On the matter of intervention, just to clarify. First of all, the Lord is a living God, one who dwells on our level of existence. He is all things and all things are in Him. He does not "live" on a cloud in a bodily form sitting atop a throne, presiding over the dead. He is here. In our time and with us.
God does not intervene by causing us to be remotely controlled robots doing his bidding. Animals do this. Existence is God's "purpose"; He simply exists and was not created, He has chosen to enjoy that existence with His creation. Our purpose is to choose freely to align our will with that of God's will. This is morality. We know what is God's will through prayer. Human experience can contribute towards guiding that prayer ever closer to the Lord. This is a collective experience of humanity, and we are drawing ever nearer to Him.
God operates "externally" (to us) through science. He has created existence using defined limitations on energy which act to make chaos predictable and consequently useful to Him in its ability to interact with itself. It is this order that provides proof of the Lord's existence. The alternative is based on chance, which is unpredictable chaos. The problem with unpredictable or total chaos, is that rules of order are unable to form because chaos itself counteracts against itself. Thus when a trend begins to form, chaos destroys the trend.
A simple proof that shows that chaos is not unpredicatble is this simple rule:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter its form. This is important because unpredictable chaos allows matter, or energy, to do anything, including double itself or cease existence without another force acting upon it.
How does predictable chaos prove God? Another way to frame this question is, can predictable chaos self-purpose? Or in other words, can chaos designate for itself how it is predictable? The answer is no. Chaos requires a will to shape its limitations, no matter how small. The opposite would be unpredictable chaos, because the energy decides action for itself, to include chaoticide and self-perpetuation.
Thus, predictable chaos proves the existence of a will that defines the limitations of chaotic energy in order to make that energy interact usefully with itself towards some end. This will is what we call God.
The question than becomes whether this will is self-directed or externally directed. Or in other words, is this will self-aware or not. This is the difference between a personal God like that of Judeo-Christian belief systems or an inpersonal God like that of Eastern perspectives.
More to come...
This has to be one of the best proofs for god ive encountered :2thumbsup:
03-22-2006, 14:30
mystic brew
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
DA's posts are certainly well thought through, and acknowledges, indeed privileges science, dealing with reality rather than rejecting it as the fundamentalists do. It's the sort of religion that is rational.
How to reconcile that this is any particular god, or specifically the christian god, is another matter. From my point of view, i can follow this reasoning, but can't call this a proof as such. there are still some assumptions in the reasoning that come down to 'i believe'. As there should be in matters of faith.
and, BM, i understand the function of prayer in the sense of cleansing ones and/or focusing. I use meditation to the same ends (godless heathen that i am). The point here being that finding the solutions to your own problems in prayer is certainly not confined to any one faith, and indeed is not even confined to those that have any belief in deity at all.
To this extent i can't ever see myself subscribing to any particular religion, because of the leap between believing that there is a creator to believing that humanity can possibly understand that creators intent or beliefs.
To that extent i think the deists have the most logically version of faith.
03-22-2006, 14:33
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
why create something and then not involve yourself with it?
03-22-2006, 14:47
mystic brew
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Right...
(some thinking time later)
thank you for your long and interesting posts. As an atheist, i differ in some assumptions, but can i say i respect thoughtful faith, and i am by no means trying to pick a fight by disagreeing with some of your thoughts. The reason I have posted here so little is because i see way too much 'us&them' type arguments that empahsise differences. And i've already learnt more about thoughtful religion than in a dozen 'OMG you're going to hell/how can you believe that crap' threads.
that said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
First of all, the Lord is a living God, one who dwells on our level of existence. He is here. In our time and with us.
We know what is God's will through prayer. Human experience can contribute towards guiding that prayer ever closer to the Lord.
as a base assumption everything else you say follows. However, this is the point where we have to agree to disagree. This is where faith comes in.
Quote:
God operates "externally" (to us) through science. It is this order that provides proof of the Lord's existence. The alternative is based on chance, which is unpredictable chaos. The problem with unpredictable or total chaos, is that rules of order are unable to form because chaos itself counteracts against itself. Thus when a trend begins to form, chaos destroys the trend.
A simple proof that shows that chaos is not unpredicatble.
yep... agreed. but this proof is applicable to this universe. It's absolutely no surprise that as humans we view this as a special set of circumstances, whether atheist or believer. As a believer i can see how God can be seen here, as an atheist i can also see how the multiverse explains this just as well. It's like a puddle looking around and seeing how perfectly the world fits it's existence. if there are infinite possibilities then no designer is necessary.
really, both your pov and mine are forms of circular reasoning and inherently improvable at this point.
Quote:
How does predictable chaos prove God? Another way to frame this question is, can predictable chaos self-purpose? Or in other words, can chaos designate for itself how it is predictable? The answer is no. Chaos requires a will to shape its limitations, no matter how small. The opposite would be unpredictable chaos, because the energy decides action for itself, to include chaoticide and self-perpetuation.
Thus, predictable chaos proves the existence of a will that defines the limitations of chaotic energy in order to make that energy interact usefully with itself towards some end. This will is what we call God.
Since you believe that God created the laws of the universe i can follow your logic here. however, the subltely of the rules doesn't necessarily imply God.
Quote:
The question than becomes whether this will is self-directed or externally directed. Or in other words, is this will self-aware or not. This is the difference between a personal God like that of Judeo-Christian belief systems or an inpersonal God like that of Eastern perspectives.
and more.... :)
03-22-2006, 14:49
mystic brew
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
why create something and then not involve yourself with it?
i think 'then' is the question there.
