A rather amusing musing I read earlier today:

If God exists, and created everything that is, he/she/it is so far above our comprehension that it is laughable. And arguing with/killing each other about how he/she/it wants to be toadied to is even more laughable.

If I had an ant farm, and the ants had a theological discourse on the "correct" way to hold a sand grain in their jaws, so as not to anger He Who Holds The Magnifying Glass, well, random ones would still get fried, I wouldn't care how they held their sand, and some of the ants would, regardless of who got fried, still believe that their way of sand-mandibleizing was the only right one.

I agree that religion shouldnt be used for hate, but the punishment comes in the afterlife, not in this one, and it's not correctness, but intent that matters. most laws are just against things that almost all people would consider morally wrong, like rape, murder, theft, etc... not how to hold your fork or something menial like that.

And the point goes flying by. It's the fact that if something were powerful enough to create all of existence, we wouldn't be able to understand what it would want becaues its frame of reference would be so far off from ours. All of the "laws" you think are of divine origin are just the ants, trying to hold sand.

But if we assume that Christianity and Judaism and Islam are right, he would've given the laws to Moses and explained them to us. His laws are within our grasp, just not his true essence

That's a big assumption. Huge. Not to mention baseless.

Are you planning on being an economist, by chance?

...Im an anarchist, and think that wall street is pointless... so no O_O

And it's not baseless, no more so than dark energy, now is it?

EDIT: i should clarify.

Dark Energy is something that they think exists, but they have no proof of, dont understand, and dont know what it is. How is that any more plausible than my theory?

Win.

Ever considered going into Politics Hrae ?

If you think that there is no evidence to support the existence of dark energy you're either being purposefully obtuse or just unfamiliar with the science behind it. Which, really, I can't really blame you. The stuff like dark energy and matter is hard to get a handle on without a very firm grasp of calculus. I understand just enough to get by on the topic in a fairly informal manner. If you'd like, I can contact one of my friends that is nearly finished with his graduate studies in Astrophysics to contact you and walk you through it.

BDex: No chance. Too many skeletons in the closet, heh. That bit I posted earlier wasn't mine, though, just something I came across in a discussion thread on another site. I've thought I could be a speech-writer, though.

I havent read too far into the subject, im sorry to say... so it was probably somewhat noobish of me to bring it up. i guess a better example would be string theory, or quantum mechanics, since there's no definitive proof or disproof of them.

Granted, the vast majority of the stuff on the bleeding edge of science has a good bit of speculation involved, but that's sort of how science works. The scientist aren't saying "THIS IS EXACTLY HOW QUANTUM MECHANICS WORKS, IT WILL BE LIKE THIS FOREVER, BELIEVE IT INFIDEL/HERETIC!" They say, "The evidence we've gathered fits this particular model. We are always observing and gathering more evidence that will either strengthen or weaken this model. If this model proves to be false, another model will be created until all evidence and observations support the model." That is the fundamental difference between how science works and how religion works. Religion says "THIS IS THE LAW. BELIEVE IT OR BURN." There are some Eastern religions that don't have that sort of judgemental bent, obviously, but we've been primarily focused on the Big Three Abrahamic religions when we've veered from the actual topic on if there is a diety of some sort that exists.

Not all religious people are like that... as i said in my first post in this thread, we all have about the same chance of being right.

Plus, there's the theory of Universal Salvation...

See, that is where you are absolutely, 100%, completely and utterly wrong. There is NOT the same chance either is right. There is a chance, yes, but not nearly the same. With every piece of evidence and observation gathered, the probability tilts in the favor of there not being a supernatural creator-being, seeing as there isn't ANY actual repeatable observation and evidence that one does exist.

But once again, you can say that the Deity that created us used science and stuff. there's been nothing that makes him/her/it any less likely of existing.

You could say he lives in your shoe, too, but that doesn't make it any more valid or true.

Same with string theory. there's no proof of it, but it fits in perfectly with our current knowlege of things, as does God. he explains what logic simply can't, such as the previously mentioned big bang.

And dont bring up eclipses, because those things still worked inside of physical rules.

