The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/13/national-service-dalai-lama-tibet

I read this editorial and, I have to say, I was a bit shocked by the cheek of it.

I'll leave you to read it yourselves, but I thought the final sentence was particualrly trite and also vicious.

[HoreTore]

My impression is "average".

I don't really understand where you found shock and cheek...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Primarily in the part where they laud him for being a cultural and religious symbol for a culture and religion they then pour scorn upon.

[Hax]

Well, Buddhist Tibet pretty much was a caste-based theocracy in which the majority of power was held by a religious elite.

[HoreTore]

Well, Buddhist Tibet pretty much was a caste-based theocracy in which the majority of power was held by a religious elite.

Indeed. I don't see how it's an attack on Dalai Lama to state the obvious....

[Kralizec]

In the process, he has established that Tibet is no longer merely a country, still less a region of China. It now seems more like a nation. The difference is that a country can be annihilated in a single battle or written out of existence in an afternoon at a conference table. Nations are very much harder to extinguish.

I really, really have no idea what to make of it. Allthough he's well-known internationally he has practically no influence in Tibet itself for the simple reason that China doesn't allow his views to be published there. And if by "nation" he means "a cultural grouping", he's probably right. But the Chinese are pretty succesful so far in watering it down; both by demographic influxes of Han chinese and by repressing their culture and language generally.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I really, really have no idea what to make of it. Allthough he's well-known internationally he has practically no influence in Tibet itself for the simple reason that China doesn't allow his views to be published there. And if by "nation" he means "a cultural grouping", he's probably right. But the Chinese are pretty succesful so far in watering it down; both by demographic influxes of Han chinese and by repressing their culture and language generally.

I was more mindful of:


Much of what he believes and teaches is absurd to modern ears. But he is still a world figure: a man who stands for nonviolence and the disinterested pursuit of truth in a way that no other religious leader manages to do.

and:


Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion, for which he deserves to be honoured in St Paul's Cathedral (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9258784/The-Dalai-Lama-to-give-away-1m-at-St-Pauls-Cathedral.html) this afternoon.

From which I take:

"Look, I know he's a wiedo but he's basically a nice guy and after he dies the Tibetan diaspora will probably be all secular - like us!"

I call that more than a little offensive, and infantile.

The article also goes so far as to say that we only think Buddhism is less corrupt because we don't understand it and it's exotic.

If such things were said about any major Western religious leader or politician they would not be published in a mainstream newspaper, not under the cloak of flattery at any rate.

[Papewaio]

Wasn't the current Pope's Hitler youth membership in newspapers?
Child molestation rings attributed to Catholic priests and nuns? That the Catholic church has actively covers it up and not assisted authorities until secular authorities had reams of damming proof? Haven't all this been published?

Add to it all the press coverage Islam gets.

Then all the kool aid drinkers, hate preachers, anti-abortionists who murder doctors etc etc

And you think Buddhism is being singled out by pointing out factual information? Or is it the snide my system is better then your system remarks that reek of colonial supremacy that is annoying?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wasn't the current Pope's Hitler youth membership in newspapers?
Child molestation rings attributed to Catholic priests and nuns? That the Catholic church has actively covers it up and not assisted authorities until secular authorities had reams of damming proof? Haven't all this been published?

Add to it all the press coverage Islam gets.

Then all the kool aid drinkers, hate preachers, anti-abortionists who murder doctors etc etc

And you think Buddhism is being singled out by pointing out factual information? Or is it the snide my system is better then your system remarks that reek of colonial supremacy that is annoying?

It's the snide remarks, especially the one I quoted, not the factual bits.

[Kralizec]

"Look, I know he's a wiedo but he's basically a nice guy and after he dies the Tibetan diaspora will probably be all secular - like us!"

I call that more than a little offensive, and infantile.

The guy who wrote that also mentions that the Dalai Lama espouses all sorts of odd beliefs. I think his point was that the current Dalai Lama has done so much for the "Free/Autonomous Tibet cause" that any successor will pale in comparison. So from his perspective, the next Dalai Lama will simply be another cleric, albeit the highest one.

What puzzles me is is the writer seems to praise him for his achievements. From what I know the Dalai Lama is a good guy, but basically never managed to achieve anything for his own people. Tibet's sinification proceeds as we speak. In contrast, a person like Nelson Mandela was a good guy and managed to influence things for the better for his own country.

I mean, seriously:


The Dalai Lama himself has managed the very difficult transition of Tibetan exile politics from a theocracy towards something very much like a proper democracy.

[The Stranger]

i guess the cheek is in this comment:

Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion

[drone]

Big hitter, the Lama.

[Hax]

Besides, the institute of the Dalai Lama isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by Mongol rulers in order to offset the influence of other tribal groups in Tibet. So there.

[Kurando]

Besides, the institute of the Dalai Lama isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by Mongol rulers in order to offset the influence of other tribal groups in Tibet. So there.

Similarly the institute of the "So there" isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by the way seeking mind in order to offset the one-upmanship of other tribal groups in an online discussion. So here.





This space intentionally left shunyata.

[Hax]

So quoth the master.

Kanjizai bosatsu gyou jin hannya haramita ji shouken gon kai ku...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am lost in my own thread.

It's like discovering some twonk has hidden your car keys.

[Greyblades]

Kurando resurrected the thread by taking issue with the term "so there" and is taking the piss. No idea what Hax is saying.

[Skullheadhq]

Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion, for which he deserves to be honoured in St Paul's Cathedral this afternoon.


Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.

[lars573]

Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.
Nope it's a religion. Philosophy's don't have monastaries priests and monks. Or belief in spiritual evolution and divination.

[Hax]

Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.

Please refrain from assuming. It's probably the other way around, it's a religion with a lot of philosophical aspects.

[Skullheadhq]

Please refrain from assuming. It's probably the other way around, it's a religion with a lot of philosophical aspects.


Name one buddhist god.


Philosophy's don't have monastaries priests and monks.

They have priests?



Or belief in spiritual evolution

Seneca rings a bell? Proficientes and such. Unless you mean reincarnation, then you should probably look to Plato.

[rajpoot]

Name one buddhist god.

Actually Buddhist Gods are the same as Hindu Gods. If viewed in today's context, Buddha was what one would call a Hindu, before he received enlightenment/true knowledge and started preaching his ideas and it took shape of a religion.
Buddhism is more like a....offshoot of Hinduism (although that's putting it very...loosely) as far as I've always understood it. Over the years customs and practices changed and got moulded according to region.

Edit:
Another similar religion is Sikhism. They have no deities of their own. Only ten gurus who preached their own ideas.

[HoreTore]

Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.

Look upthe word "etnocentric", and please reconsider your statement.

Religious concepts are different in the west and in the east. Buddhism(and confusianism, taoism, etc) is of course a religion, but it is different from the abrahamists religions(and the extinc euro religions as well). Not just in preaching, morals and rituals, but the very concepts are different.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look upthe word "etnocentric", and please reconsider your statement.

Religious concepts are different in the west and in the east. Buddhism(and confusianism, taoism, etc) is of course a religion, but it is different from the abrahamists religions(and the extinc euro religions as well). Not just in preaching, morals and rituals, but the very concepts are different.

I suggest you look up "ethnocentric" yourself. Buddhism does not conform to the defition of a "religion" and slapping a Latin word on it simply serves to obscure its alienness.

The closest you could come to describing it would be to say it is between a philosophy and a belief system - but that does not make it a "religion". For one thing, it is not about the individual's relationships half so much as about the sense of self and if I recall the Buddha himself was distainful of those who clung to such primitive concepts as "Gods".

[HoreTore]

I suggest you look up "ethnocentric" yourself. Buddhism does not conform to the defition of a "religion" and slapping a Latin word on it simply serves to obscure its alienness.

I am not surprised that it does not conform to *your* definition of religion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not surprised that it does not conform to *your* definition of religion.

Why are you trying to put a Western lable on it?

It doesn't need one.

[HoreTore]

Edit:

Come to think of it, I have no idea what you mean. I can think of at least three possible meanings, and so I can't respond.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Calling Buddhism a "religion" is innapropriate, because it has almost none of the peculiar charactaristics of a "religion" as it is understood in the West and Near East - insisting on calling it a religion is an attempt to fit it into a mental catagory which is anachronistic.

Calling it a "philosophy" is also wrong - because a philosophy is a way to find truth, and Buddhism is clearly more than that.

Using it to bait me RE: "*your* definition of religion" is pointless.

Buddhism is not a religion - I do not say that to cheapen it as a way of thinking or a belief system, but merely as a recognition that it is unlike anything we generally call a religion.

[Hax]

Name one buddhist god.

Well, okay: Ebisu, Daikokuten, Benzaiten, Hotei, Fukurukoju, Jurojin, Bishamonten, Kichijioten, Shojo, Marishiten, Sanmen Daikoku.

Any other questions?

[atheotes]

Buddhism is as much a religion as Hinduism - not saying they are similar, just emphasizing on the broad meaning of the term "religion".:shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, okay: Ebisu, Daikokuten, Benzaiten, Hotei, Fukurukoju, Jurojin, Bishamonten, Kichijioten, Shojo, Marishiten, Sanmen Daikoku.

Any other questions?

How many of those did the Buddha reconise?

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

Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?


Buddhism is as much a religion as Hinduism - not saying they are similar, just emphasizing on the broad meaning of the term "religion".:shrug:

Why?

[Skullheadhq]

Well, okay: Ebisu, Daikokuten, Benzaiten, Hotei, Fukurukoju, Jurojin, Bishamonten, Kichijioten, Shojo, Marishiten, Sanmen Daikoku.

Any other questions?

Do you think Buddha preached those gods or that, when Buddhism spread, those who accepted it retained their local gods as well?

[lars573]

How many of those did the Buddha reconise?

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

Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?

Actually I just googled it Shojo has 5 meanings. Depending on the emphases.
Shōjo: Young girl (7-18)
Shōjō: Sea spirit with a fondness for booze and covered in red hair, also Orangutan
Shojo: Female virgin
Shojō: Letter or message

Also there is a Buddhist temple in Japan called Shōjō-ji. So no Japanese god called Shojo. Also I picked up from the Simpson's (when Lisa converted to Buddhism) that it accepts all forms of belief in so far as they line up with Buddhist beliefs. And Buddhism talks of beings who are god like compared to humans but not necessarily wiser. So really there are potentially dozens of Buddhist gods. Whom are local gods that the local sect has pick-up over the centuries.


They have priests?
Yes they do.

[Skullheadhq]

Yes they do.

Really? What do they do?

[Hax]

How many of those did the Buddha reconise?

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

Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?

Which Buddha? Siddharta Gautama, or Gautama Buddha?


Do you think Buddha preached those gods or that, when Buddhism spread, those who accepted it retained their local gods as well?

These seven Gods I mentioned weren't picked from the sky. They are the Seven Lucky Gods, who have characteristics that are typical of Japanese Buddhism, some with Japanese origins, some with Indian origins and some with Chinese origins.


Really? What do they do?

Run temples, perform ceremonies and exorcisms, mostly; it's pretty cool stuff.

[rajpoot]

I don't get it. Why the squabble over a term.
Religion might refer to something more specific in the West. Out here Buddhism is a religion. Who says that a religion requires its own deities or that they need to be immortal Gods?? Buddhists probably don't believe in deities, but they believe in a higher state of being. They believe in Buddha.

[Skullheadhq]

These seven Gods I mentioned weren't picked from the sky. They are the Seven Lucky Gods, who have characteristics that are typical of Japanese Buddhism, some with Japanese origins, some with Indian origins and some with Chinese origins.

But did Buddha preach those gods?


I don't get it. Why the squabble over a term.
Religion might refer to something more specific in the West. Out here Buddhism is a religion. Who says that a religion requires its own deities or that they need to be immortal Gods?? Buddhists probably don't believe in deities, but they believe in a higher state of being. They believe in Buddha.

That may be so, the article writer didn't make such a distinction.

[Hax]

Ah, but what Buddha?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't get it. Why the squabble over a term.
Religion might refer to something more specific in the West. Out here Buddhism is a religion. Who says that a religion requires its own deities or that they need to be immortal Gods?? Buddhists probably don't believe in deities, but they believe in a higher state of being. They believe in Buddha.

Because the term "religion" means something in the Western mind which does not, really, include the beliefs held by the majority of Buddhists.

If you look at Western Religions you have Christianity and Judaism (and now Islam) on one side and the various folk-traditions on the other but they all have something in common; sooner or later you get back to the Creator God, be he YHWH, Yule, the Allfather or whatever the Wiccans are calling their chief God these days. Another thing they all have in common is a beginning and an end. A God created the world and a God will destroy it when the time comes.

By contrast Buddhism doesn't do "God" in anything like the same sense - in so far as there are "Gods" they are being on a higher plane of existence, NOT the creators of this plane and time is cyclical, as is life.

It's a completely different way of thinking about the world, and if a European labels it a "religion" what he is trying to do it fit it into his existing schema rather than expand his conceptions.

It's very easy, for example, for HoreTore to label Buddhism a "religion" because to him it's just as much rubbish as Christianity and in the same way labeling it a "religion" serves the agenda of Christian etc. leaders because then they can call the Dali Lama His Holiness and group him with the Pope even though the two offices have more to seperate them than unite them.

[rajpoot]

But then, if I've understood correctly, the debate should be about how does one define religion.

The page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) on Wikipedia IMO, gives a satisfactory definition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But then, if I've understood correctly, the debate should be about how does one define religion.

The page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) on Wikipedia IMO, gives a satisfactory definition.

I read it - I think it's anachronistic - I'm particularly suspicious of their etymology of "religion" as I happen to know that during the middle ages "religion" meant a "rule men live by", i.e. a Monastic order - as opposed to the "secular" which were ordinary priests.

In any case, that page is very Western in outlook - just because it groups every system of belief under "religion" doesn't mean they have much in common at all.

[Hax]

Wrong thread!

[rajpoot]

The first line -

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
I found it fitting.



In any case, that page is very Western in outlook - just because it groups every system of belief under "religion" doesn't mean they have much in common at all.

Now I agree with what you're saying here. The various religions of the world don't have much in common aside from some fundamental similarities.
IMO though, it's those basic morals and values, that every layman can understand himself, that count, and not what other 'learned' men interpret them as, or derive from them.
Anyhow, I do believe I'm derailing the discussion. So I'll stop.

[HoreTore]

The sense of holiness is enough for me to label something a religion. That means buddhism is a religion. I see absolutely no need whatsoever for the "beginning and end"-stuff.

On that note, it also means that I don't regard scientology as a religion. But whatever, who cares abiut the loonies.



I do find it funny that the one who has previously called things like socialism and football "a religion", doesn't want to call buddhism a religion. In PVC's mind, everyone has a religion. Except buddhists, it seems...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The sense of holiness is enough for me to label something a religion. That means buddhism is a religion. I see absolutely no need whatsoever for the "beginning and end"-stuff.

On that note, it also means that I don't regard scientology as a religion. But whatever, who cares abiut the loonies.

Define "holiness"


I do find it funny that the one who has previously called things like socialism and football "a religion", doesn't want to call buddhism a religion. In PVC's mind, everyone has a religion. Except buddhists, it seems...

No, I don't believe I have.

I may have said that Socialism is "like a Religion" in that it offers a promise of a better future, and then criticised it for trying to change people to create that future on Earth.

Football - I can't recall anything I have ever said about football, except for the one time I mentioned a study which showed that men became tribalistic about football in the absense of any other "manly" outlet.

I think you are conflating me with other posters.

Even if I perhaps did at some point write "socialism is a religion" it would have been a term of scorn and derision, like saying "American Idol is a religion" - so your criticism rings hollow regardless, as I actually have respect for Buddhist beliefs, but not Socialist ones.

[HoreTore]

I can't define holinessm as it's not something I experience.

But I hear tell you religious folks are doing it. Including buddhists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can't define holinessm as it's not something I experience.

But I hear tell you religious folks are doing it. Including buddhists.

Is it the same thing - in a Christian context "holiness" would be a oneness with the will of God, i.e. a willing and diligent obedience. His Holyness the Dali Lama is actually a higher being, which is why he can choose whether or not to reincarnate (he has decided not to). Basically, he has more in common, metaphysically, with Jesus than the Pope.

[Centurion1]

Thank Mother Church I have religion that believes in incusivism so I don't have to walk around looking at people and thinking in my mind they go to hell.