WE are told by most faiths that God/s exist outside the universe. or at least independent of it, time being an artifact of the universe. so there is no difference in the creation of the universe and involvement in it.
03-22-2006, 14:54
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
so therefore any creator god must be involved with their creation?
03-22-2006, 15:06
mystic brew
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
not quite.
just that your question was... not really applicable. for the god there is no create 'then' be involved... since god is independent of time, the question doesn't make sense.
does that explain?
03-22-2006, 15:53
Banquo's Ghost
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
why create something and then not involve yourself with it?
The act of creation can be an end in itself. I have created several original works with which I am no longer involved. Having created them, they are to my mind complete, and I move on to another work of creation.
Many creations can interest their creator for a long time (a child, for example) or for no time at all once complete - or any span in between.
03-22-2006, 15:54
IliaDN
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Atheism.
03-22-2006, 16:02
Banquo's Ghost
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by mystic brew
DA's posts are certainly well thought through, and acknowledges, indeed privileges science, dealing with reality rather than rejecting it as the fundamentalists do. It's the sort of religion that is rational.
I agree, DA's position is consistent and well argued.
DA, your views are the most 'Christian' I have read in many a year, and you have clearly thought carefully and prayerfully.
My only contention is the inclusion of the word 'proof' in some statements, because although your logic is intriguing, it relies on some fundamental assumptions from the world of faith rather than science.
Chaos, for example, is well explained in mathematics, without any recourse to supernatural interventions. In addition, many of the conditions you use as starting points are natural to this universe, and constrained to it.
Words like proof and evidence do not belong, IMO, to discussions on faith. They are philosophical constructs of science, and trying to apply the concepts of either construct to the other tends to muddy the waters unnecessarily.
Having said that, you'd make a great Jesuit. Your arguments are elegant and worthy of belief. :2thumbsup: (That's a compliment, by the way ~:))
03-22-2006, 16:21
mystic brew
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
well said, Haruchai.
03-22-2006, 21:22
GoreBag
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I agree. We want our children to be healthy. But God does not externally intervene just as BM so eloquently explained. He only intervenes internally as I explained.
Nah, mang, you do. Credit given where credit is due: you're the one who understands the logic of such an argument; you're the one who can force yourself to believe it when your child dies of some terrible malady.
03-22-2006, 23:40
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Nah, mang, you do. Credit given where credit is due: you're the one who understands the logic of such an argument; you're the one who can force yourself to believe it when your child dies of some terrible malady.
it stikes me your complaining about the glass only being 99.9% full, give some credit for the magority of children who do not die but live happy and contented lives, give some credit that you have survived this long in a harsh world, you could just have easyly been living like the magority of our species did as part of a tribal group a time when a lot more children died...
03-23-2006, 00:08
GoreBag
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
it stikes me your complaining about the glass only being 99.9% full, give some credit for the magority of children who do not die but live happy and contented lives, give some credit that you have survived this long in a harsh world, you could just have easyly been living like the magority of our species did as part of a tribal group a time when a lot more children died...
It strikes me you're confused in some way, because that made no sense at all.
03-23-2006, 15:03
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
huh? why always the same questions i anser again and again but still the same questions, all i was saying was that you are focussing on a tiny part of the world and forgetting all the good stuff out there and as i said before ON THIS THREAD!
(when asked why a child should be allowed to die)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.
Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.
Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)
This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!
Edit: 400 posts!
03-23-2006, 18:29
GoreBag
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
You've evidently misinterpreted my post.
03-23-2006, 23:06
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
You've evidently misinterpreted my post.
what were you saying then? :inquisitive:
03-24-2006, 05:42
GoreBag
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
what were you saying then? :inquisitive:
I was refuting Divinus Arma's argument for the idea of 'internal intervention'.
03-24-2006, 11:25
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
so how come you think it was inncorrect of my to challenge you on that, by pointing out that you are concentrateing on the minority of bad things in life?
03-24-2006, 21:37
GoreBag
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Because the comment was impertinent. I just gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that no one would write about the number of living children in response to my posts if one had really been following them.
03-25-2006, 02:02
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Because the comment was impertinent. I just gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that no one would write about the number of living children in response to my posts if one had really been following them.
i was not being inpertinant, i was challengeing your argument, i was trying to show how you were focussing on the negative and how you were wrong to say that such an idea is so illogical that you would have to force yourself to believe it, if you had been following my posts you would see that i have said many similar statements on intervention and was merely responding to an argument against this idea, rather then trying to intrude on an argument.
03-27-2006, 08:58
GoreBag
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
i was not being inpertinant, i was challengeing your argument, i was trying to show how you were focussing on the negative and how you were wrong to say that such an idea is so illogical that you would have to force yourself to believe it, if you had been following my posts you would see that i have said many similar statements on intervention and was merely responding to an argument against this idea, rather then trying to intrude on an argument.
I was following DA's posts. I wasn't 'focussing on the negative'; I was using the example provided by Divinus Arma is argument. The number of children who aren't suffering really has no bearing on it at all.
03-27-2006, 12:59
Byzantine Mercenary
Re: What is your Religion: Part II
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
I was following DA's posts. I wasn't 'focussing on the negative'; I was using the example provided by Divinus Arma is argument. The number of children who aren't suffering really has no bearing on it at all.
well, what about this then, would it be as hard to reconcile the many good events that happen in you life with the nonintervention argument?