Fits perfectly? That must be a jest, correct? Which version of "God" fits things perfectly? The Orthodox Jews'? The Reformed Jews'? The Catholics'? The Protestants' (Baptists', Pentecostals', Unitarians')? The Shias'? The Sunnis'? We're just barely scratching the surface of the various groups of the Abrahamic religions, there, and none of those fit in "perfectly" with anything we currently observe about the universe. It might have fit "perfectly" in with the observations of a desert dweller 4000 years ago, but not any more.

Edit: Quantum theory doesn't fit "perfectly" either, but that is to be expected, as humans are in fact NOT divine creature and are prone to flaws. It is currently the best model out there, not the final one.

I mean just a deity in general... not a specific one.

But Christianity is chock full of hate. Do you worship Baal? Yes? *stab* Do you not believe in our merciful, all loving god? No? *burn*

And the worst part is that all of these were done with the express support of GOD.


God explains what we cannot explain, true. But he then asks of us an even bigger explanation for his existence. Hypothesising a god only creates an infinite regression. It does NOT end it. You can claim god is "non-physical" and omnipotent and whatnot but you do not have a definition for "non-physical" and as we have shown, absolute omnipotence is impossible.

On the other hand, let me state here, that simply hypothesising a deity is far more understandable than hypothesising one prescribed by religion.

I agree that alot of what the church did in the past was wrong. but what about the good things we've done, such as the works of Mother Theresa?

And you claim that nothingness exploded, which is also impossible. i'll explain mine when you explain yours.

I'm not entirely sure you want to go down the Mother Teresa route, heh.

What do you mean? the fact that she had lost faith for an amount of time, but still believed in his existance? or the fact that she did alot of work to help people in an impovrished nation? or perhaps that she was a great humanitarian? please, if im missing, inform me.


if it's the former of the three... read this.

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

I think Hitchens puts it best:

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

im talking about her charity work, not her beatification. The Pope isnt infallible when it comes to things outside of doctrine. He's still human.

EDIT: Read a bit more. i sincerely doubt that there was some form of massive conspiracy, seeing as she got the Nobel Peace Prize and other prizes outside of the church, but i digress.

What about other charity work religion has brought about? the salvation army, for example

The idea that a human can be infallible in any sort of circumstance is prima facie absurd.

Not infallible, simply guided by God to make the correct teachings for the church. but once again, we're delving far too deep into Christianity and not religion in general.

Once again, may i ask what rhyme or reason supports the idea of nothingnesss exploding?

Jesus, Jik, did you even read any of my last posts? Nothingness did NOT explode. A singularity exploded. SINGULARITY. I do not know how that singularity came about. You claim that god did it, and claim not to know where god came from, while attaching a lot of excess baggage such as benevolence, omniscience and omnipotence to that being when it isn't even necessary, and you also claim that he has been accurately portrayed in a book written thousands of years ago by people who had neither the technology nor the knowledge that we have today, to find out such things.

Then, you claim to have a firm, unshakeable belief in that being and that book, while eschewing parts of it, and following bits of it, and later claiming that any religion has the same chance to be right. Excuse me? If you are a Christian, then you believe that you are 100% right, that Jesus was the son of god, and you will be sent to hell, heaven or purgatory depending on how you lived your life. So if Christianity has a 100% chance, then so do the other religions? So do Invisible Pink Unicorns? Hinduism? Buddhism? Jainism? Islam? But they are incompatible, aren't they?

Might I refer you to, well, this same thread you've been supposedly reading?

http://fiestafan.com/forums/showthre...ity#post324371

*sigh* what i mean when i say we all have about the same chance is that they all have 100% belief too. so who's to say which one of us is right, since each of us is biased?

And my point is that there you have two conflicting viewpoints. You ask me to say where God came from, when you yourself have no idea where the big bang came from.

All apologies for my miswording, but the fact of the matter is that the big bang supposedly created everything, and there would be no space for the singularity itself to exist in if the big bang hadnt yet occurred.