[Kurando]

There's a great series of talks by translator John Peacock called "Buddhism Before Theravada" which get to the root of what Buddha was doing and why, and how it became what it is today.

http://www.audiodharma.org/series/207/talk/2602/

It's 5 hours of lectures, but time very well spent for anyone who is interesed. Without a doubt Peacock is one of the few westeners who is actually qualified to make such interpretations. The long and short of what he says is this:

The word "Buddhism" does not exist in any texts; it's a much later invention, and if it was to be translated it would be best translated as "wake up ism"

Buddhists in the countries which follow the older Pali texts: Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, are basically 100% practicing thru the lense of the Visuddhimagga, a massive treatise on Buddhism which was written in the 5th Century by a guy named Buddhaghosa. Peacock maintains that Buddhaghosa was not privy to the social and political climate that Buddhism was originally formed in, and thus there were a great number of finner points of the Buddha Dharma that Buddhaghosa misinterpreted or simply did not understand.

Peacock also maintains that over the course of many centuries Buddhism (especially in the countries not following the Pali cannon) has basically become re-infectied with a type of Brahmanism; this gradual shift has allowed various deities and rituals to creep into the original form of Buddhism which was formed largely as a satire of Brahmanism and contained no trace of worshiping deities, but instead placed deities in the same (but more refined) situation as humans and all other life forms which are trapped on the wheel of samsara.

Peacock also states that the Buddhism which is practiced in China, Korea, and Japan came about as sort of merging of Buddha Dharma and Taoism.

That's about the size of it, atleast according to Peacock. I'll take is word for it; compaired to myself or anyone else here his credentials are hopelessly impeccable...

The only critism I'd make of the lectures is that I don't think Peacock touches enough upon the huge influence that Greece had upon earily Buddhism. As far as I understand it, the entire idea of representing Buddha as statues, in tapestries and in other art forms 100% came from the Greeks. Before the Greeks came into the picture there are no records whatsoever of any physical representations of the Buddha. And the influence went both directions: it has also been said that Buddhist monks sent emissaries to the west during that era and that the Greek word "therapeutic" actually is attributated to the Theraputa (Theravada Monks) who visited Greece during the Ashoka period and apparently made quite an impression.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thank Mother Church I have religion that believes in incusivism so I don't have to walk around looking at people and thinking in my mind they go to hell.

Was that an "I'm so awsome" post or are you having a dig at someone?

If the latter, I'm not sure who.

[Centurion1]

Was that an "I'm so awsome" post or are you having a dig at someone?

If the latter, I'm not sure who.

Not everything is an insult Phillips. It is something that when I look at my faith I'm truly happy
About. Religions that believe in inclusivity or predestination seems horrible to me

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not everything is an insult Phillips. It is something that when I look at my faith I'm truly happy
About. Religions that believe in inclusivity or predestination seems horrible to me

On this board, things generally are an insult, no?

Still you're contradicting yourself, you said you were glad to believe in an "inclusive religion" - now you find such religions horrible?

In any case, that doesn't add anything to the topic at hand.

That fact that you like your religion is not surprising - I quite like mine as it happens, and one presumes that Hax enjoys his (whether it actually is a religion, or not).

[Hax]

I think he might mean exclusivity.


That fact that you like your religion is not surprising - I quite like mine as it happens, and one presumes that Hax enjoys his (whether it actually is a religion, or not).

To be honest, the last couple of months I've drifted away further and further from spirituality as a whole. I don't know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think he might mean exclusivity.

To be honest, the last couple of months I've drifted away further and further from spirituality as a whole. I don't know.

Oh dear - so you are not happy.

If you were a Christian I would call this an episode of "Dark night of the soul".

[Papewaio]

Buddhism is termed a religion in Australia.

A lot of Christians like to say Christianity is not a religion "It's a personal relationship with God."

End of the day:
Faith
Temples
Charity
Tithes
Rituals
Robes
Belief
Beautiful Artwork
Etc

[Centurion1]

On this board, things generally are an insult, no?

Still you're contradicting yourself, you said you were glad to believe in an "inclusive religion" - now you find such religions horrible?

In any case, that doesn't add anything to the topic at hand.

That fact that you like your religion is not surprising - I quite like mine as it happens, and one presumes that Hax enjoys his (whether it actually is a religion, or not).

Ah yes thank you Hax I meant exclusivism I don't k ow why I said inclusivism. Yeah I thank the church for that much at least. It just seems the world would be much sadder if you had inclusivism beliefs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah yes thank you Hax I meant exclusivism I don't k ow why I said inclusivism. Yeah I thank the church for that much at least. It just seems the world would be much sadder if you had inclusivism beliefs.

Sorry - I think you're confused again.

"Exclusivism" would be where you exclude people outside your religion from getting into heaven.

[Centurion1]

I think this is an issue of idiocy on my Part. And to think I just wrote a term paper for my
Theology class on this sort of thing. Regardless you understand my point, I'm a catholic everyone gets into heaven through inclusivism etc. and that it legitimately seems it would be hard to have exclusivism principles in day to say life.

Wrap up- meant Exclusivism in the earlier post and then meant that I Ollie a church which supports inclusivism

[Skullheadhq]

A lot of Christians like to say Christianity is not a religion "It's a personal relationship with God."


You shouldn't listen to them.


Buddhism is termed a religion in Australia.
Well, that settles it :rolleyes:

[Kadagar_AV]

I think this is an issue of idiocy on my Part. And to think I just wrote a term paper for my
Theology class on this sort of thing. Regardless you understand my point, I'm a catholic everyone gets into heaven through inclusivism etc. and that it legitimately seems it would be hard to have exclusivism principles in day to say life.

Wrap up- meant Exclusivism in the earlier post and then meant that I Ollie a church which supports inclusivism

*nods eagerly*

[Skullheadhq]

I think this is an issue of idiocy on my Part. And to think I just wrote a term paper for my
Theology class on this sort of thing. Regardless you understand my point, I'm a catholic everyone gets into heaven through inclusivism etc. and that it legitimately seems it would be hard to have exclusivism principles in day to say life.

Wrap up- meant Exclusivism in the earlier post and then meant that I Ollie a church which supports inclusivism


Extra ecclesiam...

:laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

Thank Mother Church I have religion that believes in incusivism so I don't have to walk around looking at people and thinking in my mind they go to hell.


This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.

It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.

It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.

No it isn't - it's just impossible for you. Hence your loss of faith.

It is a great act of hubris to believe that your generation or its experiences are somehow different.

Litterally millions upon millions of words have been expended on the agony Christians feel in trying to determine who will and who won't go to hell, and how to deal with being incapable to tell while they are alive.

[Centurion1]

Extra ecclesiam...

:laugh4:

I have had multiple arguments on these boards to prove that the Catholic Church does not believe in exclusivism, one of which Phillips may remember. First of all inclusivism and the quote you use as your argument "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" are not incompatible. Inclusivism says that all salvation comes from Jesus Christ and that the Catholic Church follows the true path but that all faiths in conjunction with a holy life can lead to everlasting paradise.

But really, I do not need to dispute or explain since Church Doctrine can change.


This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.

It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.



This always cracks me up. The mentally weak proclaiming their inability to hold faith as some sort of intellectual superiority. The Church in no way forces me to question my beliefs at any point and only people who have a very weak understanding of the Catholic church would be able to claim otherwise. Where exactly in my faith am I forced to choose between it and science?

[Papewaio]

You shouldn't listen to them.

Why not they are all Christians and it is their beliefs to define



Well, that settles it :rolleyes:
FYI Australia straddles between Western and Eastern ideas. Being a Westminister country with mainly Asian trading partners. We have large communities of Buddhists within Australia.

I don't see how being in our geographical position we could not know anything about Asian religions.

Considering the suburb I live in has about 25% Hindis and a large temple. Likewise I was at Nan Tien Temple (http://www.nantien.org.au/) last weekend I have some personal exposure to religions other then my parents.

That is an advantage here that I did not get in NZ.

[Strike For The South]

No it isn't - it's just impossible for you. Hence your loss of faith.

It is a great act of hubris to believe that your generation or its experiences are somehow different.

Litterally millions upon millions of words have been expended on the agony Christians feel in trying to determine who will and who won't go to hell, and how to deal with being incapable to tell while they are alive.

Well yes, all the more reason to assume there is no higher power. I do not claim to be in an advanced mental state nor do I hold peoples faith against them but to continue to believe in the Juedo-Christian concept of God seems far reaching to me.



This always cracks me up. The mentally weak proclaiming their inability to hold faith as some sort of intellectual superiority. The Church in no way forces me to question my beliefs at any point and only people who have a very weak understanding of the Catholic church would be able to claim otherwise. Where exactly in my faith am I forced to choose between it and science?

Not I hold intellectual superioirty of you becuase you still bow to a king in Rome.

If you were a protestant, I would simply disagree with your concept of God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well yes, all the more reason to assume there is no higher power. I do not claim to be in an advanced mental state nor do I hold peoples faith against them but to continue to believe in the Juedo-Christian concept of God seems far reaching to me.

Thursday morning, my Grandfather died, I was not in a good frame of mind.

A convoluted sequence of events placed me in front of a particular friend of mine and when she asked, "are you alright" I opened up to her in a way that I would not open up to most people and she and some other of my friends sat with me for an hour and a half while I gabbled incoherently. The chain of events, happenstance, miscomunication and every thing else which began nearly a weak earlier that got me to that moment is mindboggling. The point is, it got me there.

Stuff like that happens - which is why I don't believe in coincidence.

You say you find the "Juedo-Christian" concept of God "far reaching", by which I assume you mean unlikely, but that utterence indicates that you have never interogated what that concept is.

People say "Juedo-Christian", but that's an oxymoronic construction that comes out of "New" theology designed to be polite to Jews, who think Christians are fools at best. Nobody ever talks about the "Juedo-Islamic" or "Christo-Islamic" God because despite the similarities the concept is acknowledged as absurd. In fact, what people consider likely or unlikely is entirely dependent on experience. You at some point suffered a losss of faith; partly because the strctures of your native religion conflicts with your own thought processes and partly because you have not accessed the mystical experience that religion promises.

Despite that - other people do not find the belief system as poor a fit and have accessed the mystical side of the religion.

I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?

[Strike For The South]

Thursday morning, my Grandfather died, I was not in a good frame of mind.

My condolences


A convoluted sequence of events placed me in front of a particular friend of mine and when she asked, "are you alright" I opened up to her in a way that I would not open up to most people and she and some other of my friends sat with me for an hour and a half while I gabbled incoherently. The chain of events, happenstance, miscomunication and every thing else which began nearly a weak earlier that got me to that moment is mindboggling. The point is, it got me there.

Stuff like that happens - which is why I don't believe in coincidence.


So by eschewing coincidence you can only logically come to the conclusion that there is a higher power? Not only is there a higher power, but he is the one you believe in.


You say you find the "Juedo-Christian" concept of God "far reaching", by which I assume you mean unlikely, but that utterence indicates that you have never interogated what that concept is.


Would Abrhamic suffice? I could name all the religons of all the world, none of which I find a kinder word for but far reaching, but that would take up the page.



People say "Juedo-Christian", but that's an oxymoronic construction that comes out of "New" theology designed to be polite to Jews, who think Christians are fools at best. Nobody ever talks about the "Juedo-Islamic" or "Christo-Islamic" God because despite the similarities the concept is acknowledged as absurd. In fact, what people consider likely or unlikely is entirely dependent on experience. You at some point suffered a losss of faith; partly because the strctures of your native religion conflicts with your own thought processes and partly because you have not accessed the mystical experience that religion promises.


You say you don't subscribe to coicidence yet the bolded sentence is percisely why I hold the oppisite view. If you were born anywhere else, your view only religion would be entirely different. Unless you subscribe to predestinantion I don't understand how you could find that view logically consistent. Your think your religon is right only becuase it is yours, not becuase it is right.

So I have been led astray by my church elders and I have not prayed hard enough? Losing my faith was a very hard thing to do, more reflection only stiffens my resolve in the other direction.



Despite that - other people do not find the belief system as poor a fit and have accessed the mystical side of the religion.

So it all comes down to a matter of feeling then?


I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?

I would say you have a decidely smaller view

[Kadagar_AV]

I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?

First of all I very much question the "cohesiveness" you describe.

Secondly, your world does not include my world. In my world science, the universe and nature trumps what the very vast majority of the worlds society consider to be imaginary beings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My condolences

Thank you, he was 99 and 11 months (almost to the day), so it was not a very great surprise,


So by eschewing coincidence you can only logically come to the conclusion that there is a higher power? Not only is there a higher power, but he is the one you believe in.

Well, yes, to be honest. I consider the Christian conception of God to be most likely, because he is the most forgiving - he's welcome to correct me at any time, and I shall be extremely sorry if it turns out that, in fact, I should have been worshipping Odin, but there you go.


Would Abrhamic suffice? I could name all the religons of all the world, none of which I find a kinder word for but far reaching, but that would take up the page.

If you can't get behind God, just say so, don't hide behind a pingeon hole, it implies you might be able to believe in, say, Mithras or Sol Invictus - but from what you have said that is no easier for you than believing in YHWH.

If it's just the theistic bit, you could try being a Deist.


You say you don't subscribe to coicidence yet the bolded sentence is percisely why I hold the oppisite view. If you were born anywhere else, your view only religion would be entirely different. Unless you subscribe to predestinantion I don't understand how you could find that view logically consistent. Your think your religon is right only becuase it is yours, not becuase it is right.

Someone said something similar to Archbishop Temple, his response?

"You only believe that because of your upbringing."

I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.


So I have been led astray by my church elders and I have not prayed hard enough? Losing my faith was a very hard thing to do, more reflection only stiffens my resolve in the other direction.

If you think preyer improves faith then I'd say someone has let you down.


So it all comes down to a matter of feeling then?

Yes, and absolutely not.

What is a feeling? Have you ever tried to describe one to someone else without comparing it to another sensatio0n?

It's like describing colours to a blind man, it doesn't mean anything, you're just describing how the colours make you feel, not what they look like - because the blind man can't see them.


I would say you have a decidely smaller view

You have no reason to say that other than being afraid of what I'm saying.

I may be mad, but my breadth of experience is broader than your because I am talking about something you obviously can't comprehend, because it is so far beyond your pale.


First of all I very much question the "cohesiveness" you describe.

Secondly, your world does not include my world. In my world science, the universe and nature trumps what the very vast majority of the worlds society consider to be imaginary beings.


Let me rephrase that slightly - my world includes all the "stuff yours does" - beer, women, sunlight, small children. I have all that "physical stuff" and then I have "other stuff".

Yes, my way of understanding might be "different" instead of "bigger", but my worldview definately includes more stuff than yours, because I'll believe in anything you do in the physical world, and all the non-physical stuff you don't believe in.

[Kadagar_AV]

Let me rephrase that slightly - my world includes all the "stuff yours does" - beer, women, sunlight, small children. I have all that "physical stuff" and then I have "other stuff".

Yes, my way of understanding might be "different" instead of "bigger", but my worldview definately includes more stuff than yours, because I'll believe in anything you do in the physical world, and all the non-physical stuff you don't believe in.

My condolences, forgot to say :(

Anyway: Beer, women, sunlight and small children is of course part of both our worlds. Would you not accept that you wouldn't be able to post here (you'd be locked away a long time ago), so I'll give you no kudos points for it.

However, for me the interesting question is not that this physical stuff exists, for me the interesting thing is WHY it exists, and how it came to be.

I see a galaxy with beautiful mathematics, supernovas, stardust turning into sentient beings and a whole lot of things our best brains and deepest efforts have yet to understand...

You see a world where there is a set God who makes stuff happen for unknown reasons.


"Your" world only includes "more stuff" if you also agree that someone believing in the tooth fairy has a richer world than someone who doesn't.

But please do not claim that your world includes all the stuff my world does.

[Kralizec]

My condolances as well.


I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.

Strike's point still stands, though. Despite being raised without it, you were open to christianity - but if you had been born in a village in Tibet you would have viewed christianity as a western idiosyncracy.

Which ties in with my dislike for the Calvinists' idea of predestination. Someone born in Europe, the America's or other predominately christian areas would likely be born a christian. Some people convert later, such as you.
Now, someone born in Lhasa or Shanghai or whatever probably would at least have heard of christianity. But it's not a religion that is well established in his or her society, so he/she would probably not seriously consider it. People born in non-christian countries are statistically less likely to be born as christian, and less likely to make the conversion.

All of this would make sense in a universe where God exists and salvastion is predestined. If you ask me, admittedly an atheist, fairness would demand that every individual has an equal chance of "making it".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My condolances as well.



Strike's point still stands, though. Despite being raised without it, you were open to christianity - but if you had been born in a village in Tibet you would have viewed christianity as a western idiosyncracy.

Which ties in with my dislike for the Calvinists' idea of predestination. Someone born in Europe, the America's or other predominately christian areas would likely be born a christian. Some people convert later, such as you.
Now, someone born in Lhasa or Shanghai or whatever probably would at least have heard of christianity. But it's not a religion that is well established in his or her society, so he/she would probably not seriously consider it. People born in non-christian countries are statistically less likely to be born as christian, and less likely to make the conversion.

