OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[MaxBuck]

It's not disproof of God I'm looking for, it's evidence supporting God's existence.

It just beggars belief to me that such a complex world as Earth could come into being without the infusion of Divine creativity. Life is so miraculous; organisms so sublime in their design; things we take for granted such as the hydrologic cycle so elegant. I don't understand how it makes sense to think this could all have come about by happenstance.

I understand this probably is not sufficient for your purposes, Brewtus, but it's a concise statement of why my faith makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Taosman]

Life, perhaps just seems miraculous till we discover it on another planet.
Mars?

 

[Brewtus]

It just beggars belief to me that such a complex world as Earth could come into being without the infusion of Divine creativity. Life is so miraculous; organisms so sublime in their design; things we take for granted such as the hydrologic cycle so elegant. I don't understand how it makes sense to think this could all have come about by happenstance.

I understand this probably is not sufficient for your purposes, Brewtus, but it's a concise statement of why my faith makes perfect sense to me.

This is the classic Teleological Argument or Argument from Design. We've probably covered this topic enough in the Creationism/Evolution discussions so I won't bore you with my further ramblings. Besides, many scientists and philosophers have done a much better job covering the arguments against design than I could.

 

[MaxBuck]

This is the classic Teleological Argument or Argument from Design. We've probably covered this topic enough in the Creationism/Evolution discussions so I won't bore you with my further ramblings. Besides, many scientists and philosophers have done a much better job covering the arguments against design than I could.

As you know, I am a strong opponent of Creationism. Yet I remain firmly convinced that an Intelligent Creator put into place the necessary conditions for evolution of life to occur.

I'm not much for philosophy, actually, so this thread really isn't a very good place for me to hang out.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yes, they both may be "guesses" but they don't carry the same plausibility. My hypothesis that the universe has always existed is consistent with what we've observed over the last 14 billion years - that something can't come from nothing so the universe didn't appear from nowhere but has always existed. But to claim that some unknown/undefined Creator created the universe from nothing is significantly more complex an answer than mine and is not consistent with anything we've observed before. It's an explanation that isn't really explaining anything at all because it opens even more things that now need to be explained.

Your hypo is incorrect. The Big Bang establishes that this universe has NOT always been here. That the universe can be seen expanding establishes that it has NOT always been here.

If your position isn't based on facts or evidence, then how do you accept the validity of it? If I were an unbiased observer and both a Christian and Muslim presented their beliefs to me, many of which are mutually exclusive, how would I objectively determine which is true (or if both are false)?

Well, as I see it, my position IS based upon facts and evidence. My position is also not at all related to any "organized" religion. As you know, Brewtus, I reject Christianity, Islam, etc.. The only "organized" religion I feel "comfortable" with is Judiasm, but it would be an insult to Jews to call myself Jewish. But, I digress... point is my position is based on facts. I see things in the universe, I come to understand them, and how this "fact" relates to what G-d must be, if he is at all.

It's not disproof of God I'm looking for, it's evidence supporting God's existence. And before one can look for evidence of God, one must define what God is so then we know what evidence to look for. But God by its very nature is unknowable and cannot be defined by human terms. Then essentially the theist's argument boils down to "I believe in something but I'm just not sure exactly what", which is really no difference than being agnostic.

I can't define what G-d is for you. I can tell you my definition of what G-d is has very little to do with what organized religion teaches. My understanding of G-d is much more personal and based entirely on ... well.. I don't know how to say it... other than to say it this way - based on what I would expect of such a being.. you have seen me say in response to other's comments on here: "If that's what G-d wants, you can have him"

Anyway... the whole of G-d may be unknowable... that doesn't mean you can't know anything about him. Look around you - whatever G-d might be, the universe you're sitting in gives you some answer to that question. We are different in that we are trying to prove different hypotheses, that's all.

For what it's worth - I read somewhere once that the statements "G-d is" and "G-d is not" are the exact same statement. At first it sounded absurd to me - how can polar opposites be the same. But... over time, I've come to see the universe quite differently and it makes sense to me now.. even if I can't fully explain why. I used to look at things linearly - from minus infinity to infinity, if you will... Now that I realize "minus infinity" and "positive infinity" are the same "place," things make a lot more sense. There is no good. There is no evil. There just is. That's an offshoot of this contemplation of negative and positive infinity (these, again, are constructs intent on trying to help you understand what I am trying to say, and not attempts at "proof"). Saying "G-d is not...." is the same as saying "G-d is..." G-d is nothing. G-d is everything. You probably see this as me saying "I get my cake and I get to eat it too!" and.. I probably would too if I didn't "understand" myself.

 

[kinch]

Your hypo is incorrect. The Big Bang establishes that this universe has NOT always been here. That the universe can be seen expanding establishes that it has NOT always been here.

I am coming in midway here and don't know the context, but seeing as "establishes" and "universe" are both important words, I'll add this: If you accept the universe as only what we can see, then you are mostly correct. If you consider the universe all that is, then you are most likely wildly wrong.

At the moment, and people love to focus on the "big bang," which really only goes back to a certain point, membrane theory shows that as branes touch these "bangs" are created, each a different universe on its plane. There is so much more science than what people reduce it to in order to create strawmen.

Just saying. :)

Also, for more fun, we appear to be nearing another "universe."

 

[Jake]

As you know, I am a strong opponent of Creationism. Yet I remain firmly convinced that an Intelligent Creator put into place the necessary conditions for evolution of life to occur.

