian attempts of the 20th century, presided over by Hitler, Stalin, & good old Mau. It has always led to massive human suffering so far.

bodhi23,
Welcome! I'm not familiar with you and I am digesting your recent posts here and they are very thoughtful and interesting. I look forward to getting to know you better

Bugs - thank you. Them's the kind o' comments I like!




Bodhisattva: an enlightened being full of generosity who chooses to remain on this plane in order to help others find enlightenment.
Cell 617

Bugs: The idea of God just 'existing' has always nagged away at me. I always wondered why all matter had to be created and God just 'is,' hopefully your post can clear that up for me

Ok, something in the World Cup thread brought this realization to me...(strange, actually, soemtimes how my brain works...gotta love that subconciousness).

Belief vs Knowing.

Let's take an example, way back in time...

Man1 (totally believes he can fly)
Man2 (knows that he cannot)

The two stand on a very high cliff on a picture perfect day. Man1 says 'Today I will fly. I will spring from this cliff edge, and soar into the Heavens. I do this, because I believe it is possible for me to fly. Just like the birds.'

Man2 looks at Man1, says 'Then you will die. Surely you know that Man cannot fly. Here, I will prove it to you.' He picks up a fist sized stone, weights it in his hand 'Just like this stone, so you', he adds, as he tosses the stone over the cliff edge. The stone shatters on the rocks far below.

Man1 regards Man2 serenely 'But I am not a stone. It is not alive. Birds fly, and so can I.' With that, Man1 springs from the cliff, flapping his arms wildly, shouting 'Heavens, here I come!'

Man2 watches sadly as Man1 plunges to his death, all the while flapping his arms wildly, until the bitter end, far below...Man2 says 'Yes, but you are also not a bird.'

The moral of the story?

Despite what one may believe, reality will not change. Just because one firmly believes in something, does not make it true.

Knowing, on the other hand, does. Knowing is based on fact. Knowing is based on reality.

Now, this example may come as a bit extreme, but it demonstrates my point very clearly. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for belief. But without a sound basis in fact, belief is often wrong. However, the one that firmly believes does not wish to accept that. Facts to the contrary, he still believes. As the facts become overwhelming, he may 'bend' his belief to something that 'fits' the facts in, albeit shoddily. But he still believes. And that is the problem. Belief must be tempered with knowledge. And that is why the believe in the supernatural has changed with the times. As more and more is known about the previous unknown, faith (belief) has had to change with that. Before, God created the Universe. As we learned more and more about the creation of the Universe, this belief had to change to accommodate this information. It's just semantics, really. As more and more proof comes to light, the belief sector backpedals to more and more 'vague' areas where knowledge has not yet gone. The end result is forseeable. At some point, there will not be a place for belief to fall back on. At that point, it vanishes.

@skaarjj - 1 (the set of one) added (that means to increase the set) to 1 (the set of one) gives 2 (the set of two, which is really the set of one increased again with the set of one). Despite how one wishes to define '1' or '2' (many languages use different words, but the result is the same...that's why mathmatics is the language of the Universe).

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 06-22-2002).]

DONE!!!

Getting your thoughts all down in one shot like that is exhausting!!! I did my best... go rip it up my friends. I'll just be over there collapsed in the corner for a little while

. . : slicePuzzle

That's ok Bugs...you go rest...you've earned it.

That was great!

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

The only problem with your arguments Shaman is that even you have to show faith when you talk about the Big Bang. Sure, scientists can come up with some pretty convincing evidence that traces creation all the way down to, what is it now, .000000000000001 seconds after the event?

So where did this singularity come from? Did it just suddenly appear from a ripple in time-space? There is no hard evidence and so even the most pragmatic scientist must *gasp* show faith in something for which they have absolutely no proof.

"How was the universe created?"

No matter how you answer this you're relying on beliefs. Some people believe it was created by an invisible man in the sky, others rely on science (a field that has rewritten it's laws and doctrines more than even Henry VIII).

Arguing this topic is tough because, like DL said, there's just no hard evidence either way. No matter how eloquently you put forth your arguments, you're just not going to change anyone's beliefs.

So good job on all accounts guys, especially Bugs (as usual, you almost made me have second thoughts, almost ), I'm looking forward to reading more of the debates on a subject that isn't so based in faith and opinion.