All of this would make sense in a universe where God exists and salvastion is predestined. If you ask me, admittedly an atheist, fairness would demand that every individual has an equal chance of "making it".

Whether Strike has a point depends on whether we are talking about the fact that I have faith, or the form that it takes.

Yes, Calvinism sucks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My condolences, forgot to say :(

Anyway: Beer, women, sunlight and small children is of course part of both our worlds. Would you not accept that you wouldn't be able to post here (you'd be locked away a long time ago), so I'll give you no kudos points for it.

However, for me the interesting question is not that this physical stuff exists, for me the interesting thing is WHY it exists, and how it came to be.

I see a galaxy with beautiful mathematics, supernovas, stardust turning into sentient beings and a whole lot of things our best brains and deepest efforts have yet to understand...

You see a world where there is a set God who makes stuff happen for unknown reasons.


"Your" world only includes "more stuff" if you also agree that someone believing in the tooth fairy has a richer world than someone who doesn't.

But please do not claim that your world includes all the stuff my world does.

That's alright - you're easily forgiven for the lapse.

You say you're interested in the "why" - but there is no "why" in science, just the machine and the "how".

You think I don't see galaxey star dust....

I do, I appreciate all those processes - but the difference between you and me is that I see the purpose of that order as a fulfillment of a Divine Paln, where for you it just "is".

So, in that case I would have more "why" too.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's alright - you're easily forgiven for the lapse.

You say you're interested in the "why" - but there is no "why" in science, just the machine and the "how".

You think I don't see galaxey star dust....

I do, I appreciate all those processes - but the difference between you and me is that I see the purpose of that order as a fulfillment of a Divine Paln, where for you it just "is".

So, in that case I would have more "why" too.

I do not agree. There is a "why" in science, but people who believe in science think you need to sort out the "how" to understand the "why".

Neither do I agree that science at large, or me, claim that anything just "is".


I claim that the difference between you and me is not in the questions asked, but in the tools used to answer the questions.


I put my belief in humanity at large's best efforts and sharpest brains.

You put your belief in a very criticized collection of books written by a desert living people some ~2000 years ago.


Things has evolved since you know... You do agree with evolution? ;)

So, well, I totally do not see how your world view is in any way bigger or richer, unless, as I said before, you also think that someone believing in the tooth fairy live in a bigger and richer world than someone who don't.

[Strike For The South]

Well, yes, to be honest. I consider the Christian conception of God to be most likely, because he is the most forgiving - he's welcome to correct me at any time, and I shall be extremely sorry if it turns out that, in fact, I should have been worshipping Odin, but there you go.

He is the most forgiving that you have bothered to hear of.



If you can't get behind God, just say so, don't hide behind a pingeon hole, it implies you might be able to believe in, say, Mithras or Sol Invictus - but from what you have said that is no easier for you than believing in YHWH.

Sorry for the semantics error.


If it's just the theistic bit, you could try being a Deist.

I do not wish to try my philosiphies as if they were clothes. I hope to find a semblance of truth and rationality somewhere


Someone said something similar to Archbishop Temple, his response?

"You only believe that because of your upbringing."

I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.



And christianty was the dominant religion and has been for more than a century now, rather convienent, no?


If you think preyer improves faith then I'd say someone has let you down.
I can speak directly to God, why pray if not to soldify bonds? I do not expect all my prayers to be answered nor do I ever ask for wordly comforts but you imply prayer does not improve the faith. why?



Yes, and absolutely not.

What is a feeling? Have you ever tried to describe one to someone else without comparing it to another sensatio0n?

It's like describing colours to a blind man, it doesn't mean anything, you're just describing how the colours make you feel, not what they look like - because the blind man can't see them.

You have no reason to say that other than being afraid of what I'm saying.

I may be mad, but my breadth of experience is broader than your because I am talking about something you obviously can't comprehend, because it is so far beyond your pale.



Casting pearls before swine? You can do much better than this. I sat in the pew, heard the stories, and when I was baptized I truly belivied Jesus was in my heart. Now I do not and all evidence points that same direction. I wish I still had my faith but I do not

[Greyblades]

Hrm, a religion discussion. Fun, fun, fun.

I was raised catholic, I turned passive-agressive militant athiest at about 13, I stopped caring and turned agnostic at 16 or so.
Now, I'm not really concerned with it, at all, though I still identify myself as catholic and the ideals appeal.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hrm, a religion discussion. Fun, fun, fun.

I was raised catholic, I turned passive-agressive militant athiest at about 13, I stopped caring and turned agnostic at 16 or so.
Now, I'm not really concerned with it, at all, though I still identify myself as catholic and the ideals appeal.

You have to be more specific: Which ideals appeals?

The no sex before you have a metallic band around a finger thing?

The anti-condom campaigns in the worlds most AIDS-infected countries?

Crusading in the holy lands?



That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain.

[Greyblades]

Well I can tell which side of the fence your on.

Which ideals appeals?
Love they neigbour, causing harm is a sin, dont steal. etc Basically I like the stuff that is belived and applied by the majority of the sane christians.

That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain. Well I found politics, hobbies, family and real life more important to me than religion. I've got enought to worry about right now than what some bearded guy in the sky thinks about me and I didnt find my tenure as an athiest particually made my life better or worse because of it so I dont feel like its all that necissary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have to be more specific: Which ideals appeals?

The no sex before you have a metallic band around a finger thing?

The anti-condom campaigns in the worlds most AIDS-infected countries?

Crusading in the holy lands?



That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain.

Hey, don't knock the Crusades!

They were the only time European soldiers really looked cool!

[Kadagar_AV]

Well I can tell which side of the fence your on.

Not the best guarded secret, now is it?


Love they neigbour, causing harm is a sin, dont steal. etc Basically I like the stuff that is belived and applied by the majority of the sane christians.

I can't believe you try to benchmark those traits as "Christian". Like the majority of sane Atheists, Agnostics or Buddhists believes in hating your neighbor, causing harm is jolly good, stealing is OK etc.


Well I found politics, hobbies, family and real life more important to me than religion. I've got enought to worry about right now than what some bearded guy in the sky thinks about me and I didnt find my tenure as an athiest particually made my life better or worse because of it so I dont feel like its all that necissary.

That would only be a fair point if religion did not play a part in politics and real life.

I was about to add that I would grant you the "hobbies" thingy until I realized that one of your hobbies obviously is posting right here.

[Beskar]

You say you're interested in the "why" - but there is no "why" in science, just the machine and the "how".
You think I don't see galaxey star dust....
I do, I appreciate all those processes - but the difference between you and me is that I see the purpose of that order as a fulfillment of a Divine Plan, where for you it just "is".
So, in that case I would have more "why" too.

I am having to disagree with you here, PVC. Perhaps it is just your wording or you have some how come across a really weird polar situation which I am failing to grasp from your writings, but I will go ahead and say why anyway.

You take say there is no "Why" in Science, and those for who use Science, there is just "Is" unlike for a devout believer such as yourself. This is completely contrary to every experience I have come across.


"Why is the sky blue and why does it turn red whilst turning to Dusk?" Tiaexz is sitting there in Sunday School class, the topical is the Creation, where the massively powerful being, Jehovah created the sun, stars and the world within seven days. The Sunday School teacher clearly unable to answer the question, whilst clearly out of his depth, he clearly grasps upon those hook-line and and sinkers based around his faith, "That is because God created it like so". Sunday School teacher sighs, "These kids, always asking these kind of questions..." he mutters under his breath, why does anyone even care about these things, to ponder the curiosity and question what is there. "Surely God must have a reason for those colours, instead of having.. Green or even simply White", the Sunday School teacher clearly has that look of not being impressed and questioned about these things, "They are like that because God willed it so, it is just -is-".


Tiaexz ends up arriving at Science class in School, they are studying about the heavenly bodies. "So.. why is the sky blue and why does it sometimes even appear red at dusk?", Tiaexz is a little low in mood, he was thoroughly told to "close the zipper" as typical during church, the Science teacher looks towards him and smiles, not the best looking of men, sort of goofy expression and thick rimmed glasses, but always friendly. "Let's take a look and find out how that is then!", the teacher brimmed with a big smile, infront of him were these devices in a box and he begins to bring them out, they look like they have been rescued from the 1970's, but they look function. They basically boiled down to a lampshade with a light bulb within it and a ball within a box. "Whilst we are unable to do this easily with the sun, we should be able to reproduce the effect so you understand", the teacher smiles warmly as he plugs in one of the boxes as the light bulb turns on. "So imagine this is the Sun" the teacher waves it around so you easily get the idea, and he points it towards this ball within the transparent box, "and imagine this is the earth.. as you see, the sun is shining down towards the earth as the sun orbits the sun, rotating like this" the teacher gives a slightly clumsy demonstration, but it is pretty clear what he is trying to do, attempting to make the experience as realistic as possible, "as we learnt, light is made up of different wave lengths, which when they reach the cones within the eye, produce a different colour in our perception, as the light hits upon our earth here, it travels and scatters within the atmosphere, as we see are seeing the blue as per our demonstrationa nd the sky outside, the shorter waves are scattered more when they come in contact with the particles, this scattering fills our senses making us perceive the colour blue, which is a short wave length spectrum. If they are scattered more evenly and more concentrated *light bulb is waved around* it appears 'white' as the scattering is more equal, this is why when you look towards the sun, it appears 'white'", a hand shoots up, "So why does it appear red during dusk or dawn?", the teacher smiles and moves the bulb at an angle towards the ball, from the otherside, the light from the bulb appears reddish. "As you see, when the 'sun' is an angle like this, the shorter wave lengths are scattered away by the particles leaving over the longer wave lengths to penerate".

In Church, questioning was a very bad thing, if you don't accept it as it is, then you might as well be condemned to the fiery pits of the nine levels of hell. In Science class, you was constantly rewarded with information through trying to discover and understand why something might be like something, and definitely not just blindly accepting everything fed to you. There was even a joke petition about the dangers of H2O being spread by the teacher who was trying to catch out students and forcing them to question everything and simply not accept what they are being told.

The whole reason I am not a theist is because I asked "Why" and never accepted anything as "is", this is reinforced constantly from my upbringing, I was often told I was a bad person because I questioned things in an attempt to understand. The irony in all that was, it wasn't that I was a bad person at all and in fact, I knew far more than they actually did, and they were intimated by it. I even knew that the wife of Jehovah is called Asherah. (Yes, "God" has a wife)

The thing is, religion is a social construct used to control the masses. As there were developments through history, things obviously change even within the big names like the catholic church as they are forced to adapt in an attempt to keep relevance. There are so many different versions and branches of Christianity alone, never mind when we involve different faiths and they point fingers at eachother, saying the other is "wrong", is when you really have to take a step back and think "Is it really so petty and foolish?". Then all these people brought up by these religions attempt to make mental jumps to latch on, identifying themselves as deist and other convoluted positions instead of simply accepting the reality the whole premise is flawed from the very beginning.

Instead of even questioning about the existence of "God(s)", I urge you to even define what "God(s)" is without making an unfalsifiable definition. (because a definition which is unfalsifiable is meaningless)


*Disclaimer
My tirade was against organised religion that is packaged and fed to us on a daily basis, I wasn't actually questioning the existence of "God(s)" or attacking such a concept in my post. However, the final line is a more rhetorical question for you to consider, can you define what you believe it, is it unfalifiable (as in, if he existed or not, you wouldn't know and it wouldn't make a difference either way if it/them existed or not) or is it simply something that can be accurately defined but it is actually something ungodly such as a superfluous term for "energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)" or a local belief that the pet cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_worship)is a "god".

[Greyblades]

I can't believe you try to benchmark those traits as "Christian". Like the majority of sane Atheists, Agnostics or Buddhists believes in hating your neighbor, causing harm is jolly good, stealing is OK etc.
Cute.
I never said that they were exclusive to christians.

That would only be a fair point if religion did not play a part in politics and real life.
So? Politics, real life, family, hobbies, yeah they include religion but I dont see them as important because of religion. It's something that pops up but rarely enough to concern me and I've had enough of religious discussion during the last decade without much consequence to become convinced its not really important to life in south east england.

[Montmorency]

@PVC: If you believe in the same physical "stuff" as an stheist would, and some nonphysical "stuff" besides, wouldn't your universes both be the same size? :tongue:

I had thought that you were inclined towards Calvinism, though. It has such a nice argument behind it. "You think all those deeds performed by God were immoral? :daisy: you, you're a useless human sinner! How can you pronounce on the perfect God's will, such as you are?" It's so conveniently irrefutable.


I do not agree. There is a "why" in science, but people who believe in science think you need to sort out the "how" to understand the "why".

You believe that; not everyone subscribes to the same philosophy of science.

Anyway, let's clarify these words:

Why - For what purpose or reason? With what intent?

How - By what means, cause, or process? In what manner?

Hurry up and not-marry PVC already.

[Beskar]

Anyway, let's clarify these words:
Why - For what purpose or reason? With what intent?
How - By what means, cause, or process? In what manner?

That is far too narrow of a definition and out of touch with common linguistic culture which when people inquire about "Why?" they are also asking "How?". "Why?" being the metaphorical question to every aspect of a subject.

As such: "Why is the cake orange?", this is a broad question is questions the motivations and questioning the food dying methods used to produce that effect.
"Why did you colour the cake orange?" this is a specific question asking about the reason behind that persons choice.

[Montmorency]

What you don't realize is that these usages are deeply offensive to me!

:yes:

When they die, will you yet ask why?

:brood:

[Beskar]

When they die, will you yet ask why?
:brood:

Yes. :on_shame:

"Why are these terms dead?"

Will want to know about the purpose, reason and how they died!

[Montmorency]

You misunderstood?

Perhaps it's for the best...

[Centurion1]

In what way does science an religion come to clash. I find they can very easily coExist as they have ended up doing so in the Roman Catholic church. Sure obviously for a fundamentalist they are warrin principles but it's not hard or me to understand and acknowledge scientific principles all while satin hey maybe god set all of that in motion. The concept that god merely provided the spark is not hard to reconcile whatsoever with science.

You all presume to think that because you have seen for to renounce your faith and turn away from god it grants you
Magical understanding to comprehend a black hole while I have to choose between my faith or Science. At the end of the day neither you, I, or Stephen hawkin knows precisely How a black hole functions regardless of how we
Spend our Sunday's.

[a completely inoffensive name]

At the end of the day neither you, I, or Stephen hawkin knows precisely How a black hole functions regardless of how we
Spend our Sunday's.

This means nothing.

[Visor]

This means nothing.

Not true. It is a statement of fact, and statements of fact are generally always useful, even for minor purposes. Something can not mean nothing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not true. It is a statement of fact, and statements of fact are generally always useful, even for minor purposes. Something can not mean nothing.

This is wrong.

My calculator had it's batteries die. Look it's a statement of fact. How useful. lol wut? come on now. come on buddy.

[Visor]

This is wrong.

My calculator had it's batteries die. Look it's a statement of fact. How useful. lol wut? come on now. come on buddy.

Could be useful in other contexts. For example the testing of battery lifetimes/power usage, etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Could be useful in other contexts. For example the testing of battery lifetimes/power usage, etc.

But not in this one. Same goes for Cent's statement.

Checkmate Visorslash. Looks like you need to wipe up the defeat from your....visor.

[Visor]

But not in this one. Same goes for Cent's statement.

Checkmate Visorslash. Looks like you need to wipe up the defeat from your....visor.
Hey, I didn't say it had to be useful in that context now did I?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He is the most forgiving that you have bothered to hear of.

You just have to ask, and he's the only one you have to ask. How much more forgiving could he be?


I do not wish to try my philosiphies as if they were clothes. I hope to find a semblance of truth and rationality somewhere

That's a bit snobby, isn't it? Especially after criticising me for not exploring other religions.


And christianty was the dominant religion and has been for more than a century now, rather convienent, no?

I'm sorry, I meant this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Temple_(bishop)

About 60 years ahead of Dawkins and "memes".


I can speak directly to God, why pray if not to soldify bonds? I do not expect all my prayers to be answered nor do I ever ask for wordly comforts but you imply prayer does not improve the faith. why?

Prayer is just talking to God - why shouting louder or more extravagently (praying harder) make a difference to your relationship with God. I rarely pray these days, formally speaking, but that doesn't mean I don't talk to God or ask him questions.


Casting pearls before swine? You can do much better than this. I sat in the pew, heard the stories, and when I was baptized I truly belivied Jesus was in my heart. Now I do not and all evidence points that same direction. I wish I still had my faith but I do not

You enjoyed the Cult, nobody does Cult better than Christians - even I enjoy going to Church and clasping hands with complete strangers.