 

[Pheasant]

For sake of discussion, even if your "divine creativity" theory is correct how do you know you're worshipping the right god? There are literally hundreds of them over the course of human history. Even if one of them did create the universe, what are the odds of attributing credit to the right one?

If there were such a creator there is little reason to believe we would be aware of who/what it is, much less have a book documenting the details of it. Then, of course, there is the book. I would have to turn off my brain to actually believe the creation tale, not to mention some other things, contained within it. How does one ignore the scientific evidence that contradicts it? How does one explain this God speaking directly to humans in several parts of the bible, directly intervening in their daily lives, choosing to remain silent and invisible ever since? So many questions, and virtually no answers. None that make much sense, anyway.

BTW, I am assuming your creator is the USA's god of choice, God of the bible. If I am incorrect then please clarify.

To this small part, you're assuming he has remained silent and invisible since. There are certainly plenty of people who would argue that point as they have experienced god speaking to them and directly intervening in their lives.

 

[Jake]

To this small part, you're assuming he has remained silent and invisible since. There are certainly plenty of people who would argue that point as they have experienced god speaking to them and directly intervening in their lives.

I am talking about actually revealing himself and speaking out loud, as the bible portrays several times. The imaginations of believers are not evidence of anything because no one can see/hear what they "feel" or the coincidences they attribute to "His" intervention. They are the ones "assuming", not me.

Evidence can be proven. Nothing believers allege God has said or done outside of what is suggested in the bible can be proven at all. That's why they call it faith and I call it self delusion.

 

[Pheasant]

I am talking about actually revealing himself and speaking out loud, as the bible portrays several times. The imaginations of believers are not evidence of anything because no one can see/hear what they "feel" or the coincidences they attribute to "His" intervention. They are the ones "assuming", not me.

Evidence can be proven. Nothing believers allege God has said or done outside of what is suggested in the bible can be proven at all. That's why they call it faith and I call it self delusion.

Actually, you are the one assuming. You're making the assumption that since nobody has proved it to you specifically, that it hasn't happened.

I get why some people don't believe in or worship a specific God. What I don't get is why people want to hide behind science and claim that since science can't prove something exists it must not exist. Science can explain things we have figured out how to explain. Maybe they just haven't figured out how to prove God exists.

I can't prove I just told my wife you like to bait people with posts about God, does that mean it didn't happen?

 

[MaxBuck]

That's why they call it faith and I call it self delusion.

You can call it whatever you like, but that's why I call you a prick.

 

[Steve19]

Your hypo is incorrect. The Big Bang establishes that this universe has NOT always been here. That the universe can be seen expanding establishes that it has NOT always been here.

Only if you assume that time is linear and relative.

Consider that it is likely the universe has been in a constant state of expansion and contraction. At the point of complete contraction, just prior to the next "big bang", it is not really clear that time would even exist.

Time need not be linear. Consider that, if we could survive a trip into a black hole, we would feel time continue at its regular pace but to an outside observer it would appear to stand still.

Given that dark matter, which we can observe only indirectly, seems to account for the majority of matter in the universe, is it not possible that we are falling into a much larger and unobserved universe and that the time that exists for us is just an illusion?

There are many ways that the universe could have existed since the beginning of time. Science and religion can be in perfect harmony.

Anyway... the whole of G-d may be unknowable... that doesn't mean you can't know anything about him. Look around you - whatever G-d might be, the universe you're sitting in gives you some answer to that question.

I think that my understanding of God and yours is similar. I believe that God is an unknowable essence but we can understand the qualities of God, such as love, truthfulness, patience, and charity. My belief is that these qualities are revealed in the Writing of all of the major religions. In the Holy Writings of all the major religions, one can see the unfolding of one religion.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I am coming in midway here and don't know the context, but seeing as "establishes" and "universe" are both important words, I'll add this: If you accept the universe as only what we can see, then you are mostly correct. If you consider the universe all that is, then you are most likely wildly wrong.

At the moment, and people love to focus on the "big bang," which really only goes back to a certain point, membrane theory shows that as branes touch these "bangs" are created, each a different universe on its plane. There is so much more science than what people reduce it to in order to create strawmen.

Just saying. :)

Also, for more fun, we appear to be nearing another "universe."

I agree with your assessment about me being "mostly correct" or "wildly wrong" as I am a multiple universe guy. I assume most people are single universe people and so I try to limit myself to talking about one universe a lot of the time.

I would say the multiverse is timeless. I would also say that the multiverse is indistinguishable from G-d (Although even then, such a statement is ... well.. actually, both an over and under statement....)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Only if you assume that time is linear and relative.

Much the same as I just posted to Kinch - I am willing to accept those ideas as well, though I must say that time has always appeared to run linear to me. I do see plenty of evidence that time is relative, but it's direction seems a harder sell to show it may move (pass) in other ways.

That said, the nature of time is something that I have had a hard time truly understanding. A weakness of mine, to be sure.

 

[muffler dragon]

At the moment, and people love to focus on the "big bang," which really only goes back to a certain point, membrane theory shows that as branes touch these "bangs" are created, each a different universe on its plane. There is so much more science than what people reduce it to in order to create strawmen.

Very interesting perspective. To be honest with you, I have great difficulty just dealing with "infinitesimally small". How is that phrase even legit, and then to compound that "i.s." with the expanse that is our universe, I get all sorts of la la. Not saying it's right or wrong, just incomprehensible to me.

I can't define what G-d is for you.

I believe that God is an unknowable essence

Can I get a "What?! What?!" from my ineffable brothers?! Amen!