The great and all powerful religion thread!

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I think I don't care at all about a social consensus because what other people think does not change what I think. God cannot reveal himself to us because faith and belief are subjective experiences; his revelation would be unprovable even if it did happen.

 

[skeptik]

My source is the History Channel. A documentary I saw a couple years ago. It's only natural that my knowledge degnerated a bit since then, but Josephus did write historical accounts of a man named Jesus existing.

I don't believe that Josephus is exactly looked upon as a thoroughly valid source, because much of his writing is provoked and influenced by political pressures put on him to convey certain messages. This is widely known about him, and is suspected that his reference to Jesus as the messiah may have been an example of this pandering. As far as I'm aware there aren't any other references loosely contemporary to Jesus' time that actually refer to him as the messiah but rather simply as a mortal. So while there is evidence that a man named Jesus existed (though, after all, is this name really that uncommon for the time period), but I don't believe there is much to support the claim that people believed him to be the messiah.

 

[Zephyrus]

I was only arguing for his existence as a person, anyways.

 

[~Derek~]

I agree with your post, and I think you are an atheist, but you can call yourself whatever you want.

Even though I would say there is no Christian god, but this is just my belief on the evidence given; however, I'm willing to change my belief when evidence arrives. I'm incredibly agnostic in your definition to any other gods not defined, like a deistic or pantheistic. I think we have other evolutionary and abiogenesis explanations where we don't have to go to those gods.

Also, I wanted to provoked a discussion on why people hate the hard headed atheists. Because from reading Dawkins and Harris, I'm pretty sure they agree with you too.

I thought you may've been a Christian because you often had Bible verses as your AIM status.

 

[Resurrect]

I'm atheist, I think of god and other religious figures as I think of Santa or the tooth fairy, something that seems real and good when your a kid, but just completely unbelievable now i've grown up and learned more about it. I once read a quote that read something like this:

"Properly read, the bible is the most potent form of atheism ever created".

 

[cookiecutter]

But that means you're still open to the possibility of a deistic god, which I think makes you an agnostic.

Wrong. Atheism is not believing in a god and I don't believe in any. While I can't prove the nonexistence of god, I also can't prove the nonexistence of fairies, or for Ack's sake I can't disprove the Norse gods, which he also doesn't believe in. It's impossible to disprove almost anything besides a few abstract/mathematical concepts (for example it's pretty easy to disprove a number that is less than 5 but greater than 7).

As V5 said, my "openness" to the possibility of the existence of god always hinges on finding of scientific evidence. There are always those who say "well God is so great that science cannot find him". Well to that I point out that anything that affects our universe in anyway can be investigated through the scientific method. Therefore, if god does not affect the universe, then he may as well be nonexistent because we will never know nor will we ever be affected.

I think the social consensus is that God will reveal himself to us before we can reveal him ourselves.

A social consensus based on nothing substantial.

 

[AchrisK]

...
As V5 said, my "openness" to the possibility of the existence of god always hinges on finding of scientific evidence. There are always those who say "well God is so great that science cannot find him". Well to that I point out that anything that affects our universe in anyway can be investigated through the scientific method. Therefore, if god does not affect the universe, then he may as well be nonexistent because we will never know nor will we ever be affected.
...

Well, let's try an exercise to evaluate this idea.

Let's pretend that God does exist. No fair arguing against his existence for the sake of this exercise, because it's just an exercise.

Let's say he is a powerful spiritual being and that he created everything (icluding setting up the laws of science, physics, etc) out of nothing. He exists in a spiritual realm that is unfamiliar to us as humans. And let's say he can affect reality by willing it. He can create, destroy, and alter physical, mental and spiritual reality, simply by willing it. Also, let's say he can influence people in their hearts and thoughts.

How do you suppose he can be tested and proved by his creation?

 

[Zephyrus]

So you are saying that occurrences that are seemingly explainable by science may still have been divinely influenced?

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

The universe holds far stranger things then those in myhthologies.