That's not the same as having a relationship with God on your own terms.


I do not agree. There is a "why" in science, but people who believe in science think you need to sort out the "how" to understand the "why".

Neither do I agree that science at large, or me, claim that anything just "is".

"Why" describes intentions, "How" describes action. Science doesn't do intention - so you have to "why"


I claim that the difference between you and me is not in the questions asked, but in the tools used to answer the questions.

If I wanted to know how the universe went BANG I would use the same tools as you, if I wnat to know why I would ask God.


I put my belief in humanity at large's best efforts and sharpest brains.

You put your belief in a very criticized collection of books written by a desert living people some ~2000 years ago.

Things has evolved since you know... You do agree with evolution? ;)

What is it with people and the evolution thing? :-P

What I put my faith in depends on the question at hand. If I want to cure a disease I'll go to a doctor. If I want to know the meaning of life I'll ask a philospher or a priest. From a purely scientific point of view, the "meaning" of life is just "more" life - but I happen to think there is something else.


So, well, I totally do not see how your world view is in any way bigger or richer, unless, as I said before, you also think that someone believing in the tooth fairy live in a bigger and richer world than someone who don't.

Monism vs Dualism - your reality operates on one plane, mine operates on two.


That is far too narrow of a definition and out of touch with common linguistic culture which when people inquire about "Why?" they are also asking "How?". "Why?" being the metaphorical question to every aspect of a subject.

As such: "Why is the cake orange?", this is a broad question is questions the motivations and questioning the food dying methods used to produce that effect.
"Why did you colour the cake orange?" this is a specific question asking about the reason behind that persons choice.

Appealing to poor grammar in general usage is not an argument - in philosophy "Why" and "How" are clearly differentiated. Claiming the "Why" is the same as the "How" is to claim that the How is the Why - which is to deny the Why entirely.

We ask "why is the cake" orange because of a linguistic quick - we seek the intention behind the action before we seek the process by which the action was carried out.

[Sigurd]

AARGHHHHH!!!

I need to get a pm whenever a thread goes into religious mode... There is no way from looking at the thread title that this discussion turned from boring into interesting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

AARGHHHHH!!!

I need to get a pm whenever a thread goes into religious mode... There is no way from looking at the thread title that this discussion turned from boring into interesting.

I could pm you - but what if you said, "no Philip, this is boring"

I would be crushed.

[HopAlongBunny]

In what way does science an religion come to clash.


They don't.

the facts are the facts; the science is the science; how you interpret the facts or the science can be a matter of faith. faith does not alter the facts or the scientific conclusions reached, but it can influence how one interprets.

(to condense and paraphrase lecture 1 in astronomy delivered by a prof who is also a Vedic scholar)

[Sigurd]

I could pm you - but what if you said, "no Philip, this is boring"

I would be crushed.
Sorry Philip... Dailalama is a boring topic.

However the fallout is not. Take f.ex. this little gem:



The whole reason I am not a theist is because I asked "Why" and never accepted anything as "is", this is reinforced constantly from my upbringing, I was often told I was a bad person because I questioned things in an attempt to understand. The irony in all that was, it wasn't that I was a bad person at all and in fact, I knew far more than they actually did, and they were intimated by it. I even knew that the wife of Jehovah is called Asherah. (Yes, "God" has a wife)

The thing is, religion is a social construct used to control the masses. As there were developments through history, things obviously change even within the big names like the catholic church as they are forced to adapt in an attempt to keep relevance. There are so many different versions and branches of Christianity alone, never mind when we involve different faiths and they point fingers at eachother, saying the other is "wrong", is when you really have to take a step back and think "Is it really so petty and foolish?". Then all these people brought up by these religions attempt to make mental jumps to latch on, identifying themselves as deist and other convoluted positions instead of simply accepting the reality the whole premise is flawed from the very beginning.

Instead of even questioning about the existence of "God(s)", I urge you to even define what "God(s)" is without making an unfalsifiable definition. (because a definition which is unfalsifiable is meaningless)


I would like to comment on all of Beskar's points, but the bolded part made me remember something that I worked on a while back. It is in the same theory as all religion has a common source. It also ties into the whole Trinitarian debate and subordinationism.
The Canaanite and hence early Israelite god EL had a consort. She was the mother of Yahweh the son of EL. Similarly she was the consort of Sumerian Anu (chief god of their pantheon), which also ties into a secondary god similar to Yahweh.
Somehow the Israelites got rid of this father god and Yahweh absorbed all of EL's identity even his wife. I have once argued that theologically Christ and Yahweh is the same. The Son. Yahweh was before the monotheistic movement subordinate to the chief god EL, who was his father. I read with great interest the New Testament Jesus and esp. the gospel of John with this in mind. Jesus the God of Israel crying to some external entity from the cross. "Why have you forsaken me?". And the hint to Mary Magdalene about a father figure being greater than him. "Your God and mine". Knowing that Asherah was equated to a tree, and depicted and hinted to as such in the old testament, I came over a piece that just made this whole thing click. It was about the tree of life and the interpretation of a vision. It depicted a tree of life, pure and white with a life giving fruit. And then The mother of God, white and innocent with a babe in her arms. A virgin girl. Not the wife...a consort/concubine with the common product of a father and a mother, the fruit that would give life eternal - the saviour of man kind. Sooo.... the Christ being the only begotten son in the flesh, becomes a literal child of a Father and a mother. The mother being worshiped as the mother of a God, not unlike Mary. So... if the ancients knew about the Mary story - knew about the Son being the saviour, why would they not write about it? Incorporate it in their religion?
Maybe they just did that. Who copied who?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In Church, questioning was a very bad thing, if you don't accept it as it is, then you might as well be condemned to the fiery pits of the nine levels of hel.

So which Evangelical Church group was this then?


In Science class, you was constantly rewarded with information through trying to discover and understand why something might be like something, and definitely not just blindly accepting everything fed to you. There was even a joke petition about the dangers of H2O being spread by the teacher who was trying to catch out students and forcing them to question everything and simply not accept what they are being told.

And if someone had pointed out that fossils are dated according to geology, and geology is dated according to fossils, and therefore we cannot actually be sure how old the Earth is?

Scientists are not open minded, they teach you the acceptable varients - just like a grammarian. Hell - they're not even real thinkers most of them, just proceduralists. The Scientific method is just a tool of Natural Philosophy, it is not itself a means of aquiring wisdom, just information.


The whole reason I am not a theist is because I asked "Why" and never accepted anything as "is", this is reinforced constantly from my upbringing, I was often told I was a bad person because I questioned things in an attempt to understand. The irony in all that was, it wasn't that I was a bad person at all and in fact, I knew far more than they actually did, and they were intimated by it. I even knew that the wife of Jehovah is called Asherah. (Yes, "God" has a wife)

I wasn't impressed by this argument when I heard it from Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and I am not impressed now. To begin with, greater knowledge does not mean greater Wisdom, and not all knowledge is always applicable.

For example, the fact that some Ancient Israelites believed that God had a wife is not necessarily relevent to a Christian in the late 20th/early 21st Century AD.

Now, it is possible your religious teachers were intimidated, but there is no reason they should have been because all you have demonstrated is historical knowledge. You present this "wife of God" argument as though the beliefs of the Ancients should be adhered to by people today. Your argument is not helped by, as Sigurd noted, your confused Theogney and it is further hampered by using the "name" Jehovah

There is no rational reason for this to be so and more than we today are forced to believe in Newtonian physics because they were Einstien's starting point.


The thing is, religion is a social construct used to control the masses. As there were developments through history, things obviously change even within the big names like the catholic church as they are forced to adapt in an attempt to keep relevance. There are so many different versions and branches of Christianity alone, never mind when we involve different faiths and they point fingers at eachother, saying the other is "wrong", is when you really have to take a step back and think "Is it really so petty and foolish?". Then all these people brought up by these religions attempt to make mental jumps to latch on, identifying themselves as deist and other convoluted positions instead of simply accepting the reality the whole premise is flawed from the very beginning.

This is a belief - stating it as fact does not make it so. Arguing that you are wiser than others because you believe all religions are false, rather than believing all but one religion is false is disingenuous.

You could be wrong, there could be a God - you can't declare your view of the universe to be correct and then decry others for believing the same thing just because their beliefs differ from yours.

You are becoming a closed-minded and dogmatic atheist - which is the same as being a closed minded and a religious fanatic.


Instead of even questioning about the existence of "God(s)", I urge you to even define what "God(s)" is without making an unfalsifiable definition. (because a definition which is unfalsifiable is meaningless)

Perhaps you should learn some metaphysics - a field I know you to be deficient in - before making demands.

[Centurion1]

This means nothing.

What a meaningful post filled with such concise accurate synopsis. A statement of fact is a statement of fact. The purpose of this fact is to reinforce the point that regardless of an individuals perceived intelligence or understanding of god there is no conscious decision such as a decision to believe in God that will confer special understanding of the universe onto you.

The constant battle cry of those who shun religion, that they "are men of science and live in a scientific world" is very annoying. Just because I believe in a God does not mean that I do not believe in evolution or schroedinger's cat ("belief" in schroedingers cat being ironic in its own way) I believe all the same things you do, understand those concepts just as well as you do and I also happen to believe in a supreme being.



They don't.

the facts are the facts; the science is the science; how you interpret the facts or the science can be a matter of faith. faith does not alter the facts or the scientific conclusions reached, but it can influence how one interprets.

(to condense and paraphrase lecture 1 in astronomy delivered by a prof who is also a Vedic scholar)

Precisely, simply because when I look at the laws of physics and say that the reason they exist is because God willed it so does not mean that I dispute their existence.

[Beskar]

And if someone had pointed out that fossils are dated according to geology, and geology is dated according to fossils, and therefore we cannot actually be sure how old the Earth is?

Geology and Fossils are dated according to radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) isotopes, such as carbon... so I am confused by the value of your statement?



I wasn't impressed by this argument when I heard it from Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and I am not impressed now. To begin with, greater knowledge does not mean greater Wisdom, and not all knowledge is always applicable.

For example, the fact that some Ancient Israelites believed that God had a wife is not necessarily relevent to a Christian in the late 20th/early 21st Century AD.[...] There is no rational reason for this to be so and more than we today are forced to believe in Newtonian physics because they were Einstien's starting point.

Thanks for the name! I did a quick search and I saw was a list of works studying ancient religions, looks interesting enough to have a nosey through at least.


However, I have to disagree a little. I completely agree with your theory in the case of Newton and how Science has progressed since then. You are spot on. Things were wrong and they were corrected in the understanding of something. However, you wasn't talking about Science, nor early French-Migrants to America or even correcting an incorrect map.

We are talking about religion, where you are saying an infallible omnipotent being is not having as much relevance in the 20th/21th Century. Religion is fundamentally dogmatic, or are you actually suggesting those incontrovertibly true statements no longer apply now?

(Side-note: Has anyone ever asked you to 'believe' in Newtonian physics as your example of being universally infallible? It just rings very hollow as it isn't a correct comparison with religion.)


Perhaps you should learn some metaphysics - a field I know you to be deficient in - before making demands.

Falsifiability is far more important to me than infallible, un-testable or unprovable statements (ie: metaphysics). Perhaps that is where we disagree as as you put it, I am deficient in nodding like the Churchill dog to meaningless statements.

Edit: I stand corrected. 42.


This is a belief - stating it as fact does not make it so. Arguing that you are wiser than others because you believe all religions are false, rather than believing all but one religion is false is disingenuous.

You could be wrong, there could be a God - you can't declare your view of the universe to be correct and then decry others for believing the same thing just because their beliefs differ from yours.

Well, just to clear up your statements, I did say in my post in the spoiler:
"I wasn't actually questioning the existence of "God(s)" or attacking such a concept in my post. However, the final line is a more rhetorical question for you to consider, can you define what you believe it, is it unfalifiable (as in, if he existed or not, you wouldn't know and it wouldn't make a difference either way if it/them existed or not) or is it simply something that can be accurately defined but it is actually something ungodly such as a superfluous term for "energy" or a local belief that the pet cat is a "god"."

It would be technically disingenuous to propose the statement of: "You could be wrong, there could be a God". Since I actually put forward that the current (unfalifiable) definitions of "God" are meaningless, I didn't actually debate the fact if you was able to put forward a meaningful definition, I wouldn't recognise it. As I even include examples where the "existence of God" can actually be proven such as pantheism or worship of the pet Cat, however, they are not things I would specifically define within a basic framework as a "celestial omnipotent being".

Edit: There is also the whole "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" argument where there can simply be a 'Massively Powerful Being' which has power to perform acts beyond our current understanding but then, wouldn't that just simply be like Stargates' Goa'uld/Ori and not actually a "God" ?

[Papewaio]

You can date rocks that aren't fossils too.

Radio metric dating using different isotopes allows the age of when a rock was formed to be figured out. As there are different sets of isotopes science essentially has different hands for a clock. A clock that instead of hands of seconds, minutes and hours we chose 100k, 1000k and 10,000k year hands to find the age of a rock.

Fossils form in sedimentary rock. Hence you figure out their age just like the rocks around them. As life has evolved there are different types of fossils as the age of the rocks changes.

After you have a large enough set of data you can quickly estimate the age of rocks by looking at the fossils. As you know that a certain type of fossil is found in a certain strata which in turn is a certain age. However to be certain you would still do radio metric dating or something along those lines to get a more exact date.

[Kadagar_AV]

Geology and Fossils are dated according to radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) isotopes, such as carbon... so I am confused by the value of your statement?



Thanks for the name! I did a quick search and I saw was a list of works studying ancient religions, looks interesting enough to have a nosey through at least.


However, I have to disagree a little. I completely agree with your theory in the case of Newton and how Science has progressed since then. You are spot on. Things were wrong and they were corrected in the understanding of something. However, you wasn't talking about Science, nor early French-Migrants to America or even correcting an incorrect map.

We are talking about religion, where you are saying an infallible omnipotent being is not having as much relevance in the 20th/21th Century. Religion is fundamentally dogmatic, or are you actually suggesting those incontrovertibly true statements no longer apply now?

(Side-note: Has anyone ever asked you to 'believe' in Newtonian physics as your example of being universally infallible? It just rings very hollow as it isn't a correct comparison with religion.)



Falsifiability is far more important to me than infallible, un-testable or unprovable statements (ie: metaphysics). Perhaps that is where we disagree as as you put it, I am deficient in nodding like the Churchill dog to meaningless statements.

Edit: I stand corrected. 42.



Well, just to clear up your statements, I did say in my post in the spoiler:
"I wasn't actually questioning the existence of "God(s)" or attacking such a concept in my post. However, the final line is a more rhetorical question for you to consider, can you define what you believe it, is it unfalifiable (as in, if he existed or not, you wouldn't know and it wouldn't make a difference either way if it/them existed or not) or is it simply something that can be accurately defined but it is actually something ungodly such as a superfluous term for "energy" or a local belief that the pet cat is a "god"."

It would be technically disingenuous to propose the statement of: "You could be wrong, there could be a God". Since I actually put forward that the current (unfalifiable) definitions of "God" are meaningless, I didn't actually debate the fact if you was able to put forward a meaningful definition, I wouldn't recognise it. As I even include examples where the "existence of God" can actually be proven such as pantheism or worship of the pet Cat, however, they are not things I would specifically define within a basic framework as a "celestial omnipotent being".

Edit: There is also the whole "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" argument where there can simply be a 'Massively Powerful Being' which has power to perform acts beyond our current understanding but then, wouldn't that just simply be like Stargates' Goa'uld/Ori and not actually a "God" ?

But what is the QUESTION!?

Jokes aside, the real question is, what would it take for PVC to un-believe?

Jesus slapping him in the face telling him he is wrong?

That might not cut it still, as I am sure there is scripture enough to lean back on. The Old Testament comes to mind.

*sigh*

[a completely inoffensive name]

What a meaningful post filled with such concise accurate synopsis. A statement of fact is a statement of fact. The purpose of this fact is to reinforce the point that regardless of an individuals perceived intelligence or understanding of god there is no conscious decision such as a decision to believe in God that will confer special understanding of the universe onto you.

The constant battle cry of those who shun religion, that they "are men of science and live in a scientific world" is very annoying. Just because I believe in a God does not mean that I do not believe in evolution or schroedinger's cat ("belief" in schroedingers cat being ironic in its own way) I believe all the same things you do, understand those concepts just as well as you do and I also happen to believe in a supreme being.

Precisely, simply because when I look at the laws of physics and say that the reason they exist is because God willed it so does not mean that I dispute their existence.

You don't "believe" in evolution and quantum mechanics. They are physical phenomena that happen. Science models these phenomena and those are not perfect and will never be perfect. So you can question the validity of the model all you want, but the physical phenomena occur regardless.