Well, atleast I admit my ignorance rather than relying on a book that claims to know everything, which is so improbable since as I said, it was written ages ago.

Also, I wait for a rational explanation, rather than one which simply does not answer the question such as god.

*sigh* i need to edit more quickly x.x

And how do you know that there isnt a rational explaination to spirituality, and whichever deity created us all? perhaps there's just much we havent yet uncovered, just as there is much we've yet to have uncovered about the big bang.

The difference is that the big bang was arrived at by scientific enquiry. The universe was found to be expanding, therefore it should have started expanding at some point, and therefore, after a little more research, the big bang was found to be the explanation that best fitted the evidence.


When it comes to god, there is no research involved. Just stating that a deity created us is kinda plausible, but stating that it has all these attributes that religion states it does is foolishness.

What about the eventual starting point? the first bit of matter, no matter how small, had to have a creator. And how is an omnipotent, omnicient being any harder to think of than some figurative spiritual beast smashing through and creating all existance, if that's what you're suggesting by saying the traits that religion gives the deity?

Your first statement works against you too.


Okay let's look at the argument.

The big bang happened.
Something had to make it happen.
A certain deity made it happen.

So far it seems okay if you disregard the infinite regression it created. But now, here comes the excess baggage.

The deity is omnipotent. Why hypothesise that?
The deity is omniscient. Why?
The deity is omnipresent. How? Why?
The deity is benevolent. Why?
The deity is intelligent and aware of our existence. Why?

It is true that the Romans when conquered the lands forced by killing and son to force the people of other places to be christian. There as it is true beeen a lot of bloodshed on religions and the gods u believe in.

The same could be said for your theory.

you claim the Deity is a blind, unknowing force. Why?

we all have theories on the nature of whatever God, Goddess, or Thing created us. The omnipotence and omnicience makes sense if you believe that the being is self aware. and as for benevolence, because he/she created us, and is like a father/mother to us.

Correction.
As of now, I claim that no such deity exists due to lack of proof.

Why? Because it is far more likely.
A deity created the universe. (3 assumptions)

A deity created the universe and then created us and then appeared some thousands of years ago to a privileged one of us and then gave us a moral code to live by and then sent his "son" to die for our sins (which is stupid since he could have cleared our sins with a snap of his fingers) and still watches over us today and created a "heaven" and a "hell" for after your life, and makes sure we live on after our life and made us in his image even though he is not physical and... and... and... and... (thousands of assumptions).


How is ascribing omnipotence and omniscience valid for a self aware deity? And the mother thing is not sound. There are mothers who hate their kids too. Not everybody likes their creation, and even this rests on the assumption that the deity is self aware.

Oddly, you seem to be giving the same weight to every interpretation to a deity. I, at one point, thought along the same lines until I realized exactly how lazy that position is. It allows one to just sort of bop along in life without really giving great thought to the matter. There is an answer, there is a truth. We just have to find it. At the end of the day, I'll bring my evidence and you bring yours and we'll see which one holds up to scrutiny.

The easiest way to show that there is an ultimate truth is the ponder on this statement:
"There is no ultimate truth."
For the statement to be true, the statement itself would have to be a universal truth, thus negating itself.

The primary difference in position, again, is that we're able to say "I don't know". We don't shoehorn in fanciful tales of supernatural beings to cover our lack of understanding.

i agree that there is an ultimate truth, but we wont really be able to test it till we somehow are able to tell what happens after we die. Till then, we have no proof either way, really. till there's proof towards or against the existance of a deity, there's no point in debating this, since neither side has any conclusive evidence.

And vasu, is it not that God made some rules for himself to abide to?

And that's where benevolence comes in. He/She is a loving parent to us, wanting nothing less than the best for us.

Either that, or our universe is the byproduct of the digestion of a multiuniversal bacterium. Since we're just throwing wild attributes to something we don't understand. We also might be Thor's foot fungus, or perhaps the multiversal mother's yeast infection. They're about as plausible as a deity that actually gives a two-penny screw about this backwater of a planet.

*shrugs* anything's possible, really. while i think those things are a bit less believeable, that's just personal opinion.