 

[AchrisK]

So you are saying that occurrences that are seemingly explainable by science may still have been divinely influenced?

I think the answer is yes, on occasion. I don't mean to say that science is invalid and that everything that happens is initiated on an individual basis by this God. Just that if this God deemed it necessary, he could affect the physical world, and he could do it by his will. He might more often affect the world through his influence on his creation (humans, animals), but he could work otherwise. Say he could cause a disease to disappear from an individual, or interfere in the natural order of things such as stopping the rotation of the planets or changing the weather.

 

[cookiecutter]

Well, let's try an exercise to evaluate this idea.

Let's pretend that God does exist. No fair arguing against his existence for the sake of this exercise, because it's just an exercise.

Let's say he is a powerful spiritual being and that he created everything (icluding setting up the laws of science, physics, etc) out of nothing. He exists in a spiritual realm that is unfamiliar to us as humans. And let's say he can affect reality by willing it. He can create, destroy, and alter physical, mental and spiritual reality, simply by willing it. Also, let's say he can influence people in their hearts and thoughts.

How do you suppose he can be tested and proved by his creation?

We can test the results of the actions and look for causes. If in this hypothetical he "hides" these actions in the guise of natural causes, then I think we would be correct in using Occam's Razor to eliminate him and it would be God's fault not ours that we don't believe in him. To believe in him based on faith in this scenario would end up being correct I guess, but that belief would be logically and rationally incorrect and would only be correct by chance.

If one says that this is how the real world is, then I would ask why a God who punishes non-believers with eternal torment would disguise his actions in such a way as to trick those who think rationally.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think the answer is yes, on occasion. I don't mean to say that science is invalid and that everything that happens is initiated on an individual basis by this God. Just that if this God deemed it necessary, he could affect the physical world, and he could do it by his will. He might more often affect the world through his influence on his creation (humans, animals), but he could work otherwise. Say he could cause a disease to disappear from an individual, or interfere in the natural order of things such as stopping the rotation of the planets or changing the weather.

Well if extraordinary things like this happen we could look for evidence of the cause. But remember if no evidence for the cause is found (such as in the case of the big bang) then that just means it is either unexplained or has no cause, not that there was a supernatural cause.

 

[AchrisK]

Well if extraordinary things like this happen we could look for evidence of the cause. But remember if no evidence for the cause is found (such as in the case of the big bang) then that just means it is either unexplained or has no cause, not that there was a supernatural cause.

How can something have no cause?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Nick: You should make it clear that you mean that the cause is "not necessarily immediately supernatural". Science only knows so much. As we learn new things with the aid of newer technologies, we can systematically rule out the paranormal or supernatural. I guess this is kind of a stupid point to make, though.

Chris: As posited by one of the current Big Bang theories, the Big Bang didn't need a cause and was indeed pretty much random; some argue that this is because, before the Bang, there was no such thing as time...and thus no such thing as cause (causes have to happen previous to effects, that's the point).

We cannot prove this now, but we do get slightly closer every day.

 

[cookiecutter]

How does God have no cause? If everything must have a cause then there is an infinite regress which hurts my brain. I tend to think by Occam's razor that causation begins at the big bang rather than one step back with some sort of god (the deistic position).

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

The "Big bang" was actually a shattering of the supersymmetry of the universe (Which was atomic in size) due to quantum fluctuation. The universe was opaque from the heat and expanded very quickly. All the lighter elements were produced in this process.

Um, I mean "LOLCAKES IT WUZ A BIG ESPLOSION!"

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You didn't explain why it doesn't need a cause tbh

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

You didn't explain why it doesn't need a cause tbh

It doesn't need a cause because of the Hiesneberg Uncertainty principle.

Ie. quantum fluctuation.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

You didn't explain why it doesn't need a cause tbh

METUUUUL WAS ITS CAUSE

 

[AchrisK]

Ok, I can accept the limits of causality. But the things that this God might do, he would be doing in the current time-space continuum, where cause is seemingly necessary.