[Sigurd]

Drawing science into a religious question is as fruitful as a stellar object trying to escape a black hole. Since this is about the existence of God (all theistic vs. atheistic debate has this as root), you would need to start at the beginning. Both science and religion starts at one point.
Science with Big Bang, and religion with Creatio ex nihilo. To draw science into this, you would need to go beyond BB, which science itself is stating as meaningless. Time and hence reality did not exist.
The Pope tries to take the easy road, by stating God made BB.
The church fathers that brought the Hellenic traditions into Christianity, was more or less putting the church into a secure position. And the same culprits (all though few in numbers) further secured it with Trinitarianism. They successfully removed the question of God from the physical and thereby the scientific world. I am not so sure that this is in accordance to the original Christian religion (I am currently looking into this very topic).

Science will not go beyond BB, but philosophy needs to. BB is considered an event. Whether in time or space is debatable. IMO there must have been space. However tiny it was, there were something in the 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' kind of way. This something must have either been created or made up of eternal parts. Something caused this to explode, which is the event we call BB. Now its becomes difficult. What caused this event?
Science would say it was mechanical... the conditions for a BB was there and it caused it. The Aristotelian tradition would say the cause was personal.

They will disregard a mechanical first event as such requires antecedent causal influences to occur. The reasons for such a cause must be found in itself.
Another point they would consider is; if the first cause only consisted of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that existed from eternity then the effect would also have existed from eternity.
If the necessary and sufficient conditions of an object x existed, then the effect x would arise immediately. There is no delay from cause to effect.
This is a problem because our universe is a temporal event as it has a finite age (some 14 billion years) and as such it can not have a mechanical state of affairs that existed from eternity.
The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time.
This... they say, is GOD. The non material first mover... the necessary being.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Geology and Fossils are dated according to radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) isotopes, such as carbon... so I am confused by the value of your statement?

Ratiometric dating - e.g. Radio-Carbon - require calibration. The calibration for older rocks is based on the fossil record and assumptions about sedimentation.


Thanks for the name! I did a quick search and I saw was a list of works studying ancient religions, looks interesting enough to have a nosey through at least.

She has a penchant for hyper-scepticism and she enjoys being controversial. I speak from direct experience - recently she gave a lecture in child sacrifice and one of the other lecturers was checking her Hebrew while she was talking.


However, I have to disagree a little. I completely agree with your theory in the case of Newton and how Science has progressed since then. You are spot on. Things were wrong and they were corrected in the understanding of something. However, you wasn't talking about Science, nor early French-Migrants to America or even correcting an incorrect map.

We are talking about religion, where you are saying an infallible omnipotent being is not having as much relevance in the 20th/21th Century. Religion is fundamentally dogmatic, or are you actually suggesting those incontrovertibly true statements no longer apply now?

You are incapable of comprehending that Man's relationship and understanding of God are capable of developing, then?

How is God less relevent today than 2,000 years ago? You do realise that 2,000 years ago most people did not believe the Jewish, or Greek, Theogney?


(Side-note: Has anyone ever asked you to 'believe' in Newtonian physics as your example of being universally infallible? It just rings very hollow as it isn't a correct comparison with religion.)

Fallacious question, but yes, when I was in school I was asked to teke the Newtonian model on faith (force, reaction-oppoiste, etc.) and nobody has ever demonstrated that the model is the correct one for interpreting the physical universe. All that has been demonstrated is that it provides a (fairly) accurate frame of reference and ability to predict results.


Falsifiability is far more important to me than infallible, un-testable or unprovable statements (ie: metaphysics). Perhaps that is where we disagree as as you put it, I am deficient in nodding like the Churchill dog to meaningless statements.

Edit: I stand corrected. 42

If you understood metaphysics you would not be so glib.


Well, just to clear up your statements, I did say in my post in the spoiler:
"I wasn't actually questioning the existence of "God(s)" or attacking such a concept in my post. However, the final line is a more rhetorical question for you to consider, can you define what you believe it, is it unfalifiable (as in, if he existed or not, you wouldn't know and it wouldn't make a difference either way if it/them existed or not) or is it simply something that can be accurately defined but it is actually something ungodly such as a superfluous term for "energy" or a local belief that the pet cat is a "god"."

It would be technically disingenuous to propose the statement of: "You could be wrong, there could be a God". Since I actually put forward that the current (unfalifiable) definitions of "God" are meaningless, I didn't actually debate the fact if you was able to put forward a meaningful definition, I wouldn't recognise it. As I even include examples where the "existence of God" can actually be proven such as pantheism or worship of the pet Cat, however, they are not things I would specifically define within a basic framework as a "celestial omnipotent being".

God as generally understood is not "Celestial" we abandoned any version of that proposition several hundred years ago.

You are asking for a "falsifiable" definition but that is to misunderstand both the claim and the metaphysics involved. How do you falsify a claim? You do so via testing. In order to test you must have a "thing" to test and a measurement to take. God is not a thing, God is more than the sum of all things, and he is not a measurement, he is more than the sum of all measurements.

To borrow a saying, "You cannot measure God because there is nowhere to stand in the universe that you could measure from." #

Metaphysics - it all comes down to Metaphysics.

The Scientific Method requires an ordered universe which operates according to cause and effect, because the Method requires these things they must exist before an experiment can function. THEREFORE no experiment can test whether or not the Universe actually IS ordered and whether cause and effect DOES operate.


Edit: There is also the whole "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" argument where there can simply be a 'Massively Powerful Being' which has power to perform acts beyond our current understanding but then, wouldn't that just simply be like Stargates' Goa'uld/Ori and not actually a "God" ?

Such a God might look like God, but would be so much less than God. Actually, the theorised MPB would be easier to detect than the actual God because it would be fallable and therefore tip it's hand on occasion. As a being within the universe it would also be constrained by all the rules of the Universe - which God is not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But what is the QUESTION!?

Jokes aside, the real question is, what would it take for PVC to un-believe?

Jesus slapping him in the face telling him he is wrong?

That might not cut it still, as I am sure there is scripture enough to lean back on. The Old Testament comes to mind.

*sigh*

What would it take for you to believe?

I'll bet you that whatever argument you put against the existence of God I can turn aside or otherwise negate.

At which point - it becomes a matter of prference, or natural inclination if you will.

[Sigurd]

What would it take for you to believe?

I'll bet you that whatever argument you put against the existence of God I can turn aside or otherwise negate.

At which point - it becomes a matter of preference, or natural inclination if you will.
The thing is... a debate on this very topic needs an affirmative position for both sides. The Atheist position has great difficulties making such a statement. The debate survives because they don't follow the rule of debate. They want you to make the first affirmative statement and then they will try picking it apart.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The thing is... a debate on this very topic needs an affirmative position for both sides. The Atheist position has great difficulties making such a statement. The debate survives because they don't follow the rule of debate. They want you to make the first affirmative statement and then they will try picking it apart.

I know - but I must confess I find it difficult to get het up about.

[Beskar]

The thing is... a debate on this very topic needs an affirmative position for both sides. The Atheist position has great difficulties making such a statement. The debate survives because they don't follow the rule of debate. They want you to make the first affirmative statement and then they will try picking it apart.

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

Default answer is "null", "nothing", "zero".

That is how the rule of debate goes, you if you want to suggest there is something there, you need to bring some evidence to back up your assertion. If you don't, you automatically lose. It is that simple.

There only needs to be one affirmative position, but in the case of religion, you are looking at hundreds of them. Either way, null hypothesis applies and they need to prove themselves.

[Centurion1]

You don't "believe" in evolution and quantum mechanics. They are physical phenomena that happen. Science models these phenomena and those are not perfect and will never be perfect. So you can question the validity of the model all you want, but the physical phenomena occur regardless.

Actually I disagree. You have to believe in scientific theory. I do not understand space and have never looked for the bodies and phenomena that scientists tell me occur out there. Rather I believe they Tell me the truth. This occurs for any scientific belief which is theory. Is it pretty damn clear evolution is real? Yes it is, however it is still a theory and thus cannot be "proven". So i must "believe" in it. It may be easier to believe in than god because it has so much evidence in its favor but it is still believing. If I take the second part of your statement I would be able to put in god just as easily as science as an example. Go ahead replace science and model with god and religion.

And tell me I am wrong?

[Kadagar_AV]

What would it take for you to believe?

I'll bet you that whatever argument you put against the existence of God I can turn aside or otherwise negate.

At which point - it becomes a matter of prference, or natural inclination if you will.

What it would take for me to believe? Easy, some kind of sign that there is a god. You know, miracles and stuff, the things in the Bible... To me it seems interesting that the miracles has gone down more and more with science growing stronger... To the modern extent where miracles no longer happens at all, and plenty of previous miracles being explained by science as unrelated to a "god".

I just prefer a starting point saying "I don't know, but I would like to find out" to a set starting point based on a very old belief system where the sun orbits the earth.

It seems like the more intelligent choice.

It's not that I lack a "belief", I do have one. I think everybody does. The book Shantaram is the closest I have found to my personal belief.

The difference between me and religious people is that:

A) I don't PR my set belief much, I prefer if people reach their own conclusions based on what they experience.
B) If anything I experience would speak against my belief, I would gladly change my belief, not try to make excuses.
C) My belief is not tied to a movement that has a lot of blood and horror on their hands, and I take some pride in that :)

[Skullheadhq]

In religious debates all sides lose and waste their time.

[Strike For The South]

In religious debates all sides lose and waste their time.

False. The internet has given rise to the assumption that debate is counter productive, it's not. The problem is when the pelbians suddenly have an avenue to express themselves, they generally only seek to confrim biases and convert

DIRTY DIRTY COMMONERS

[Skullheadhq]

. The problem is when the pelbians suddenly have an avenue to express themselves, they generally only seek to confrim biases and convert

That's the very definition of debates.

[Strike For The South]

That's the very definition of debates.

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

[Skullheadhq]

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

Debates are almost never constructive and usually involves lots of copypasting the same old arguments to score cheap points. At least, most of internet debates are like this and debates about religion is the "best" example of this. Even arguments from the position I support fail to convince me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

Default answer is "null", "nothing", "zero".

That is how the rule of debate goes, you if you want to suggest there is something there, you need to bring some evidence to back up your assertion. If you don't, you automatically lose. It is that simple.

There only needs to be one affirmative position, but in the case of religion, you are looking at hundreds of them. Either way, null hypothesis applies and they need to prove themselves.

In this case the "null" hypothesis would be agnosticism. As the theistic/nontheistic question pertains to the Creation itself it is necessary to posit an alternative to the First Cause argument, and spontaneous mechanical processes don't cut it.

Metaphysics - how is your universe contructed?

I am greatful to Sigurd for illustrating that point more eloqently than I could.


What it would take for me to believe? Easy, some kind of sign that there is a god. You know, miracles and stuff, the things in the Bible... To me it seems interesting that the miracles has gone down more and more with science growing stronger... To the modern extent where miracles no longer happens at all, and plenty of previous miracles being explained by science as unrelated to a "god".

Now, to be fair, there are still plenty of reported "miracles" every year and throughout much of history people were not all that credulous about them.

Even so - there are lots of reported miracles, so what you're really saying is you want a personal affirming experience before you will believe something.

Fair enough - but that begs the question why people take the words of experts in Law, or Science, or Literature largely at face value, but not experts in Faith or Theology.


I just prefer a starting point saying "I don't know, but I would like to find out" to a set starting point based on a very old belief system where the sun orbits the earth.

Come now, you are being disingenous here - and I know you can do better. Lacking the means to conduct astronomical observations the most logical conclusion is that the Sun orbits the Earth - that was the "scientific" explanation when many religious texts were first recorded - that fact should not prejudice everything else in the text.


It's not that I lack a "belief", I do have one. I think everybody does. The book Shantaram is the closest I have found to my personal belief.

I looked the book up - I'm not exactly sure what you mean, would you mind satisfying my curiosity a little?


The difference between me and religious people is that:

A) I don't PR my set belief much, I prefer if people reach their own conclusions based on what they experience.
B) If anything I experience would speak against my belief, I would gladly change my belief, not try to make excuses.
C) My belief is not tied to a movement that has a lot of blood and horror on their hands, and I take some pride in that :)

That's something of a strawman. A) is not really a fair complaint because religious people believe they are doing good by converting people; just like converting them to a healthy diet from MacDonalds is good. B) is probably less true than you think, most people do not undergo a paradigm shift until the evidence becomes overwhleming - what they do instead is modify their beliefs to accomodate new information without abandoning them; see Physicists and "Steady State" for the most extreme example of this. C) is not remotely fair - self-identifying with a religion does not make you responsbile for the past crimes of its members any more than self-identifying with a nationality does.

[Kadagar_AV]

PVC, You know what?

Read Shantaram, then get back to me. It's not a book about religion, but I think you will pick up what I mean from reading it anyway. It would give you a very pleasent reading experience, as it is a very acknowledged book on its own, and it would also deepen your understanding towards me.

In return, I will read a book of your choice. But PUH-LEEZE don't say "the Bible" ;)

[Strike For The South]

The bible is a collection of books

Hence the word canon

[Kadagar_AV]

The bible is a collection of books

Hence the word canon

Now you are just being tired / drunk / past your due date. Arms flailing in the air looking for opposition...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, You know what?

Read Shantaram, then get back to me. It's not a book about religion, but I think you will pick up what I mean from reading it anyway. It would give you a very pleasent reading experience, as it is a very acknowledged book on its own, and it would also deepen your understanding towards me.

In return, I will read a book of your choice. But PUH-LEEZE don't say "the Bible" ;)

Fair enough - I'll look into picking a copy up and get back to you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now you are just being tired / drunk / past your due date. Arms flailing in the air looking for opposition...

What he means is, I could say "Read the Gospel of Matthew" and that would not be the same as "read the Bible"

but I won't.

[Sigurd]

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

Default answer is "null", "nothing", "zero".

That is how the rule of debate goes, you if you want to suggest there is something there, you need to bring some evidence to back up your assertion. If you don't, you automatically lose. It is that simple.

There only needs to be one affirmative position, but in the case of religion, you are looking at hundreds of them. Either way, null hypothesis applies and they need to prove themselves.
I think we did this before (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128330-Religious-debate&p=2500027&viewfull=1#post2500027)

You can't throw the null hypothesis to be understood as that if there is no evidence then the null hypothesis counts. The absence of evidence is just that, no evidence. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually I disagree. You have to believe in scientific theory. I do not understand space and have never looked for the bodies and phenomena that scientists tell me occur out there. Rather I believe they Tell me the truth. This occurs for any scientific belief which is theory. Is it pretty damn clear evolution is real? Yes it is, however it is still a theory and thus cannot be "proven". So i must "believe" in it. It may be easier to believe in than god because it has so much evidence in its favor but it is still believing. If I take the second part of your statement I would be able to put in god just as easily as science as an example. Go ahead replace science and model with god and religion.

And tell me I am wrong?

You don't know what the meaning of the word "theory" is. You use it in the public sense, not the scientific sense.

You don't believe in germ theory. The germs are obviously there. We created the name germ and we have models of what's inside them and how they operate. But they are obviously there. There is no faith for that "theory".

[Beskar]

The absence of evidence is just that, no evidence. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Though you are stickwiggling to attempt defend an untenable position with semantics, I will bite.

There is "evidence of absence" that there is no 'god' via the power of inference. This is by taking truths about what we do know about proclaimed "acts of God" and applying it to create a broader picture. There is a great deal of study into the many facets and claims made by vocal religious groups, including "healing by prayer", "creation in 7 days" and a great number of "miracles" which are not really "miracles". This is such to an extend we can pretty much make the assertion, "There Is 'God'" with quite a high degree of reliability.

So you don't need to be "absolute certain", since there is no evidence to prove the existence and the claims about his existence have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Though you are stickwiggling to attempt defend an untenable position with semantics, I will bite.

There is "evidence of absence" that there is no 'god' via the power of inference. This is by taking truths about what we do know about proclaimed "acts of God" and applying it to create a broader picture. There is a great deal of study into the many facets and claims made by vocal religious groups, including "healing by prayer", "creation in 7 days" and a great number of "miracles" which are not really "miracles". This is such to an extend we can pretty much make the assertion, "There Is 'God'" with quite a high degree of reliability.

So you don't need to be "absolute certain", since there is no evidence to prove the existence and the claims about his existence have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false...

Alright - what about the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who currently self-report religious experiences?

The majority of people believe there is a God, even if they do not follow a religion - you not believing are in a severe minority.

So, what is the logical conclusion if you are inferring from circumstancial evidence?

[Sigurd]

Though you are stickwiggling to attempt defend an untenable position with semantics, I will bite.

There is "evidence of absence" that there is no 'god' via the power of inference. This is by taking truths about what we do know about proclaimed "acts of God" and applying it to create a broader picture. There is a great deal of study into the many facets and claims made by vocal religious groups, including "healing by prayer", "creation in 7 days" and a great number of "miracles" which are not really "miracles". This is such to an extend we can pretty much make the assertion, "There Is 'God'" with quite a high degree of reliability.

So you don't need to be "absolute certain", since there is no evidence to prove the existence and the claims about his existence have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false...
Again... why are you using a statistical tool to debunk a philosophical question on metaphysics and the origin of the universe? Have you seen anyone in here argue that God made the earth in 7 days, or using miracles as propositions to the existence of God?

This is the classical example of drinking paint and expecting that your fence will be freshly painted by you pissing on it.
I would like to see this inference organized formally. Set up as propositions-> inference-> conclusion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm just going to go around liking all Sigurd's posts now in lieu of an actual argument of my own.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This is not Facebook. <_<

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is not Facebook. <_<

~D

Then tell the staff to take away the facebook-like options!

[Greyblades]

This is directed to christian theists, It's a question that's been on my mind recently whenever I think of god: Why did god create a species that has a random chance of beng severely mentally retarded, or have copulsions to do horrific things, from birth?
I get the idea of not changing people for the better because it would be in violation of free will, but why would he let something like that happen to his people even when there was human/any interaction making them so?

[spankythehippo]

This is directed to christian theists, It's a question that's been on my mind recently whenever I think of god: Why did god create a species that has a random chance of beng severely mentally retarded, or have copulsions to do horrific things, from birth?
I get the idea of not changing people for the better because it would be in violation of free will, but why would he let something like that happen to his people even when there was human/any interaction making them so?

I've thought that too. But the issue that's really been on my mind is: Why us? The universe is vast. There has to be life elsewhere. Why us? Or does god reach out to all the aliens out there? And if he has, then why don't we know about it? Why have none of the simple and fundamental things about this planet been told to us before? Why couldn't god spend a little more time and say, "Hey. Tell 'em it's round." Why couldn't have god created another book filled with answers to many of life's many mysteries, like where the other sock ends up? Or why does toast always fall butter-side down?

That's what I want to know.

[Tuuvi]

Though you are stickwiggling to attempt defend an untenable position with semantics, I will bite.

There is "evidence of absence" that there is no 'god' via the power of inference. This is by taking truths about what we do know about proclaimed "acts of God" and applying it to create a broader picture. There is a great deal of study into the many facets and claims made by vocal religious groups, including "healing by prayer", "creation in 7 days" and a great number of "miracles" which are not really "miracles". This is such to an extend we can pretty much make the assertion, "There Is 'God'" with quite a high degree of reliability.

So you don't need to be "absolute certain", since there is no evidence to prove the existence and the claims about his existence have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false...

The problem I have with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that god works through supernatural means. If a god made the universe, then couldn't the forces of nature be manifestations of his/her will?

[Beskar]

The problem I have with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that god works through supernatural means. If a god made the universe, then couldn't the forces of nature be manifestations of his/her will?

This is sort of a catch when it comes to definitions in relation to religion. Your problem with my argument is not because of my argument itself, but the position of those my argument is against. "God" by most common definitions is a supernatural being and as such, works through supernatural means. Therefore anything which operations within the natural order of the Universe therefore cannot be "God".

To quote PVC when I sort of brought this subject up earlier:

Such a God might look like God, but would be so much less than God. Actually, the theorised MPB would be easier to detect than the actual God because it would be fallable and therefore tip it's hand on occasion. As a being within the universe it would also be constrained by all the rules of the Universe - which God is not.

With this quote, it is pretty clear that me and PVC actually share some very similar views on the nature of what a "God" may be. Where the big argument point lies rests on a key concept: Falsifiability

In short, it is simply this one key concept which puts me and PVC miles apart on the spectrum because of the ramifications resulting from it.

I reject any definition of a "God" which are not falsifiable. I believe if there is such a thing as a "God" which we can accurately define, we would be able to tell if it exists or not even if it is not currently capable of doing it. Otherwise the whole definition and concept is fundamentally pointless because it is meaningless.

PVC effectively lives by an unfalsifiable definition of "God" and is happy with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is directed to christian theists, It's a question that's been on my mind recently whenever I think of god: Why did god create a species that has a random chance of beng severely mentally retarded, or have copulsions to do horrific things, from birth?
I get the idea of not changing people for the better because it would be in violation of free will, but why would he let something like that happen to his people even when there was human/any interaction making them so?

The standard answer to this is usually a varient of the following -

God created the universe and set it in motion, over hundreds of thousands of years the genetic code of human beings has gone a bit squiffy due to inbreeding. The inbreeding is a result of various choices that various humans made (free will). The same goes for natural disasters, God does not make the flood or the Volcano, he simply creates a world that includes them and then people choose to live near them.

The other side of this is that God does not generally intervene in the workings of his creation, because to do so it not fair. If God saves one child, why not save a hundred, or a thousand?

In Christianity a "miracle" is generally understood as an instance of God violating his own laws in order to directly intervene in the physical world.


I've thought that too. But the issue that's really been on my mind is: Why us? The universe is vast. There has to be life elsewhere. Why us? Or does god reach out to all the aliens out there? And if he has, then why don't we know about it? Why have none of the simple and fundamental things about this planet been told to us before? Why couldn't god spend a little more time and say, "Hey. Tell 'em it's round." Why couldn't have god created another book filled with answers to many of life's many mysteries, like where the other sock ends up? Or why does toast always fall butter-side down?

That's what I want to know.

I don't know - if there are other alien races then I would assume god speaks to them also, he may have sent a Messiah to the Dolphins. While these are abstractly interesting questions they don't really have any relevence to Man's relationship to God.


The problem I have with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that god works through supernatural means. If a god made the universe, then couldn't the forces of nature be manifestations of his/her will?

Yes, the forces of nature, as they generally operate, and their defining laws, are believed to be manifestations of God's Divine Will and Plan - see Newton.

However, God is "Supernatural" in the sense that we do not believe he exists within these laws - he created them and can therefore suspend or violate them - see above "miracles".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I reject any definition of a "God" which are not falsifiable. I believe if there is such a thing as a "God" which we can accurately define, we would be able to tell if it exists or not even if it is not currently capable of doing it. Otherwise the whole definition and concept is fundamentally pointless because it is meaningless.

PVC effectively lives by an unfalsifiable definition of "God" and is happy with it.

Where we differ is on the concept of "knowability"

You're statement "PVC effectively..." is completely and utterly wrong.

[Tuuvi]

This is sort of a catch when it comes to definitions in relation to religion. Your problem with my argument is not because of my argument itself, but the position of those my argument is against. "God" by most common definitions is a supernatural being and as such, works through supernatural means. Therefore anything which operations within the natural order of the Universe therefore cannot be "God".

True. I think I disagree with most Christians about the nature of God.


Yes, the forces of nature, as they generally operate, and their defining laws, are believed to be manifestations of God's Divine Will and Plan - see Newton.

However, God is "Supernatural" in the sense that we do not believe he exists within these laws - he created them and can therefore suspend or violate them - see above "miracles".

But then like Tiaexz said those miracles can usually be explained through some sort of natural phenomenon. So what I'm trying to say is that when God causes "miracles" maybe he does so by working with the laws of nature and not around them.

[Kadagar_AV]

True. I think I disagree with most Christians about the nature of God.



But then like Tiaexz said those miracles can usually be explained through some sort of natural phenomenon. So what I'm trying to say is that when God causes "miracles" maybe he does so by working with the laws of nature and not around them.

The Bible boys seem to be getting desperate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But then like Tiaexz said those miracles can usually be explained through some sort of natural phenomenon. So what I'm trying to say is that when God causes "miracles" maybe he does so by working with the laws of nature and not around them.

How could be possibly influence the world without violating Natural Law?

At the very least, he would have to violate the Laws of probability to make one thing happen and not another.

I'd like to hear examples of miracles which are actually natural phenomena - I am aware that many of the stories in the Bible have been explained by recourse to natural phenomena, but those explanations merely offer alternatives to the Biblical ones, they don't actually prove anything.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Bible boys seem to be getting desperate.

William Ockham explained it like this:

"An Oak tree grows from an acorn, but God may place a fully grown oak tree in the world if he wishes - this is a miracle."

Ockham also said that observation of the natural world would logically lead one to conclude God probably doesn't exist. Despite this, he remianed a committed Christian and theologian until his death. So, let's not pretend this is a new intellectual problem which should cause all Christians to drop there Bibles, strip off, and run around naked pretending to be chickens.

[Montmorency]

cause all Christians to drop there Bibles, strip off, and run around naked pretending to be chickens.

Do you believe that this is how atheists behave when not impugning good God-fearing Christians?

They actually carve orifices into the Earth and violate them while holding a cup of hog's blood within their mouths.

[Tuuvi]

The Bible boys seem to be getting desperate.

How is my idea desperate? Please explain.


How could be possibly influence the world without violating Natural Law?

At the very least, he would have to violate the Laws of probability to make one thing happen and not another.

I'd like to hear examples of miracles which are actually natural phenomena - I am aware that many of the stories in the Bible have been explained by recourse to natural phenomena, but those explanations merely offer alternatives to the Biblical ones, they don't actually prove anything.

Well, I guess I don't understand why God would have to violate Natural Law to influence the world, when it's his creation. I think I need this explained to me in detail before I can get it.

[Greyblades]

Since when has god given two shoots about natural law?

[Sigurd]

I've thought that too. But the issue that's really been on my mind is: Why us? The universe is vast. There has to be life elsewhere. Why us? Or does god reach out to all the aliens out there? And if he has, then why don't we know about it? Why have none of the simple and fundamental things about this planet been told to us before? Why couldn't god spend a little more time and say, "Hey. Tell 'em it's round." Why couldn't have god created another book filled with answers to many of life's many mysteries, like where the other sock ends up? Or why does toast always fall butter-side down?

That's what I want to know.
There are many indications to the fact that the ancients knew quite much about what goes on in space. The Bible's genesis starts quite abruptly on the creation itself, but there are indications to that this was not at all how it originally started. We are missing the whole introduction to this vision. And it claims to be a vision, where Moses is shown God's creations. The Mormons have a great version, which mimic Abraham's vision. Abraham had great knowledge of cosmos and it is believed that he brought it to Egypt.

I have looked into Mormon cosmology because they are staunch believers in a physical God - not a metaphysical one. I must admit that their Abraham is a very interesting piece of text.
Then you have the Tsoukalo/van Dänicken crowd with their allegations.
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/Giorgio1.jpg

I have been in a few disputes with our beloved Adrian about this flat earth doctrine before... where I claimed that the Vikings knew that the earth was round not flat.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How is my idea desperate? Please explain.

It's a version of "God of the Gaps".


Well, I guess I don't understand why God would have to violate Natural Law to influence the world, when it's his creation. I think I need this explained to me in detail before I can get it.

It's really not all that complicated.

Natural Law is what we generally call the underlying structure of the universe - if God wants to change something after the Creation he has to interfere with those laws.

For example - Jesus walked on water according to the Gospel but the surface of water does not have the tensile strenth to support the weight of a fully grown man. I have heard all the nonsense explanations you care to put up, but the simple fact is that the only sensible one is that Jesus violated the laws of physics.

[Beskar]

It's a version of "God of the Gaps".

"First Cause" as evidence for the existence of God is another version of "God of the Gaps" in the thread too.



For example - Jesus walked on water according to the Gospel but the surface of water does not have the tensile strenth to support the weight of a fully grown man. I have heard all the nonsense explanations you care to put up, but the simple fact is that the only sensible one is that Jesus violated the laws of physics.

There was that magician, Dynamo, who walked on the thames (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kne6YnjcruQ). Are you attempting to suggest he violated the laws of physics? Your "only sensible one.." is completely the opposite, that is the most absurd alternative.

Jesus could simply be a magician, he could have performed these sorts of acts to convince people he was infact more than he actually was, like people who thing Dynamo is far more than what he actually is, a simple man who realised what it takes to use illusion as a tool.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"First Cause" as evidence for the existence of God is another version of "God of the Gaps" in the thread too.

It is not the same - because it answers a question the Scientific method by its nature does not, not "can not", does not.

There is also the "valuator" argument - which is like the "First Cause" in that it posits something outside the universe, in one case morally generative and the other physically generative, that explains why certain things exist.

Ultimately - it comes down to the universe you want to live in. If you don't want to believe in God, that's fine but you can't then feign moral outrage at the current order of the universe because there is no way it "should" be, only the way it is.

Or, you can believe in a God with a Plan and then you can believe there are things like right and wrong, and a way things "should" be other than how they currently are.


There was that magician, Dynamo, who walked on the thames (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kne6YnjcruQ). Are you attempting to suggest he violated the laws of physics? Your "only sensible one.." is completely the opposite, that is the most absurd alternative.

Jesus could simply be a magician, he could have performed these sorts of acts to convince people he was infact more than he actually was, like people who thing Dynamo is far more than what he actually is, a simple man who realised what it takes to use illusion as a tool.

He walked accross the the Thames, he did not walk ON the water, but on something beneath it - if we believe that Jesus actually walked on water then we must assume he violated the Laws of Physics because that is the only logical explanation.

I never said you had to believe he walked on water, only IF you did.

[Tuuvi]

It's a version of "God of the Gaps".

But isn't God of the Gaps looking for areas/phenomenon that haven't been able to be explained by science yet and attributing God to them in an effort to find proof that he exists? I'm not looking to find proof of God, I'm only speculating on how his power might work. Plus I'm not looking at occurrences that can't be explained by science, but the opposite.


It's really not all that complicated.

Natural Law is what we generally call the underlying structure of the universe - if God wants to change something after the Creation he has to interfere with those laws.

For example - Jesus walked on water according to the Gospel but the surface of water does not have the tensile strenth to support the weight of a fully grown man. I have heard all the nonsense explanations you care to put up, but the simple fact is that the only sensible one is that Jesus violated the laws of physics.

I understand now thanks. Looks like I'm going to have to give up this line of thought as far as miracles are concerned, it's obviously wrong from a Christian perspective.

[Papewaio]

God of the Gaps... Is not a strong strategic position.

Sure 10,000 plus years ago while munching on a woolly mammoth steak there were plenty of Gaps. Those Gaps have decreased over time. So on trends I wouldn't use the gaps as anything to base a religion on. The gaps are where science goes to explore for answers.

Also gaps do not define which god/s would be their ruler. Gaps are not proof of a particular god. We talk about the Christian one because that is the one most of us were raised by. Our parents cultural choices do not determine how the world was created.

[Kadagar_AV]

Tuuvi, you have had some excellent answers already.

But here is mine: When you start defending your belief with arguments that "God" might be something quite ordinary, you at the very same time weaken your very own position, as it will be very hard to then defend why it wouldn't just BE something ordinary.

You can see God in a baby's smile. Most people will just see a baby's smile, without referencing it to a book written 2000 years ago.

When you talk about smiting, eternal fires of hell, creation... You will start to get my agnostic attention.

[Beskar]

But here is mine: When you start defending your belief with arguments that "God" might be something quite ordinary, you at the very same time weaken your very own position, as it will be very hard to then defend why it wouldn't just BE something ordinary.

It is more the problem which "Religious Moderates" face and which is why this issue tends to polarise people. I symphase to what Tuuvi is going through, as I went through something similar. He comes into the argument attempting to refute an assertion I am making about definitions of "god" then ends up being told by "both sides" as I say "a god is defined as supernatural and infalfisible, thus there is no god" and he has PVC on the other side going "God is God because he suspends reality and inflicts his will upon it, violating its very fabric". He then finds himself in a situation where he grows more sceptical as what he attempted to counter was in fact correct, or he decides to start moving towards PVC's position seeing being sceptical as a negative direction, or they simply run away from the entire debate and pretend it never existed. Funnily enough, I did the second option at first, I went "more religious" in a desperate attempt to 'consolidate my faith", well, you can pretty much guess how successful that was, trust me, pantheism isn't a great alternative either. :laugh4:

But back to the "God of the Gaps", to expand upon it a little problem as to the polarisation, the issue with this is, Science keeps constructing the understanding of the universe and in expanding in this knowledge, which like Pap hinted at, back many many many years ago, there were lots of gaps, now there aren't as much, so in an essence, "god" keeps getting pushed back and back into ever growing smaller gaps. This poses a philosophical issue for the concept of "god", as "god" is on the 'run away from progress' and is effectively an "argument from ignorance".

To add to that point about ignorance though, some people argue because "god" cannot be "disproved", that their holy book is correct. Which when you think about the thousands of different religious books there are, it would be pretty safe argument to state that it is most likely not the case to be true. (the books within the bible contradict enough by themselves...)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But isn't God of the Gaps looking for areas/phenomenon that haven't been able to be explained by science yet and attributing God to them in an effort to find proof that he exists? I'm not looking to find proof of God, I'm only speculating on how his power might work. Plus I'm not looking at occurrences that can't be explained by science, but the opposite.

Yes, but if something is explained by science it has not intentionality, so how can you tell such a "God given" occurence from the normal progression of the universe?

Of course, at it's most basic a "miracle" might just be a highly unlikely natural event, which would still be impossible to identify but we might infer its miraculousness from its sheer unlikelyness.


I understand now thanks. Looks like I'm going to have to give up this line of thought as far as miracles are concerned, it's obviously wrong from a Christian perspective.

don't put too much stock in Tiaexz's view of the world though - you don't have to believe in miracles to believe God created and ordered the universe and everything in it because Creation is outside Science, which only deals with created things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, and I'm not going to discuss "God the Gaps" because we all agree it's silly - beyond saying that the "First Cause" does not qualify because it occured "beeforee time began", which is an oxymoronic statement, thus proving the question is outside thee scientific remit.

[Papewaio]

First Cause is also susceptible to Occam's Razor.

If a theory comes along that is a better fit then requiring a first cause event then so be it ;)

[Sigurd]

Be careful not to cut yourselves on Occam's razor.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First Cause is also susceptible to Occam's Razor.

If a theory comes along that is a better fit then requiring a first cause event then so be it ;)

No it isn't - because it would have to be a formal explanation to be suscesptable.

If you were to insist I could simple say that all things which are created have causes and as the universe is a created thing (it has a beginning) it therefore has a creator.

Of course, that falls down because I don't actually know the universe was created - I merely infer it from the apparent beginning of time.

On to of that, William Ockham saud the razor could not be applied to God - and this from a man who used it to "prove" the body and blood of Christ were his physical body and blood in substance as well as spirt (transubstantiation) but without the attendant accidents.

[Kadagar_AV]

No it isn't - because it would have to be a formal explanation to be suscesptable.

If you were to insist I could simple say that all things which are created have causes and as the universe is a created thing (it has a beginning) it therefore has a creator.

Of course, that falls down because I don't actually know the universe was created - I merely infer it from the apparent beginning of time.

On to of that, William Ockham saud the razor could not be applied to God - and this from a man who used it to "prove" the body and blood of Christ were his physical body and blood in substance as well as spirt (transubstantiation) but without the attendant accidents.

I think M-theory is pretty cool, and it goes well beyond the BB theory without a need for a biblical god.

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.


I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

I think we need to take a step back here and look at what the razor is, and what it isn't:

The razor is not proof, merely an indication of likelyhood.

The razor does not prefer the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation when all explanations are equally plausible.

What this means is that in order to apply the razor to a Divinely ordained universe you first have to have some measure of how plausible that is compared to a universe that ordered itself, "just because".

M-theory may explain the mechanics of how the universe came to be, but that isn't a "why" explanation, so it isn't in competition with any God hypothesis. The biggest problem with M-theory is like many theories of the last 10-15 years is that it tries to use multiple universes to get around the problem of unlikleyness.

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint :book2:

[Tellos Athenaios]

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

So the idea that our universe is the "lucky" one among an infinite number is actually no more likely than it being the only one. In fact, it is probably less likely because we knowthis universe exists, but we have no evidence for other universes except for a piece of pseudo-science that claims they are necessary for the "anthropomorthic" universe.

Let's look at that concept for a moment - a universe ideally fitted to us? Odd? No, not at all because we were created for and by it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint :book2:

I get it - I picked you to quote because I didn't want to just repeat myself for everyone else.

The difficulty is in knowing who the "best" minds are.

Scientists are no better at theology than theologians are at science (except Newton).

In fact, science is politicised all the time - look at the Big Bang, Fred Hoyle refused to accept it because he was an atheist and the Jesuits loved it because it brought God back into the creation game in a BIG way.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

[Papewaio]

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

Yes, but it's more likely I will fall in love once than five times - by introducing multiple universes you are asking two questions instead of one and needlessly complicating the issue. More universes are not more liely than fewere - therefore more univeres do not make this one more likely.

[Kadagar_AV]

Tellos, Pape, awesome answers, thank you :)

Tellos example is actually kind of spot on.


However, to return to you PVC, do you seriously claim that the people going into theology is as brilliant as those going into science? You are of course correct that we can't apply the razor to the ideas, and what I mean with that is that WE can't, other more suited people probably can.

What we, as somewhat intelligent beings can do, is look at what people are defending what ideas, and then use the razor on that observation.

We had a guy back when I was in school who was sooo brilliant, not just in math, he just... got stuff... I never thought myself stupid, or even on par intelligence, but I can tell you I openly admit his intellect brushed mine away.

Now, the people HE will listen to and learn from, are the people I will sign of under.


Then there was this other quirky guy, you know the type, the one you want to be nice to but just find it so hard - when he continues to shower in his underwear and gets all sweaty during sexual education... Well he went on to be a priest.


Don't get me wrong, I met this absolutely wonderful priest the other week, I know that type also exists. Just... Oh well, I think you get my point already.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

I did not say that were were the only universe, I said that we have evidence for no others. The addition of multiple universe is used as a "crane" to explain away or own universe.

As a theory that makes it suspect.

[Kadagar_AV]

I did not say that were were the only universe, I said that we have evidence for no others. The addition of multiple universe is used as a "crane" to explain away or own universe.

As a theory that makes it suspect.

"... and yet it moves."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

However, to return to you PVC, do you seriously claim that the people going into theology is as brilliant as those going into science? You are of course correct that we can't apply the razor to the ideas, and what I mean with that is that WE can't, other more suited people probably can.

...

Don't get me wrong, I met this absolutely wonderful priest the other week, I know that type also exists. Just... Oh well, I think you get my point already.

Richard Dawkins can't grasp basic theological concepts, he just can't, Christopher Hitches struggled (not a scientist, but extremely clever) to understand the mindset and the cecepts - he declared them totally absurd despite the testimony of his own brother to the contrary.

Scientists are mechanically brilliant - that doesn't mean they have anything to say about any other field.

Socrates described the delusion, that because the doctor can treat illness he believes he can tell the shipwright his trade.

Tellos is extremely clever, but he and others here including yourself, and I say this with great respect, often fail to grasp what are to myself and others in my field consider basic concepts. Do not mistake me, I do mean "fail to grasp" and not simply "dissagree".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"... and yet it moves."

He never said it, and he was wrong.

Making the look an idiot Pope when he gives you a commission to investigate heliocentrism will not go well.

Compare with Keppler, the Protestant.

[Kadagar_AV]

Richard Dawkins can't grasp basic theological concepts, he just can't, Christopher Hitches struggled (not a scientist, but extremely clever) to understand the mindset and the cecepts - he declared them totally absurd despite the testimony of his own brother to the contrary.

Scientists are mechanically brilliant - that doesn't mean they have anything to say about any other field.

Socrates described the delusion, that because the doctor can treat illness he believes he can tell the shipwright his trade.

Tellos is extremely clever, but he and others here including yourself, and I say this with great respect, often fail to grasp what are to myself and others in my field consider basic concepts. Do not mistake me, I do mean "fail to grasp" and not simply "dissagree".

It's because there is no "basic" theological concept except: "I have a belief that what someone or something told me is true". Then from that basic concept, people build new concepts. Then they borrow concepts from each other, strengthening each others views, from that union springs a more advanced concept - and so on.... To the extent of there not only being a hell, but there are theological discussions about different circles of this said hell. The debate in the mind of the christian has turned to understanding the different finer variations rather than questioning the very fundamental facts.

Richard Dawkin's can't grasp your basic theological concept, because he, just like I, question the VERY basic basic theological concept, and if you do that, you per automatic brush away every concept springing from it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's because there is no "basic" theological concept except: "I have a belief that what someone or something told me is true". Then from that basic concept, people build new concepts. Then they borrow concepts from each other, strengthening each others views, from that union springs a more advanced concept - and so on.... To the extent of there not only being a hell, but there are theological discussions about different circles of this said hell. The debate in the mind of the christian has turned to understanding the different finer variations rather than questioning the very fundamental facts.

Science proceeds from a similar belief - that we live in an ordered universe, a belief borrowed from Christian theologians.

The Greeks, not even the Jews, concieved of the linear progression of time in the West before the Christians. Christianity arguably invented out concept of time, that the world had a beginning and an end.


Richard Dawkin's can't grasp your basic theological concept, because he, just like I, question the VERY basic basic theological concept, and if you do that, you per automatic brush away every concept springing from it.

This is not true - I know atheist theologians who are able to function very well. Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding. I have a working understanding of Islam, but I don't believe a word of it.

[Kadagar_AV]

Science proceeds from a similar belief - that we live in an ordered universe, a belief borrowed from Christian theologians.

The Greeks, not even the Jews, concieved of the linear progression of time in the West before the Christians. Christianity arguably invented out concept of time, that the world had a beginning and an end.



This is not true - I know atheist theologians who are able to function very well. Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding. I have a working understanding of Islam, but I don't believe a word of it.

That is just plain wrong. We see evidence for a ordered universe, but we have no belief in it. Heck, we can't even make our physicist macro theories fit with our micro theories. Even though both theories seem to work on their own, they also seem more or less mutually exclusive. M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

And what say's time is linear? From what I know time = space, no? And we by now KNOW that things can move in a set space in no time... Again, hence M-theory.

So if we can change space we can change time, or maybe the other way around, or maybe a third way around I don't get.



As to your second argument, I have a working understanding of Christianity, but I don't believe a word of it. You however seem to lack a working understanding for science at large, and most definitively for the m-theory in particular. For the latter I dont' blame you, I can appreciate it but I don't get it either, i do however get enough of the stuff leading up to it to think it's worth giving a shot.

And your example had nothing to do with what I said. Again, I and dawkin's question the very very very principle of christianity, that there is a god. Thus we also brush away any concept springing from it. isn't that kind of natural?

Just like YOU yourself question the basic principle of, say, the Nordic religion, thus you also question anything sprung from it.

You don't believe in Yggdrasil, thus you don't care what is on what branch and how that supposedly should affect our daily choices. You brush THAT off just as I brush you off. There are a plethora of basic theological concepts just like that, that you choose to brush off.

The ONLY thing all religions can have in common is a belief in science, that science, as it is based on what we observe and can test, hopefully one day will agree with them. I for one think that is very unlikely, but hey, Might be that the Branes from the M-theory are just carpets and science eventually do find out that the universe came to be because Jesus sitting on his fathers shoulder one day did spring cleaning and gave them a good old shrug, thus they rippled, collided, and we got the big bang creating the universe and later us with some dinosaurs and stuff in between. And jesus were like "opsie, my bad" and came down to clear up his mess (through a virgin birth) only to then be killed.

It COULD happen, it just isn't very likely.

[Montmorency]

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely

On what grounds do you state this?

[Sigurd]

M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

You do realize that M-Theory is not a theory per say? That it is just a collection of ideas, hopes and aspirations.
Hawkins never intended this to be more than that. And its hardly science. How would you go about testing something that is not observable? I am calling reverse Aquinas fallacy on this one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is just plain wrong. We see evidence for a ordered universe, but we have no belief in it. Heck, we can't even make our physicist macro theories fit with our micro theories. Even though both theories seem to work on their own, they also seem more or less mutually exclusive. M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

OK, look - from a formal logical point of view the belief that the universe is ordered is of the same value as the belief that God exists.

WE INFER - from our observations that the universe proceeds in an orderly fashion under the governing principle of cause and effect - this is the "governing assumption".

BECAUSE - the universe proceeds according to cause and effect you can investigate it using scientific experiments.

HOWEVER - because cause and effect is the governing assumption you cannot actually prove that what we are observing is a causal relationship and not merely a correlative one.

BECAUSE - if cause and effect did not operate you could not construct any experiments.

Now, this has all sorts of reprecussions - it's the same as with Newtonian Physics, just because it appears to fit the facts doesn't mean it does. That applies to the entire body of scienfic knowledge, including the "governing assumption".

Just because the body of Natural Philosophy known as "Science" has become so incredibly complex does not prove it to be correct any more than the massive complexity and elegence of Roman Catholic theology proves the Pope is God's Vicar on Earth.

[Papewaio]

The Uncertainty Principle adds another layer of probability to cause and effect.

BTW You can still create experiments in a universe that is probabilistic or even cause and not effect.

[Kadagar_AV]

OK, look - from a formal logical point of view the belief that the universe is ordered is of the same value as the belief that God exists.

Nothing says the universe is ordered. There are theories in that direction, but they are far from being proved.


WE INFER - from our observations that the universe proceeds in an orderly fashion under the governing principle of cause and effect - this is the "governing assumption".

No, the effect may be the cause. You seriously have not read up. Anything can be anything, more or less. We just have to test it and eventually maybe prove it.


BECAUSE - the universe proceeds according to cause and effect you can investigate it using scientific experiments.

What came first, the hen or the egg? Scientific experiments are just that, experiments. We are working our way towards explaining the mystery of the universe and life at large. It's quite some fascinating stuff once you go deep into it.


HOWEVER - because cause and effect is the governing assumption you cannot actually prove that what we are observing is a causal relationship and not merely a correlative one.

Science always allows for relationships might be correlative. Otherwise we would have a society with, say, way more state sanctioned pirates, as there are sure to be factors of worse things on the rise as piracy went down. But that isn't the case, is it? Science try to look at all factors, heck, ever factors you and I can't even begin to understand.


BECAUSE - if cause and effect did not operate you could not construct any experiments.

Why?


Now, this has all sorts of reprecussions - it's the same as with Newtonian Physics, just because it appears to fit the facts doesn't mean it does. That applies to the entire body of scienfic knowledge, including the "governing assumption".

Just because the body of Natural Philosophy known as "Science" has become so incredibly complex does not prove it to be correct any more than the massive complexity and elegence of Roman Catholic theology proves the Pope is God's Vicar on Earth.

Agreed. Science has become so complex that you and I don't get it. It has even takes on "god-like" qualities if you so will.

And that bring me back to my original statement, that people like you and I can only put or belief in the PERSONS holding different beliefs.

You go with the priests, I go with the sharpest brains of humanity. Which one of us is right will take countless years to find out from my perspective. From your perspective you will find out when you die. I just think it's rubbish that you won't be able to go back and gloat once that happens, but that is the basics of your belief, isn't it?

[Sigurd]

Nothing says the universe is ordered. There are theories in that direction, but they are far from being proved.

You are climbing out on a limb here and sawing on the wrong side.
Order is needed to make predictions in science. Order is needed to formulate scientific laws. A ordered universe is a priori in science.
Even tests as you say... Empirical research demands order. If you get a different result every time you tested - you wouldn't be able to formulate scientific knowledge.
More or less every scientific discovery needs order for it to be falsifiable - that whomever can pick up the theory/thesis and repeat the process and be given the same result. In a chaotic universe - this wouldn't be possible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are climbing out on a limb here and sawing on the wrong side.
Order is needed to make predictions in science. Order is needed to formulate scientific laws. A ordered universe is a priori in science.
Even tests as you say... Empirical research demands order. If you get a different result every time you tested - you wouldn't be able to formulate scientific knowledge.
More or less every scientific discovery needs order for it to be falsifiable - that whomever can pick up the theory/thesis and repeat the process and be given the same result. In a chaotic universe - this wouldn't be possible.

I'm sorry Kadagar - but Sigurd has nailed your theoretical coffin closed.

You say you put your faith in "the sharpest brains" but these brains never look at questions of Epistomology (how we know what we know), I have - it was one of the first things I studied at university.

So, here I am the expert and I am telling you that in order for you to conduct a scientific experiment you need an ordered universe which operates according to cause and effect.

Sigurd is telling you the same - given that we have spent time studying such questions we deserve at least to have our assertions taken seriously and not rejected out of hand.

Order is the "governing assumption" or the "philosophical primative" which underlies all scientific experiments.

My last post began with a formal proof that Order (that you atomised, and therfore apparently missed) is required to conduct a Scientific experiment, I cannot see how I can expand upon that other than to re-state the basic scientific principle, "observe, predict, test, theorise". If the universe is not ordered then, as Sigurd says, you could conduct no experiments.

That is not to say that the Universe is ordered, or that it is not. It is merely that you must assume that it is before you can "do" science, in the same way that you must assume God exists before you can "do" theology.

The point is this - in epistomological terms the two fields are ultimately equal.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm sorry Kadagar - but Sigurd has nailed your theoretical coffin closed.

You say you put your faith in "the sharpest brains" but these brains never look at questions of Epistomology (how we know what we know), I have - it was one of the first things I studied at university.

So, here I am the expert and I am telling you that in order for you to conduct a scientific experiment you need an ordered universe which operates according to cause and effect.

Sigurd is telling you the same - given that we have spent time studying such questions we deserve at least to have our assertions taken seriously and not rejected out of hand.

Order is the "governing assumption" or the "philosophical primative" which underlies all scientific experiments.

My last post began with a formal proof that Order (that you atomised, and therfore apparently missed) is required to conduct a Scientific experiment, I cannot see how I can expand upon that other than to re-state the basic scientific principle, "observe, predict, test, theorise". If the universe is not ordered then, as Sigurd says, you could conduct no experiments.

That is not to say that the Universe is ordered, or that it is not. It is merely that you must assume that it is before you can "do" science, in the same way that you must assume God exists before you can "do" theology.

The point is this - in epistomological terms the two fields are ultimately equal.

Nope.

Science has found that a CAUSE generally speaking leads to an EFFECT. Science is in no way depending on it.

If science had found that a cause has no alteration on the effect, science would change their experiments to adhere to it.

Granted, we live in a universe where we typically see a cause and effect. We even see the cause and effect often enough to base theories around it. Thus generally speaking scientific experiments are based on this cause and effect theory.

However, only a very limited mind would stretch the general assumption that a cause leads to an effect to the degree of saying science is dependent on it. It's not.

YES, we often enough see apples falling from trees, hitting the ground. We based the theory of gravitation around this.

HOWEVER, if suddenly an apple fell from the ground to the tree, or even better, if an apple suddenly disappears and then re-appears on the other side of the world, science would NOT suddenly just give up, throw it's arms in the air and state that its work is over.

Again, free your mind a little...

And again, all of us posting in this thread is too stupid to get what the heck the sharpest are talking about. And yet again, I go with the sharpest brains, not with the priests.

[Papewaio]

You can still experiment in a chaotic environment. What you wouldn't be able to do is make accurate predictions wih ease.

Also order may be not necessarily be the foundational property of our universe, order might be an emergent property.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope.

Science has found that a CAUSE generally speaking leads to an EFFECT. Science is in no way depending on it.

If science had found that a cause has no alteration on the effect, science would change their experiments to adhere to it.

How are you going to construct an experiment without cause and effect?

Really, how?


However, only a very limited mind would stretch the general assumption that a cause leads to an effect to the degree of saying science is dependent on it. It's not.

Epistomology dissagrees. Science operates according to cause and effect - Science constructs experiments by initiating causes and studying the effects.

Without an ordered universe Science and the Scientific Method collapse and cease to exist.


HOWEVER, if suddenly an apple fell from the ground to the tree, or even better, if an apple suddenly disappears and then re-appears on the other side of the world, science would NOT suddenly just give up, throw it's arms in the air and state that its work is over.

Yes, it would look for an ORDERED explanation - not random happenstance. Science can never accept the inexplicable, it would seek the cause for the effect and posit something like a wormhole.

In fact, you may wish to look into the reaction some of Stephen Hawking's work on black holes around ten years ago caused. Hawking claimed that when matter entered a black hole it was destroyed - a claim now retracted in favour of a multiverse explanation - and this caused widespread consternation because the idea that data could be destroyed violates the principle of ORDER.


Again, free your mind a little...

And again, all of us posting in this thread is too stupid to get what the heck the sharpest are talking about. And yet again, I go with the sharpest brains, not with the priests.

How clever do I need to be to be one of your "sharpest minds", or does my field dissqualify me?

I am an expert - I have a degree which includes foundational Greek philosophy

Epistemology is a widely recognised philosophical field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[Papewaio]

You roll a six side dice and in a non ordered universe it rolls a swan.

Now you roll another dice and it rolls a seven, third a bireme etc

Each throw is an experiment. Each result is unpredictable

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You roll a six side dice and in a non ordered universe it rolls a swan.

Now you roll another dice and it rolls a seven, third a bireme etc

Each throw is an experiment. Each result is unpredictable

Ergo you cannot construct a Scientific Experiment.

Any such attempt to do so would be utterly useless because prediction would be impossible.

Arguing you could still "do" Science in such a universe is either idiotic or intellectually dishonest.

I refer you to poor Rincewind in the famous Atheist Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic.

Rincewind is a man with an analytical scientific mind in a universe which is not scientific - and is thus a pathetic wizard.

[Kadagar_AV]

All "what if's" aside, cause generally lead to an effect, so what is the fuss about?

[Papewaio]

Ergo you cannot construct a Scientific Experiment.

Any such attempt to do so would be utterly useless because prediction would be impossible.

Arguing you could still "do" Science in such a universe is either idiotic or intellectually dishonest.

I refer you to poor Rincewind in the famous Atheist Terry Pratchett's The Colour of Magic.

Rincewind is a man with an analytical scientific mind in a universe which is not scientific - and is thus a pathetic wizard.

Who is the idiot? The one who infers science when all that is mentioned is the tool of experimentation.

Re read my statements and you will see that all I said was you can still experiment in a chaotic universe. Those experiments would validate that one is in a chaotic universe. The consequences would be to make predictions not possible, hence science would not be particularly useful much like theology in an ordered universe :laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I prayed to god that Lebron would never get a championship ring on his fingers. So far it seems like God is ignoring me. Ergo, there is no God. No loving God would give Lebron a ring.

/thread

[Sigurd]

The Uncertainty Principle adds another layer of probability to cause and effect.



HOWEVER, if suddenly an apple fell from the ground to the tree, or even better, if an apple suddenly disappears and then re-appears on the other side of the world, science would NOT suddenly just give up, throw it's arms in the air and state that its work is over.

With statements like these, one could infer that you want to bring Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Theory to the table as examples of a chaotic universe.

Yes it is true that the thesis of ordered universe doesn’t quite fit with the results when experimenting with quantums. But when you really look into this stuff, you will notably realise that the quantum scientists do presuppose an ordered universe.
They conduct an experiment and the results vary. Somehow the quantums exhibits different traits in iterations of the same experiment. Do they just give up? No they try to make sense of it.. Or in other words they try to make it fit with the presupposed ordered universe. They postulate that the observer affects the experiment. That the tools you measure with directly affects the quantums being experimented on. Well what do they do? They build a large hadron collider that perhaps can remove the observer effect.
In fact all the theories around quantums try to explain the apparent chaotic nature of quantums in an ordered universe. The Copenhagen theory, the many worlds theory are both using the presupposition of an ordered universe to explain the erratic behaviour of quantum particles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All "what if's" aside, cause generally lead to an effect, so what is the fuss about?

Understanding that all knowledge is based on assumptions you accept and reject.

Just because you and I both accept and ordered universe, but you reject the existence of "God", does not make the one true and the other not.

One should approach all claims to knowledge, therefore, with a certain amount of credulity and a touch of humility - which is not to say that we should not argue forcefully, but we should never assume that because we dissagree with someone they are therefore intellectually deficient in some way.


Who is the idiot? The one who infers science when all that is mentioned is the tool of experimentation.

Re read my statements and you will see that all I said was you can still experiment in a chaotic universe. Those experiments would validate that one is in a chaotic universe. The consequences would be to make predictions not possible, hence science would not be particularly useful much like theology in an ordered universe :laugh4:

"Science" is the tool of experimentation, that's why it's called the "Scientific Method" - the fact that the Method has come to dominate "Natural Philosophy" does not ultimately make the Method trancendant and a seperate catagory of study, despite common parlance.

In a chaotic universe you would not even be able to say if the result of the experiment was a chaotic universe or merely a highly complex interation that produced an apparently chaotic result. As Sigurd has already pointed out Quantum Theory is exactly that - the attempt to explain apparent chaos in a non-chaotic universe.

As regards your glib jab at Theology - you may wish to consider that it was the philosophers and later theologians who postulated an ordered universe that proceeded according to discoverable and explicable Laws - which would mean that not only is Theology "useful" but that it has been useful to Natural Philosophy and those using the Scientific Method to explain the workings of the universe by providing them with an intellectual framework.

[Papewaio]

A probability =/= chaos.

In a probabilistic universe I roll a six sided die and get an integer number from 1 to 6

Now in a chaotic universe (not Mandelbrot Chaos but say Discworld or more so) you roll the dice. Instead of a 16.6% chance of a number from 1 to 6 you get a non predictive set. Perform enough types of experiments and you'd find ha you have no predictive abilities. Now whilst you can still experiment you cannot predict, make models or explain your environment. Cause and effect would be disentangled. Not only would science be useless, but geometry wouldn't work as every time you go to measure a triangle the angles would change. Mathematics, logic would also evaporate as sets of axioms would be subject to chaos. New age quackery would be a valid alternative as it would have all the same predictive powers as medical science in a chaotic universe.

Of course this would assume that an observer lived long enough and by some fluke was inclined to experimentation. Because a universe that was chaotic enough would be unstable.

=][=

Quantum physics along with other things predicts the probable placement of quantum objects. Essentially it is a complex version of predicting the results of rolling a bunch of dice together. Yes the results can vary but the more dice together the more bell like the curve of the overall results. Sure you might have a harder time predicting the exact result of he next throw but the average is more predictable.

Also as you stick more quantum objects together you get interesting things begin to happen. Solid state physics band theory shows how by lumping metals together the quantum states form continous bands. The system becomes less probabilistic and more continous when viewed from a larger scale. Going from quantum to analog.

Each of the metal atoms electrons can occupy any space within a particular band. But no 2 electrons can be in the same space. So imagine an empty 12 egg carton. With one egg you could find it in any of the egg slots. So 1/12 chance of finding it. Now as you add eggs you fill it up and with 12 eggs you can predict 100% of the time that each slot is full. Now with metal atoms the electrons have many more slots to fill. But now just like eggs only 1 electrons will be in each slot. However just like the egg carton, only one electron can be in a space at a time. So push enough atoms together and you fill up the metal electron bands and they become a continium instead of digital steps. You go from a quantum probabilities to a more deterministic situation. So order forms out of probabilities.

Of course it's true that it is more complex then that and someone else could explain it more simply. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A probability =/= chaos.

In a probabilistic universe I roll a six sided die and get an integer number from 1 to 6

Now in a chaotic universe (not Mandelbrot Chaos but say Discworld or more so) you roll the dice. Instead of a 16.6% chance of a number from 1 to 6 you get a non predictive set. Perform enough types of experiments and you'd find ha you have no predictive abilities. Now whilst you can still experiment you cannot predict, make models or explain your environment. Cause and effect would be disentangled. Not only would science be useless, but geometry wouldn't work as every time you go to measure a triangle the angles would change. Mathematics, logic would also evaporate as sets of axioms would be subject to chaos. New age quackery would be a valid alternative as it would have all the same predictive powers as medical science in a chaotic universe.

Of course this would assume that an observer lived long enough and by some fluke was inclined to experimentation. Because a universe that was chaotic enough would be unstable.

=][=

Quantum physics along with other things predicts the probable placement of quantum objects. Essentially it is a complex version of predicting the results of rolling a bunch of dice together. Yes the results can vary but the more dice together the more bell like the curve of the overall results. Sure you might have a harder time predicting the exact result of he next throw but the average is more predictable.

Also as you stick more quantum objects together you get interesting things begin to happen. Solid state physics band theory shows how by lumping metals together the quantum states form continous bands. The system becomes less probabilistic and more continous when viewed from a larger scale. Going from quantum to analog.

Each of the metal atoms electrons can occupy any space within a particular band. But no 2 electrons can be in the same space. So imagine an empty 12 egg carton. With one egg you could find it in any of the egg slots. So 1/12 chance of finding it. Now as you add eggs you fill it up and with 12 eggs you can predict 100% of the time that each slot is full. Now with metal atoms the electrons have many more slots to fill. But now just like eggs only 1 electrons will be in each slot. However just like the egg carton, only one electron can be in a space at a time. So push enough atoms together and you fill up the metal electron bands and they become a continium instead of digital steps. You go from a quantum probabilities to a more deterministic situation. So order forms out of probabilities.

Of course it's true that it is more complex then that and someone else could explain it more simply. :)

So you agree with me?

We must assume we live in an ordered universe.

Assume is the key word though - whilst we might not live in a Discworld-esque univers, which is not actually chaotic but narativistic, we could live in a world directly controlled by a deity who gives us the appearence of order when really all He is doing is responding to our attempts to experiment.

Quantom physics would then be God's little joke - he simply alters the rules as soon as you try to test the theory.

[Papewaio]

I agree with most of what you say otherwise I wouldn't needle you.

I would add a few caveats.
1) We assume that we live in an ordered world based on experimentation... So if experiments show otherwise we should be prepared to change our understanding.
2) Ordered is related to cause and effect. However you could have a static universe where there is no change, so ordered but due to having no change there is no effects or causes. So one cannot assume that order is a result of cause and effect. You could have order independent of cause and effect. Therefore you could have an ordered universe where cause and effect is a property because it is an ordered universe. It might also be a requirement that you have to have both Order and Cause & Effect to exist or neither.
3) There may in fact be a deity. But why add an axiom if not needed? Additionally if a Diety is deemed good and honest and teaching it's followers it seems a breach of all three of these attributes to falsify the understanding of a universe just to get kicks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with most of what you say otherwise I wouldn't needle you.

I'll bear that in mind in future.

[quote]1) We assume that we live in an ordered world based on experimentation... So if experiments show otherwise we should be prepared to change our understanding.

The problem I have with this claim is that we have already invented Quantom theory to explain disorder - as human being we make sense using ordered thought processes, so we constructed a theory, then another theory, then another. Currently we are so wedded to our current theories we are trying to patch them together with a "super theory".

Just because we pretend to be rational, doesn't mean we are. I am not sure what we would make of a disordered universe, but I suspect we would try to explain it with a logical theory (i.e. attempt to impose Order).


2) Ordered is related to cause and effect. However you could have a static universe where there is no change, so ordered but due to having no change there is no effects or causes. So one cannot assume that order is a result of cause and effect. You could have order independent of cause and effect. Therefore you could have an ordered universe where cause and effect is a property because it is an ordered universe. It might also be a requirement that you have to have both Order and Cause & Effect to exist or neither.

Turn it on its head - Cause and Effect is a result of an ordered structure. Even so, what we are doing here is philosophising, not testing.


3) There may in fact be a deity. But why add an axiom if not needed? Additionally if a Diety is deemed good and honest and teaching it's followers it seems a breach of all three of these attributes to falsify the understanding of a universe just to get kicks.

Oh - we haven't even got there yet.

[Kadagar_AV]

Sorry, I still don't get it...

PVC, are you claiming that we live in an universe without order, or that only God can have made this order, or that science is faulty for looking for cause and effect, or what?

From my point of view, you dwell on very technical mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that you don't have a claim.


In my world, cause and effect can be seen as an effective way to do science under the natural laws we seemingly observe. If we suddenly start observing data that goes against expected data we revise our theories to accommodate this new data. It is an on-going process, heck, I am amazed at how much we have done in so little time.

That is far from saying we are DONE though. Science keep chasing the God of the gaps, and we narrow in on him by the day :yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, I still don't get it...

PVC, are you claiming that we live in an universe without order, or that only God can have made this order, or that science is faulty for looking for cause and effect, or what?

None of the above.


From my point of view, you dwell on very technical mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that you don't have a claim.

That's a little presumtuous given that you just admitted you don't get it? Don't you think?


In my world, cause and effect can be seen as an effective way to do science under the natural laws we seemingly observe. If we suddenly start observing data that goes against expected data we revise our theories to accommodate this new data. It is an on-going process, heck, I am amazed at how much we have done in so little time.

Yes, you revise because you assume Cause and Effect. Nowhere in the Scientific model or Method is there any room for disorder.

Let me try to explain it again.

"Science" is the performing of experiments, it is a method used to investigate the Natural World and only that world. This used to be called "Natural Philosophy" but in the last hundred years or so it has become known as "Science" because all investigation is carried out through experimentation. Science is above all thing logical - it therefore requires and ordered universe or experimentation is simply impossible.

The problem, then, is that our perception or an Ordered universe could just be an illusion, just as you claimed our perception of God is.

Knowledge is an inverse Pyramid, everything always rests on a single assumption - in the case of Science that assumption is that a Cause will lead to an Effect, and that by initiating a Certain Cause you can (and this is crucial) reliably measure the resulting Effect. Without that essential relationship there is no Science.

What you need to understand is that the "Scientific Method" cannot work without Order, and therefore it cannot investigate a God who operates outside the Universe and controls it because he is personally unconstrained by any Laws he creates and he can abrogate or suspend them at will.

You can try to test for God as much as you want, but if he doesn't want to oblige you you can't make him.

This is why God of the Gaps is such a stupid idea, and why Atheists like to bring it up, because it seemingly brings "God" within their sphere of knowledge.